Bloodwrack Sisterhood (& Battalion Composition generally)

[Thomas Lyons]

This question popped up in a prior thread and I wanted to bring it to the community on its own because I felt like nailing down battalion composition is really important.  I've been looking at building a Bloodwrack Sisterhood, so I thought that it is as good as any battalion to use as the example in a discussion.

So, I'm interested in building a Bloodwrack Sisterhood.  The requirements are:

• 1 Cauldron of Blood
• 1 unit of Bloodwrack Medusae or Bloodwrack Shrine
• 1 Death Hag
• 3-6 units Witch Aelves, Doomfire Warlocks, Sisters of Slaughter.

Could I use the following 2000 point list?

2000 Points

• 40       Bloodwrack Sisterhood
• 220     *Cauldron of Blood
• 220     *Cauldron of Blood
• 140     *Bloodwrack Shrine
• 280     *20 Witch Aelves
• 280     *20 Witch Aelves
• 140     *10 Witch Aelves
• 320     *20 Sisters of Slaughter
• 200     *5 Doomfire Warlocks

Everything with the * is in the battalion (basically everything).  I used the one Cauldron of Blood to fulfill my CoB and Death Hag requirements, I use the Bloodwrack Shrine to fill its requirement, I used the 3 units of Witch Aelves, 1 unit of sister of Slaughter and 1 unit of Doom Fire warlocks, as well as the other Cauldron of Blood to fulfill the 3-6 units requirement (which the COB can since it also has the Witch Aelves keyword and the requirement on 3-6 is a Witch Aelve unit).  So, is this a legal battalion?  

Everything looks like it is on the up and up except for this one element from the FAQ (see the attached image).  The FAQ says that you have to meet the requirements of each battalion precisely (so the exact set of keywords).  This list technically violates this FAQ response since it has an extra Cauldron of Blood keyword and Death Hag keyword.  If this list is illegal for this reason, what about something like the Plaguetouched Warband battalion which requires 1 Mortal Nurgle Hero and 7 Mortal Nurgle units: can this battalion be filled out with multiple Mortal Nurgle Heroes even though the requirements only allow for a single one (since they are fulfilling the Mortal Nurgle requirement)?

Thanks for the feedback ahead of time!

 

[Thomas Lyons]

4 hours ago, rokapoke said:

If we are to always treat them as keywords, it is impossible to field a Lord-Celestant on Dracoth in any battalion, as that keyword does not exist. I'm just saying there are inconsistencies, not that I have all the answers. 

Yep.  I can't happen to field most of my high elves in battalions because they broke them into unusable sub-factions and changed keywords.  I agree that these are problems but it doesn't change the fact that this is how GW has ruled battalions work.  Both sides can argue what GW actually intended, or even whether than design strategy changed part way through this last year.  That doesn't change the FAQ that they put out 3 months that declared battalion requirements should always be treated as keywords and single units can fulfill multiple keywords.

If TOs want to house rule how it works, I'm totally for that option.  But they need to be aware of how battalions work according to GW in order to make the house rule know.  Otherwise, you will have two different approaches to utilizing battalions that will ultimately cause disagreements and hard feelings at events.  This is the very reason I brought this up.  I'm not sure we can just hand wave this for events.

[Nico]

I wouldn't have thought that one unit could tick 2 boxes, but 2 Cauldrons could tick the Cauldron Box and the Death Hag box (without violating the limit of one Cauldron). I'm adhering to it being a cap, subject to a further qualification that if something can satisfy 2 requirements, then you can take two of them - one with the Cauldron hat on and the other with the Death Hag hat on (without breaching the cap of one Cauldron and one Hag).

However maybe this is falling foul of the Phoenix Example.

[rokapoke]

13 minutes ago, Nico said:

I wouldn't have thought that one unit could tick 2 boxes, but 2 Cauldrons could tick the Cauldron Box and the Death Hag box (without violating the limit of one Cauldron). I'm adhering to it being a cap, subject to a further qualification that if something can satisfy 2 requirements, then you can take two of them - one with the Cauldron hat on and the other with the Death Hag hat on (without breaching the cap of one Cauldron and one Hag).

However maybe this is falling foul of the Phoenix Example.

I think it does, and doesn't, fall foul of the Phoenix example. I think inconsistencies with keywords and warscroll names got them into this mess, but they didn't write the battalions with their rule in mind -- I expect that they retroactively created the Phoenix/Anointed answer, applying it to that warscroll without any thought of how it will affect other battalions.

Ultimately, I'd expect them to gradually fix these things as they go forward -- particularly if they do a Phoenix Temple release with a battletome. Until we see how they intend to address these things, we as a community will have to fall back on DBAD. 

[Thomas Lyons]

22 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I think it does, and doesn't, fall foul of the Phoenix example. I think inconsistencies with keywords and warscroll names got them into this mess, but they didn't write the battalions with their rule in mind -- I expect that they retroactively created the Phoenix/Anointed answer, applying it to that warscroll without any thought of how it will affect other battalions.

How doesn't this fall foul of the Phoenix example?  What inconsistencies are you thinking of regarding keywords and names?  I only ask because every scroll has its name as a keyword, so if certain units are "called out" in the requirements (I.e. Cauldron of Blood), there is no reason that these aren't simply to be understood as keywords as well, since a units name is indeed in its keywords.  Do you have any examples from current war scrolls (not compendium war scrolls) where a unit is clearly in mind but their name is in the requirements but that they don't have that keyword? 

[Thomas Lyons]

43 minutes ago, Nico said:

I wouldn't have thought that one unit could tick 2 boxes, but 2 Cauldrons could tick the Cauldron Box and the Death Hag box (without violating the limit of one Cauldron).

Technically, it could tick any of the Witch Aelves requirements as well since the Cauldron of Blood has the Witch Aelves keyword as well.

(Which, consequently means that the Blood Shield ability just got better since all cauldrons are now on a 5+ ward for each Cauldron within range as well...)

[rokapoke]

1 hour ago, Thomas Lyons said:

How doesn't this fall foul of the Phoenix example?  What inconsistencies are you thinking of regarding keywords and names?  I only ask because every scroll has its name as a keyword, so if certain units are "called out" in the requirements (I.e. Cauldron of Blood), there is no reason that these aren't simply to be understood as keywords as well, since a units name is indeed in its keywords.  Do you have any examples from current war scrolls (not compendium war scrolls) where a unit is clearly in mind but their name is in the requirements but that they don't have that keyword? 

From Grand Alliance Order (Seraphon section), the Bloodclaw Starhost requires "1 Saurus Oldblood or Saurus Oldblood on Carnosaur" -- but the Oldblood on Carnosaur has the keywords "Carnosaur" and "Saurus Oldblood" as two separate entries. The Heavenswatch Starhost allows units from a list that includes Skinks and Stegadon, among others. But the Stegadon also has the Skink keyword, along with every other unit in the list except the Kroxigor. 

Same book, Stormcast - the Warrior Brotherhood distinguishes between the Lord-Celestant and the Lord-Celestant on Dracoth. 

Ultimately, it is clear to me that the battalions were written with the intention of using unit names, not keywords. There is an FAQ question that pertains to named characters and their keywords, but you are applying that to random units and their keywords. 

[Thomas Lyons]

Good finds on those battalions.

 

8 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Ultimately, it is clear to me that the battalions were written with the intention of using unit names, not keywords. There is an FAQ question that pertains to named characters and their keywords, but you are applying that to random units and their keywords. 

Again, look at the Anointed FAQ that has been previously posted.  This is not a named character but it is clearly saying that this non-named random unit has both of its keywords fulfilling multiple requirements.  But more importantly, scroll a little bit farther down the page from the FAQ you just posted.  GW could not be any more clearer (see the attached image).  While the question prompting the ruling is about named characters, the ruling itself is broad and general.  All battalion requirements should always be treated as keywords.
 

[rokapoke]

If we are to always treat them as keywords, it is impossible to field a Lord-Celestant on Dracoth in any battalion, as that keyword does not exist. I'm just saying there are inconsistencies, not that I have all the answers. 

[Oppenheimer]

3 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Well, in the presented list, there are two Cauldrons.  The requirement always demands one Cauldron of Blood keyword, and if you include a cauldron, the Death Hag keyword requirement is also automatically fulfilled, since the Cauldron of Blood has that keyword as well.  So, if one Cauldron is included, both requirements are always fulfilled, as per the FAQ.  You couldn't replace the second Cauldron with a Death Hag (on foot) because you still have two Death Hag keywords in the battalion (one on the Death Hag itself, and one on the required Cauldron of Blood).

I understand.

Why does this battalion have a death hag listed separately then? Since you can't have a cauldron without a death hag on it. That makes no sense.

[Nico]

Rokapoke I think you are right about them being loose with unit names versus keywords initially.

For The Phoenix formation they are clearly making a balance change within that formation (which kills it in my eyes as a viable battalion) so not every unit has the ward save. Applying this ruling to much older battalions is bound to lead to trouble.

You could include any of the Lord Celestant on Foot, LCoSD or LCoDrac in any formation that requires a "Lord Celestant" as all 3 have that keyword.

[Nico]

Tom is right that you could put 4 (behemoth cap) Cauldrons in the formation.

I would be far more interested in putting these into the Old Exiled Bloodcult.

[Thomas Lyons]

Agreed.  That would be pretty amazing.  Elves=aelves is a close enough keyword fudge based on how they've treated similar keywords.  I'm not sure if you could make the case regarding the Executioners.

[Thomas Lyons]

6 hours ago, Nico said:

Rokapoke I think you are right about them being loose with unit names versus keywords initially.

For The Phoenix formation they are clearly making a balance change within that formation (which kills it in my eyes as a viable battalion) so not every unit has the ward save. Applying this ruling to much older battalions is bound to lead to trouble.

You could include any of the Lord Celestant on Foot, LCoSD or LCoDrac in any formation that requires a "Lord Celestant" as all 3 have that keyword.

I fully agree with the two of you that they were being loose with the unit names versus keywords.  I disagree that they FAQ is making a "balance change" for the Phoenix formation; I think that is the ruling of the design team member(s) who answered the question and the intent is for all battalions.  The problem is the it simply breaks some battalions.  So, for example, lets look at the Winterleaf Wargrove.  Among all its other requirements is the allowance for 0-1 Order units. The intent of the designer here was to allow the inclusion of any other order unit in addition to everything else.  But if one follows the advised FAQ, this battalion is unplayable, because the battalion can neither be built with only 0 or 1 Order units.  So that exact keyword requirement can never be fulfilled according to this ruling.


I honestly think there is a diversity of operating assumptions amongst the design team and/or those that wrote the FAQ.  If you take a minimum perspective, then the FAQ is simply wrong.  If you take a minimum and maximum perspective [FAQ], then some battalions cease to be able to even be built (i.e. Winterleaf Wargrove).  No matter which perspective you take (minimum only or minimum and maximum), some battalions have been written with unit names rather than keywords and can't currently be built within the current FAQ ruling on keywords. Probably 95% of the battalions don't have issues, but that other 5% implodes based on which ruling you follow.

Ultimately, this is a failure of both design and development.  They don't have a unified approach and it wasn't caught in the development process.  Moving forward, they'll likely need to do something to clean up the situation.  In the mean time, TOs probably ought to make clear how forces at their events are to be built (minimum or minimum & maximum) with some flexibility around battalions whose names don't match the names of the battalion requirements.  

[Nico]

I think generic words like "hero" and (great spot on Gnarlroot) "unit" are intended to be minimums only - so at least one Hero in Plaguetouched and up to one Order unit that isn't a Sylvaneth unit in Gnarlroot. As you say all the Sylvaneth units are Order Units. I think this is where the purposive interpretation really shines.

[Nico]

I can see why they've fallen into the trap with the Gnarlroot - perhaps the silent assumption is that if something ticks one box it doesn't also tick other boxes or exceed other caps, so the Sylvaneth units tick the Any other Sylvaneth Units box, while only the non-Sylvaneth Order Unit ticks the 0-1 Order Unit box.

[whataseamus]

2 hours ago, HobbyHammer said:

The funny thing is, look at the picture for the formation. It has One Cauldron, One Bloodwrack Shrine and 2 units of 10 Witch Aelves.. this shows they believe the Cauldron to be used for the Death Hag and 1 of the units of Witch Aelves needed. So would state to me you cannot use 2 cauldrons as this goes over the 1 Death Hag unit requirement. 

That's actually a Cauldron of Blood, a Bloodwrack Shrine, a Death Hag, one unit of 10 Witch Aelves, one unit of 10 Sisters of Slaughter, and one unit of 5 Doomfire Warlocks. If you are going to use this picture as a guide to what is actually intended by the battalion list, it illustrates that it should be taken as unit names, not keywords.

 

[Thomas Lyons]

12 minutes ago, Oppenheimer said:

Edit: Although why does this battalion have a death hag listed separately then? Since you can't have a cauldron without a death hag on it. That makes no sense.

If one takes the view that requirements are simply minimum requirements, then it would allow this battalion to have up to 9 units, although you could get away with as few as 4.  
If you are viewing them as functioning as both the minimum and maximum requirements (as per the FAQ), then it serves two functions:

1. First, it limits the total number of units possible to 7, with a max of 5 additional witch selves units, and then minimum is likewise still 4.  
2. Second, it restricts the battalion to never allowing a Death Hag on foot to be included in the battalion, because the inclusion of the Cauldron will always fulfill three requirements.

The example of this battalion should demonstrate how significant this ruling is for both composition and force building, which is why I've brought it up.  Everyone seems to default function under the minimum only assumption without realizing that GW has provided an explicit confirmation of the minimum and maximum interpretation.  This is the exact reason why I wanted to bring this to light.  Most people aren't actually reading the rules as written (and clarified by GW), and this is leading to illegal lists (by GW's standards).

[Thomas Lyons]

Just now, Oppenheimer said:

I meant in replacement of the Cauldron in the battalion because the Cauldron exceeds the number in the warscroll. There's no other way to get a Death Hag without a Cauldron unless you put in the on foot version.

Well, in the presented list, there are two Cauldrons.  The requirement always demands one Cauldron of Blood keyword, and if you include a cauldron, the Death Hag keyword requirement is also automatically fulfilled, since the Cauldron of Blood has that keyword as well.  So, if one Cauldron is included, both requirements are always fulfilled, as per the FAQ.  You couldn't replace the second Cauldron with a Death Hag (on foot) because you still have two Death Hag keywords in the battalion (one on the Death Hag itself, and one on the required Cauldron of Blood).

[rokapoke]

I really wish that if GW wanted the battalion requirements to be keyword requirements (which, as you've pointed out, they are saying) that they would've used their keyword text in small caps the way they have it in other locations in various warscroll rules. Then this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever!

[rokapoke]

I really wish that if GW wanted the battalion requirements to be keyword requirements (which, as you've pointed out, they are saying) that they would've used their keyword text in small caps the way they have it in other locations in various warscroll rules. Then this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever!

[Thomas Lyons]

14 minutes ago, Oppenheimer said:

You need a death hag on foot added to your list to make it have the requirements.

This is patently untrue.  Requirements are keywords, also per the FAQ, so one unit can fulfill multiple requirements.  This is on display in the one FAQ question I've posted the image of here (twice!) and in multiple other questions.  Each Cauldron of Blood has the Death Hag keyword, so they fulfill at least that requirement maybe more.  

[Oppenheimer]

I would think it's the same. You need a death hag on foot added to your list to make it have the requirements.

Keep in mind that any units added to your army in excess of the battalion are still fine, they just don't get the battalion special power. You can certainly have a second cauldron it would just be in addition to the battalion and not have the special battalion rules.

Sidebar: Also note that battalion requirements are often really stupid and make your army look boring and samey. I don't like the way battalions have been designed to sell many of the same unit in most cases. Plus you have to pay extra points for them. Boo battalions!

[Nico]

I think it's a general statement, but for Plaguetouched Warband "a" means "at least one", not exactly "one" - floor, not ceiling.

You could also see it as an answer confined to that Phoenix Battalion, since it flatly contradicts another answer in the same FAQ which you did a show about with Mc1Gamer (which I strongly agree about) - about Ironjawz mapping onto Ironjaws and Freeguild onto Free People, Empire onto Freeguild, Grots onto Goblins, Abhorrant Ghoul King onto Strigoi Ghoul King etc.. - since these aren't "exact" requirements.

[Thomas Lyons]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I think the Phoenix ruling was specific to that formation - because it's contrasting two different options for the same model and so sets a minimum and a maximum on one particular type - if they intended otherwise it would be just 1-4 Phoenixes or whatever.

Nico, how do you deal with the final general statement: "in other words, you must meet any keyword requirements exactly"? (emphasis added)  

Is this just for only this battalion or was this for battalions in general?  Since this response is in the Warhammer Age of Sigmar: The Rules FAQ under the heading "Warscrolls and Warscroll Battalions" (instead of, for example, the Grand Alliance Order FAQ where this battalion actually occurs) I'm inclined to read this as a general statement about how battalions work generally (just like the other answers in this section).  Thoughts? 

[Nico]

Then it comes down to whether "a hero" means "one hero" or "at least one hero". There are loads of rules (Winterleaf Wargrove) where things like "any" or "a" are ambiguous in a similar manner. As you can see from the corresponding Khorne Formation - it means the latter (minimum but not a cap), since the Khorne Formation talks about two situations where there are more than one heroes within the formation.