Azamar

It’s probably splitting hairs but I always saw Kharadron as expanded from the dwarf Gyrocopter concept. They certainly share a lot of design cues from the gyrocopter/ bomber kit.

I was excited to see the shieldbearers, but really young Ungrim overshadows everything else here- incredible model. My guess for the other special character would have to be Josef Bugman. Thorgrim is possible as he’d be around in the time period but as @Double Misfire said he wouldn’t really stand out from any other dwarf lord at that point. I think Burlok Damminson would be too young- old world is set about 75 years before he blew up the engineers guild and I think that was when he was meant to be a young prodigy. It also means he wouldn’t have his mechanical arm yet. Kragg the grim and Kazador are outside bets but probably not famous enough.

That’s… quite the expression. He looks like he needs more prunes in his diet.

That’s what they want you to think

They do have little gems set in the corners sometimes though.

Arch-knight is also the name of the cavalier’s unit champion (the one in the command corps I basically see as an unmounted champion) so I agree it’s unlikely we’d see a whole unit of them.

Oh they’re definitely not bad- if they update rules like vicious counter attack to work for them, then they might even be great. At the moment I think they’re fine just quite bland (not counting their AoR abilities- had they baked that into the warscroll they’d be far more interesting)

Probably an App Store of some kind? Text matches the update I got on iPhone apps. The new fyreslayer unit is, fine I guess? Basically a cheaper unit of axe vulkites with one less model but one more attack each. They switch off monstrous rampages within 3” which gives them a slight niche, but miss out on a few bonuses (such as flamekeeper buffs and vicious counter attack). worth getting for the models alone I think, but given the already limited choices fyreslayers have, it’s a shame they don’t have more to set them apart from the other units. oh, and they have the Lofnir keyword. But as that would only matter in a hermdar army (which is so bad no one would ever use anyway) it’s hardly worth talking about.

I think you misread that

That post looks like it’s about the colour scheme- no one is suggesting it’s a new model, but we haven’t seen any studio models painted green before I don’t think

I’m very late noticing this so might be common knowledge to other fyreslayer players, but the core rules faq has been updated and conclusively answered the bodyguard debate above. Basically it works as it says on the runefather/son warscroll, overriding the core rules.

They would not, correct, as the prayer removes the ward even if they’re not the target. I think what Doko’s opponents are telling them, is that they don’t get the ward save at all whenever a bodyguard save is deflect a wound onto them.

Fair enough- it seems absolutely bonkers to me that’s it’s even in question- how it works is there in black and white and rule on the warscroll, and 1.6 explains exactly how it should work. I’m sorry your opponents aren’t being reasonable- maybe you shouldn’t let them run and charge or issue the same command twice if they think 1.6 isn’t important? I wouldn’t bother about the negated vs wards as that is just the same thing- whole point is, if that was meant to be an exception to 1.6 it would say outright that it was (like the fight twice errata).

Ok- so I’m usually quite happy to back down if the consensus is I’m wrong. But I’m absolutely going to die on this hill in this case and here’s why: (with apologies, I have a few screenshots of bits of the pdfs I’m referring to but I can’t work out how to paste them in the text, so they’ll all be at the end) Firstly let’s make clear what an FAQ (or designers commentary as they now call it) is. It is answers to questions to complement the core rules. It is not a balance change, or meant to rewrite or correct core rules- that’s what the errata’s are for- those only start later in the pdf. Secondary, the age of the designers commentary doesn’t matter, the magenta bits are just to help people see what has changed. For some reason when I load the faq page I’m getting old versions of the documents, but it means I can show what the faq looked like prior to the one you just posted. It is identical wording, they just removed the reference to outdated battletomes. The question predates our current battletome, but it wouldn’t matter if it didn’t as the designers commentary is solely there to explain how the *core* rules work. So as it currently stands, the core rules say you cannot take a ward roll for hearthguard, but the royal retinue ability says that you can. There’s a clash so how is that resolved? The rule in 1.61 the ability over-rides the core rules. So roll those wards. some bodyguard units (like stormcast praetors) don’t mention whether a ward roll can be taken- that’s why the faq is needed. Would it matter if this appeared in the core rules errata instead of the designers commentary? Simply, no. Because the errata updates the core rules. The new update would say wards can’t be taken, royal retinue would still say it can and we’d be back round to 1.6. The only way this could change is if the royal retinue ability was changed in a fyreslayer errata, or if the core rules errata changed to say this was an exception to rule 1.6 (there’s precedent as they do this in the errata regarding fighting more than twice in one phase.). To be convinced otherwise then I’ll need to see: 1. *where* it says that core FAQs/designer commentary override core rules (they are clarifications) or why the order they were added in relation to battletomes matters. (Again, this is separate from erratas, which do replace the text of rules from the book they’re for and can change how a rule works) 2. Why, if the rule about wards is an exception to 1.6, does it not say it is an exception? (Compared to the 1.6.5 errata about fighting twice) 3. how, on a baseline level, this is any different from any other ability that breaks the core rules (such as issuing multiple commands, or running and charging and so on.)

Ability rules (1.6) in the side bar. “If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence” Age of the faq doesn’t matter, as it’s still an faq of the core rules. It would only change if they took the line about ward saves out of the runefather/son warscrolls. So in this case the effect specifically states the unit can still use their ward, which overrides the core rules saying they can’t. Edit- I’ve just realised where this confusion is coming from- I looked back and realised the core rules faq you’re referring to specifically mentions sworn protectors in battletome fyreslayers. That’s the warscroll ability from auric hearthguard from the 2nd edition battletome. The ability for runefathers and sons is called royal retinue, for reference. so you can also prove to your opponents that that particular faq question predates the current fyreslayer battletome