Kadeton

I mean... GW is aware that people run the various Chaos factions together in mono-god lists. It seems a bit silly to expect that they will completely annihilate that playstyle just because of the wording of a rule when we don't even know what the tables look like, or what exceptions have been made. Similarly though, it seems a bit early to comment on how any faction is shaping up competitively in the new edition (with the possible exceptions of Slaanesh and Gravelords) since we don't know the points yet. My favourite army is doing great on the rules front, but they could end up being totally OP or absolute garbage depending on how the points shake out.

The daft bit is that all they would need to do to fix it is not double down on making the Bonereapers special snowflakes. Remove Relentless Discipline entirely, as it's now so close to the standard command rules that the distinction becomes a weakness instead of a strength. Take away battleshock immunity and let them take Death allies while you're at it, and they can just play the game the same way as everyone else.

Agreed. I'd hope for an FAQ that gives a clear example of this pretty early on though, because there are definitely people who will argue this ad infinitum at the table.

That's a great question. It would seem so, since Unleash Hell simply lets the unit shoot in that phase, and the targeting restriction doesn't apply since Wail of the Damned doesn't use the attack sequence. Could always be FAQ'd. Good catch! Have we seen the new Endless Spell warscrolls yet? They're all meant to be rewritten in the GHB. They may use different wording now.

That's fair, but to be honest I don't think it makes much difference. People have been complaining for ages about Beasts of Chaos and Khorne being unplayable, and it seems naïve to hope that a new edition would somehow change that situation by itself. They need new battletomes to bring them up to par, since nothing in the Core Rules can fix fundamentally poor warscrolls. But going from being the two worst armies to... still the two worst armies... doesn't really strike me as anything other than what you'd expect. Here's hoping that the "Age of Beasts" means the Beasts will be getting something cool this edition! It's definitely getting pushed towards an "elite skirmish" game, where the ideal choices are tough, heavy-hitting units of five models or less, and monster-heroes. Gosh, that sounds a lot like every BCR army ever...

Man, it feels weird to be (judging from the general tone of responses here) the only melee-heavy player who thinks their army is getting a huge boost from the 3rd Ed changes. Beastclaw Raiders have always been a bit of a special case, but wow. We get heaps more command points. We have multiple ways to get +1 to hit. We can smash a Bonetithe Nexus to rubble, or stomp a Gnawhole closed. We can do even more mortal wounds on the charge. We can shut down enemy command abilities. We can move onto objectives during the opponent's turn. We can even try to dispel magic! And at the same time, other armies are taking smaller units, worrying about coherency, miscasting spells, losing buff-stacking efficiency, and apparently focusing on spamming archers so we can fight in the shade while we feast on their pathetic, squishy bodies. Hilarious! I'm sure the other shoe will drop when it turns out Frostlords now cost 600 points or something.

Hoo boy, I am looking forward to my Frostlord getting both +1 to hit and +1 to wound on that pivotal turn when he charges an enemy monster, and getting a 2+ save as icing on the cake just in case his target survives somehow. I was briefly excited about Roar shutting down Inspiring Presence, then disappointed when it was pointed out that doesn't work. But I guess it's still nice to shut down other command abilities that get used in the combat phase.

Most of the additional costs of digital distribution come from trying to wrangle all the DRM nonsense that companies try to cram into ebooks these days (with no appreciable effect on piracy, and often major inconvenience to legitimate users). Making your rules freely available avoids a lot of that. Serving web content isn't expensive or difficult. (And improving their web services to properly scale with load would be another great "How about joining us in the 21st century?" initiative for GW.) They're already managing to make all the warscrolls available online, with minimal problems. It's a pretty small step from there to go fully digital using the same infrastructure. That blows my mind, honestly - thanks for the perspective. Why go to the trouble of translating all that content (difficult and expensive) and then not do the last simple step of also turning it into an ebook (easy and cheap)? Deranged.

Other wargaming companies I've dealt with have had printed books as an option for those who don't mind them going stale quickly. They still offer all their rules online, updated any time an errata is needed. The point is not "Get rid of books," it's "Stop letting the deficiencies of physical media dictate your update cycle."

Compared to digital distribution of the same material? Extremely doubtful. All the development, editing, layout and artwork costs are roughly the same, but physical books have a significant cost per unit to print and transport. There are still some logistical costs with digital books, but they're massively lower than physical ones. I doubt GW's margin on books is a significant earner compared to model sales. Businesses far smaller than GW are able to simply write off the costs of producing high-quality rulebooks and distribute them digitally for free.

Yeah, the dead tree format is a huge anchor around GW's neck. They would do well to venture into the modern wargaming era and embrace digital distribution for rules.

The best thing about changes like these is that far more people are happy with them. People really hate having their good units nerfed, especially if it's six months or so after release, when the notion starts to rear its head that GW "tricked" people into buying armies that are now "unplayable" (i.e. no longer top of the competitive meta). Meanwhile, other players are mad that it took GW far too long to take action to correct the "obvious" problem. Negative vibes all round. When bad units get buffed up to par, though, it's generally joyfully received by the people who owned and perhaps played those units already. Other players tend to be happy for them, not particularly care, or jump on the hype train for the army that they had always wanted to get into but avoided because it was trash. Good times. I think nerfs to stronger-than-intended units are obviously needed, but it would do a lot of good for the other end of the spectrum to get similar attention at the same time.

I think what several people are suggesting, as a potential solution to both those perceived problems, is to allow your units to act as line-of-sight-blocking terrain for heroes. There's no particularly good reason why hiding behind a crowd of people should be less effective than hiding behind a stand of trees. And it does nothing to resolve the opposing side's complaint either, which is that buffing heroes are too powerful and if they're made "invincible" (whether that involves hiding behind units or hiding behind terrain presumably doesn't matter) then they render the game unwinnable. It's apparently important to some people that support heroes should die before they ever get the chance to use their support abilities.

Shh, they'll hear you. Effluviarch Marshqueens! Kruulmuck Quagmarquises!

It's a good point, and an excellent demonstration of the principle. Tomb Kings (to me) is a name with gravitas - it's unadorned and functional, but weighty. They are kings, but they're different to other kings because they're undead. They live in tombs, which other kings tend not to do. Great, Tomb Kings is completely sufficient as a distinguishing label, and it sounds menacing and scary to boot. If the vampires were called the Grave Lords, that would be almost as good a name. It doesn't sound quite as strong, but it has a cute double-meaning, though that also makes it a bit more poncy (which suits vampires anyway). Squishing that into the Gravelords portmanteau weakens the whole effect, because now you're neologising instead of just using words with established meanings. Adding Soulblight is completely unnecessary adornment, and adds no additional specificity to the term, which makes it feel fussy and inane. That's essentially where the cringe happens for me with all the Nonsense Nounrulers and Superfluous Nounverbers. They're cumbersome, impractical formations that bear no resemblance to the kind of terms people actually use to refer to themselves or others.

Interesting thoughts! I agree with the logic of reducing the number of rerolls for a faster experience. Honestly though, I would expect that providing better saves and more save modifiers across the board is an intentional move away from the lethality of the current game. The 'rocket tag' feel is one of the more common complaints I've seen about AoS. I'd be very hesitant to expect that the "full spectrum of to hit and wound values" will be much in evidence in AoS3, if the Gravelords are anything to go by. Whoever had to type out the weapon profiles in that book probably wore the '3' and '4' keys off their keyboard.

Bonuses to saves aren't capped in 40K 9th, are they? (Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played 40K in years. I'd expect AoS3 to use exactly the same modifier caps, though.) I can understand capping to-Hit and to-Wound modifiers at a max of +1/-1, but since it seems unlikely that Rend (or any other Save penalties) would be capped at -1, it feels intuitively wrong for Save modifiers to be capped in only one direction. But yes, if that ends up being the case then that would be a significant difference against attacks without Rend. And there was literally no reason they couldn't have written the rule to change the Save characteristic instead of adding a modifier, which would avoid any potential future issues.

Yes, I'd say that's accurate. Lumineth Realm-Lords, Nighthaunt, Soulblight Gravelords, Ossiarch Bonereapers, Fyreslayers, and Stormcast Eternals are all seriously cringeworthy names, IMO. "Kruleboyz" still takes the Cringe Crown above all of them, though.

Is there that much difference between a unit's Save characteristic being improved by 1, and a unit getting +1 to save rolls? I would have thought that was functionally identical in all but the most niche edge cases. I strongly suspect they took away the Black Knights' shield rule with the intention of improving their Save in exactly the same way as the Deathrattle Skeletons, but then just lost the change to their Save number somewhere in the editing process. Black Knights with a 4+ save base would be a decent pick at 120 points. We can but hope for an errata.

The thing I'm continually amazed that they're able to get away with is regional price fixing and the ban on international sales.

Oh, I think we all know the answers to these questions as they stand. Very few of the rules are even unclear. They're questions specifically because the outcomes don't match player expectations, not because the rules are ambiguous. I was just rewording them into questions about outcomes, because FAQs almost never address intent.

I'd suggest that the "Is this intended?" format is generally not a good way to phrase questions, and you may get better responses by reformulating them to ask about the outcome, rather than the intention. For example: The Legion of Blood command trait "Sanguine Blur" grants units an additional 3" pile-in distance. Does this also mean that a unit within 6" of an enemy (but not within 3") is eligible to pile in and fight? Can a Deadwalker Zombie unit grow above its starting and/or maximum unit size when models are added to it by the "Newly Dead" ability? If Mannfred von Carstein makes a successful charge in the Charge phase, and then uses his "Mortarch of Night" ability to place himself out of combat at the start of the Fight phase, can he be selected to pile in during that Fight phase? Does the "Vile Transference" spell inflict damage on the target unit?

I've tried the Rune-Tokens quite a few times, and I always forget to use them at the right time. You want the effect the most when your opponent gets an unexpected double-turn or a first-turn alpha strike, but by then it's too late. I found I was only utilising them about one game in five, whereas the auto-dispel from the Skullshards comes up almost every game and makes opponents Big Mad. But if you're better at forward-planning than me, the Rune-Tokens are (presumably) awesome!

Definitely shouldn't be assumed, but amongst all the other communication failures GW has had regarding Cursed City, the lack of certainty (either way) around future expansions is also an issue. Personally, I expect that once they've sorted out whatever logistical issues interfered with their supply chain, they'll do a soft re-launch of Cursed City. This was supposed to be the "current edition" of the ongoing Warhammer Quest series. The lack of definite communication suggests that they're just stalling for time in the hope they can resolve the problems and get back on track. Whether or not the botched launch has "poisoned the well" of player enthusiasm for Cursed City and/or Warhammer Quest will be interesting to see. My main disappointment was the "all or nothing" approach to bringing the undead half into AoS. Nobody wants 700+ points of random bits and pieces, they want to pick and choose the stuff they like. It's such a lazy, slap-dash solution to lump them all together.

That's an interesting one, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. If living humans are better at fighting than skeletons, why bother raising skeletons? The vampires already have to keep plenty of humans around anyway, might as well make them fight too. If they die, you can still raise them if you want. Plus, any that manage to distinguish themselves in battle could be changed into vampires with existing combat experience, which seems like it would really work for the Kastelai at least. I think, crucially, dying is very much not an upgrade for the individual involved. Nobody is out there thinking "I wish I was better at fighting... I know! I'll become a skeleton!" Someone else is making that choice for them, and generally after they've already died. Plus, I think there are inherent combat advantages to being a supernatural creature that can't feel pain, bleed, faint, and so on. And which has no mind of its own to second-guess its commander, or run away to save its own skin. That single-minded determination to kill with no regard to their own safety is a big boost, even if they can't swing a sword as skilfully as a human.