Tutenkharnage

Oh, and just to be clear, if you used Scurry after the Move portion of another friendly fighter’s Charge action as part of an activation, you could Scurry with Snirk, use Scurry with any other fighters you wanted to, take your Attack action as part of the Charge, and then inspire Snirk (because the first friendly fighter’s activation is now over). Whew! I’m going to get a headache for sure the first time I see these guys on the table.

You can inspire Snirk after any fighter's activation, but Scurry allows Snirk to make a Move action, not to take an activation.

@Skyeline I think you’ve got it backward: you want to charge in with K’Charik and swap him back with a horror, which can then get turned into a pink horror who is now providing an assist for a ranged attack from an acolyte three hexes away, which now inspires the acolyte, etc. Anyway, I agree that their faction-specific cards will be key.

In Shadespire, you couldn’t use Time Trap to take consecutive Charge actions because the rules for a Move action explicitly said that a fighter who had already taken a Move action couldn’t take a Charge action. (Tokens didn’t matter.) The new FAQ implies that under the Nightvault rules, having a Move token prevents a fighter from taking a Charge action, but having a Charge token will not. This leaves us in a weird spot: you can’t use Time Trap to Move and Charge up the battlefield, but you can use it to take a Charge action against an intervening an model and then take another Charge action with the same fighter against a target much further upfield even though a Move action, by almost any definition, is less powerful than a Charge action This is going to be all fun and games until a tournament player wipes out four fighters in a single activation with an inspired Karsus, Time Trap, and two charges. I think I understand where the game designers are coming from logically: a ploy that lets you take “an action” should be less restrictive than one that lets you take one or more specific actions. But I don’t think it’s going to be great for the game. If it gets out of hand, o suppose they can simply amend the Nightvault rulebook so that it uses the old Shadespire language: “A fighter that makes a Move action cannot make another Move action (or a Charge action) in that action phase.” This doesn’t mesh as well with their newfound preference for using tokens to indicate model states, but the FAQ entries for March of the Dead and Hidden Paths already illustrate that they’re going to have problems making these rulings consistent no matter what they do. As long as they eventually land on the least bad option, I’ll be happy. (Kind of sad to see my newfound Light-footed/Superior Agility tech rendered useless against Time Trap, though!)

New FAQ is up! https://warhammerunderworlds.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/10/warhammer_underworlds_en.pdf I didn’t think Time Trap needed a boost, but the new token system seems to have given it one. (If you can’t see it, Time Trap now allows you to take two Charge actions with the same fighter.)

Scurry explicitly allows you take a Move action. It does not allow you to take a Charge action; therefore, you can’t.

No, but if you take a Charge action with a fighter that begins he activation next to a fighter with Scurry, you can have the first fighter take the Move action as part of the Charge, use Scurry as a reaction to take a Move action with the second fighter, keep chaining to other adjacent fighters as a reaction to the last fighter who took a Move action, and then resolve the first fighter’s Attack action as part of the Charge action. Hope that makes sense. I think it’s accurate. And since Scurry is a reaction, you can’t take a Move action with the middle model of a group of three and then use Scurry to take a Move action with the other two (because the first fighter to use Scurry will do so as a reaction to the original fighter’s Move action, and the next fighter would have to use Scurry to react to the Move action of the fighter that just used Scurry, who would not have been adjacent at the start of that fighter’s Move action). (Whew!)

I’m sure the Overlords and the troggoth warband will provide plenty of that sort of thing. And the Champions, Fiends, Boyz, and Farstriders are still here, to say nothing of the Cursebreakers.

@UnderworldsOnly Your sequence looks correct, except that you don’t replace the Brimstone Horrors model with the Blue Horror model; the Blue Horror needs to be summoned again. (I am confident the Nine will have a ploy that summons the Blue Horror, just like the Guard and the Swarm have ploys that duplicate their return-to-play action.) I like what GW has done to counter the current meta. Rather than design straight-up counters to Great Concussion, Trap, Twist the Knife, and the like, they’ve introduced new play styles and warbands that make some of these cards unnecessary. Expanding the range of playstyles makes it more difficult for players to build “one deck to rule them all.”

It says that if the blue would be taken out of action, flip the card over and replace the model with the brimstone instead. The brimstone side of the card says that if the fighter is taken out of action, flip the card over and keep the upgrades. (You would then follow the normal rules for taking the model out of action because the fighter’s rules say nothing to the contrary, so you would remove the model from the battlefield.)

The preview for the Eyes of the Nine is up, and they will definitely bring something new to the game. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/10/02/2nd-oct-warband-focus-eyes-of-the-ninegw-homepage-post-4/ Lots of subtle details in this preview, including the fact that the Blue Horror can’t actually be taken out of action and therefore won’t generate glory for the attacker. (Read the text carefully; there’s certainly a lot of it!)

So you agree that A Destiny to Meet awards no glory, and that Danse Macabre can’t be used if your opponent plays Bloodslick Ground even though the rules clearly state otherwise and do so in direct contradiction to what you’re claiming for Zealous Defender? No, of course you’re not making those claims; they’re ridiculous. But your interpretation of this card isn’t any better. Look, I can’t say with 100% certainty that I’m right, but I can say with 100% certainty that what you’re proposing causes conflicts with other cards that go against what is written in the rule book, and what I’m proposing doesn’t. (When it comes to the English language, I have an English degree and have worked as an editor for nearly two decades, so I trust my own judgment there.) GW might eventually release a FAQ that requires a fighter to have at least one supporting fighter in order to benefit from Zealous Defender, but they’ll have to release a similar FAQ to clarify A Destiny to Meet in the opposite direction, and that’s clearly not the intent of that card even though your interpretation of “additional” would make that card worthless.

My reply two posts above yours (and three posts above this one) provides strong evidence that this is not a correct interpretation (unless you think A Destiny to Meet can’t be scored at all, I suppose, because you can’t gain “an additional 1 glory” without first gaining another glory from another card).

Put all seven goblins in the starting hexes, then put the squigs adjacent to the herder. That would be my guess. Maybe the three will move/activate as a unit somehow.

That’s a sweet conversion. If anyone would like to know more about how it was done, go here: https://canyourollacrit.com/2018/09/20/warband-showcase-skink-starswarm/

Some cards are printed on the fighter card, as @Sleboda said, so they do not use up a gambit slot (formerly a "ploy slot"). For example, Averon's Fulmination spell is effectively a 2R/2H/1D ranged attack, which puts it on par with any uninspired Farstrider's ranged attack. At least one upgrade—the Averon-specific Corposant Staff—gives the fighter a spell action that can be used multiple times. (This particular spell is 75% likely to work and hands out Range +1 on a stick.) I'm not afraid of 50/50 cards. Their effects are extremely powerful. If you'd rather pack a can't-miss card with a concrete effect, such as Trap or Illusory Fighter, I won't argue with your decision. But if you're avoiding these cards so you can pack ploys that give you an extra 15% to hit or decrease an enemy fighter's chances of hitting by 10%, you're wasting your card slots, in my opinion. The token mechanic is a necessary shot in the arm for the Guard. It certainly opens more avenues for the Swarm, but it does so at the expense of going all-in on Skritch, which is a really nasty way to play skaven. I suspect most players figured out that using activations to return weaker fighters to the battlefield was a dubious decision, which meant that these warbands probably weren't playing as GW intended. This change will, at a minimum, make that play style more attractive. As for the hypothetical Hungering Heroslayer scenario, you're worrying about the following: Opponent packs Heroslayer instead of another card. Opponent puts this 1-hammer card on a 2-wound model. Opponent charges ... Garrek? And pulls off a 13-out-of-36 chance to kill him. You kill Hungering in return, gaining back the glory you lost when Garrek died. Opponent spends an activation returning Hungering to the battlefield. You somehow fail to kill Hungering. Hungering pulls off another 13-in-36 chance and kills another fighter. Sure, you might miss in step 4, in which case this rule change did nothing to change the situation. And your opponent might use a ploy card to return Hungering to the board in step 5, in which case you're down two fighters but 1 glory, which is a not-unusual situation against skaven. And sure, your opponent might dump Awakened Weapon into his fighter. But you get cards yourself (Quick Thinker comes to mind), and you're ultimately left worrying about a 13% chance of Hungering pulling off a double-Heroslayer against Reavers. (Against Champions, the odds of the double tap are just over 9%.) Let's see it on the table first and then decide whether it's really all that. If the play style is inferior to "all Skritch, all the time," then it won't matter; if it's not any stronger, just different, that'll be fine, too.

Great question! I'm going to assume you're asking for those times when you lose the roll and have to place the first board. In general, the answer is going to depend on the following factors, regardless of your warband: What is your opponent's (likely) strategy? How vulnerable is your strategy to board placement? If you're playing Fiends, your own strategy is almost certainly going to be aggro, which is vulnerable to the following: Two boards matched up short side to short side (a.k.a. "the long board") Offset boards that minimize the number of friendly fighters you can get into battle in round 1 Spiteclaw's Swarm, Steelheart's Champions, and the Farstriders are more likely to go long; other aggro warbands are more likely to go with a strong offset. An opponent who wants to mix it up with you is a good bet to simply line up the long edges and start brawling. So! In general, I think you need to analyze the following eight scenarios for each board, regardless of which warband you're playing: Offset strong to the top left corner Offset strong to the top right corner Offset strong to the bottom left corner Offset strong to the bottom right corner Long board placement to the left Long board placement to the right Full long edges to the top Full long edges to the bottom As I mentioned earlier, certain warbands are likelier to aim for certain layouts than others, but stay on guard! I've played a lot of aggro builds and have gone for long board placement regularly because my opponent chose a board that created a very favorable position, because my warband had fighters and cards with multiple attacks, or both. I'm having a hard time inserting images into this post, so here's my short take: The Fallen Statue is the best board for Fiends. Of the six boards currently available, it's the least vulnerable to long placement in either direction or to strong offsets. It might not be your preferred board if your opponent aligns the long edges, but it still won't hurt you much. The three boards with blocked hexes are the absolute worst boards, and you shouldn't choose them first. Of these, The Staircase is probably the least vulnerable to long placement, but it is extremely vulnerable to strong offsets to one particular corner. The other two are very vulnerable to long placement, and you won't be too happy with the worst offsets, either. The Crypt isn't a bad board, per se, but it's worse than the Fallen Statue against an opponent who might make you go long. At its worst, the Fallen Statue will allow you to get two of your fighters into enemy territory and two into no-man's land, but the Crypt will only let you get one into enemy territory, one into no-man's land, and two into the last row of complete hexes on your side of the board. The Crypt might have a slight edge when it comes to the worst offsets, but if so, that edge is very slight. The Arcane Contraption—you know, the lethal hex board with the blue energy balls on it!—is quite interesting. Because most of the hexes are toward the board's edges, it's actually one of the best boards against long play and strong offsets alike. (Against opponents who are trying to score Bloodless, you can even send Riptooth through a lethal hex in round 1 to stop an opponent who might be holding Bloodless.) If this board has a vulnerability, it's that the starting hexes are spread away from each other, so if your opponent is likely to align the long edges as much as possible, your fighters might end up left on their own little islands. Also, well ... it has lethal hexes! This isn't a concern for Ghartok, but it might spell trouble for the rest of your warband if you aren't careful. So! There you have it. I almost always take The Fallen Statue whenever I place the first board with Reavers or Fiends; IMO, it's the least vulnerable board, which really limits any advantage your opponent can gain in return. I'm going to try out the Arcane Contraption board against some stall-heavy builds as well and see if it plays as well in practice as it does in theory. Hope this helps!

@Desidus Thanks for the info! Just to be clear, upgrades do not count as gambits; only ploys and spells do.

Season 3, perhaps?

Wood Elves are still elves, I don’t care what GW calls them now ?

Can someone explain the deal with the living rock and the living mushroom that the flying squig is perched on? I’m totally lost here.

If that green warband of spindly people wasn’t elves, what was it?

New article is up. Includes a video! https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/20/sep20warhammer-underworlds-nightvault-the-loregw-homepage-post-2/

Agree to disagree on plastic vs. painted in the upper left corner. This image is intended to help new players identify the model on the table. Bare plastic makes it clear. Privateer Press did the same thing with The Undercity, and I’m sure these two companies aren’t the only ones to have done so.

#AlwaysGoSecond