Kadeton

That's a great question! The idea of a kind of peasant revolt led by vampire firebrands really appeals to me - plays up the power that vampires can have over the living as well as the dead. That said, I don't know if it has quite the "Epic Awesome" tone that AoS generally focuses on. It's got a grittier, more grounded feel about it. Maybe for The Old World?

The thing I don't understand in the Death approach is the way they split subsections off, wait a bit, and then roll them back into the Legions. They separated the Nighthaunt into their own thing, and then re-integrated them with the Legion of Grief. The Bonereapers were created as their own discrete force, but next month's White Dwarf will have rules for the Tithe Legion, which I assume will allow you to field Bonereapers in a Legions of Nagash army. It's such an awkward two-steps-forward-one-step-back shamble over on the Death side of the game, like they're refusing to commit to a coherent plan. The problem for the Vampires is that, for GW to continue to leave this door open for themselves, they can't be too thematically innovative because the likelihood is they'll get rolled back into the Legions of Night or Blood or Whatever. I'm hoping GW can let this go and give us an interesting Vampire faction instead.

Maybe! To be honest, I'd really hope the Gargants aren't super specialised - ideally they'll (all) be able to at least participate in each of the active phases of the turn, i.e. all having some sort of command ability, spell, or prayer, as well as a ranged attack and a melee attack. Having some be more focused on range or melee would obviously be fine. Wishlist: I want to see an action hero Gargant firing a Great Cannon in each hand. I want a hunter/falconer-type with a siege bow and a massive bird of prey (a Roc?) that they set on people. I want a brawler that's wielding a carriage in one hand and a team of screaming horses in the other. I want a giant priest, hunched over, carrying an entire uprooted church and steeple on his back and swinging a huge censer. Man, there are so many cool things that could be done with Gargants. I expect to be a little disappointed in whatever actually gets released, because the limits of practicality are always a downer compared to imagination.

Yeah, this is a really interesting question, and I think it's going to be key to the success of the Behemat line. Organic creatures have to be more varied and dynamic than war engines in order to be "satisfying" - people will notice pose similarities much more acutely than with robots. I'm looking forward to seeing how GW addresses this, because they've proven their ability to be very innovative in model design but this is a big challenge.

I'm with you, honestly. In general, I find the process of finding someone who wants the other half of the box, and then negotiating over how much each half is worth, to be entirely too much work. I don't like box-exclusive models, so I don't buy those boxes and just wait for the model to be released separately, or buy it second-hand. Who knows, maybe the Sons of Behemat will all be built from one or two multi-part kits with a bunch of different build options included - if so, that's awesome. I'm just not holding my breath.

Hasn't it been fairly consistent that every battle box gets at least one showcase exclusive for each side? That seems to be part of the marketing strategy that underpins the whole idea of those boxes - people will buy the Space Wolves vs Orks box just to get the new Ghazghkull model, for instance. I guess I'm just saying that hoping for a Behemat v Lumineth box while simultaneously hoping that it doesn't have an exclusive Gargant kit is just setting yourself up for disappointment. The only likely outcomes are either there will be a box with an exclusive Gargant, or there won't be a box at all.

Indeed, I would also be completely happy with that. Put the Kurnothi in the Wanderers faction, or put the Wanderers in the Kurnothi faction - either way, make it happen!

The real question is, why aren't the Kurnothi a fully-fledged faction by themselves? That's honestly what I'm really hanging out for in AoS.

Yeah, I think the main problem is that the sculptor gave him an expression at all. As Charlton aptly demonstrates there, the best way to do "epic face" is to have a completely neutral, bored expression. I assumed they were going for something like a leaf spring rather than three separate limbs. The main "this doesn't work" aspect comes from the fact that the forces are inherently symmetrical - whatever tension you apply to the upper limb of a bow equally applies to the lower limb, so those three strings and their compound leaf-spring arm can only be doing as much work as the one string and its single arm. They're obviously superfluous. If there was a sound practical reason to make three-stringed bows, bowyers would have discovered it centuries ago. However, I think it's also completely fitting that a human should look at an aelf-bow and go "Wait, why does that... but then... gah, it makes no sense!" It doesn't look right to us because we're thinking in terms of stupid mundane human stuff like "physics" and "engineering". We can't make functional bows that look like that, but they can, because they're aelves.

Teclis always puts this in mind for me:

What an interesting question! I doubt you'll find any rules that specifically govern this situation, but here's how I'd rule it as a TO: The Vortex is placed within 1" of the garrison, then the caster is removed from the garrison and placed on top of the vortex. Extended reasoning: When casting, range is measured from the garrison. However, the garrison is not treated as the caster for any other purpose, e.g. being placed on top of the Vortex. Placing the Vortex "inside" the garrison seems likely to cause further complications, so the cleanest solution is for the caster to create the Vortex outside the garrison and then be placed on it, thus removing themselves from the garrison. No. Entering a garrison can only be done instead of making a normal move. Since the model is unable to make a normal move, it cannot enter a garrison.

I played a matchup this evening that I hadn't seen before - Mawtribes v Mawtribes. We both went heavy on the Beastclaws, though my opponent also brought a big mob of Gluttons and a Butcher. I tell you what, if you ever want to have a super quick game of AoS, that's the way to do it. I reckon our 2000-point game was done in 45 minutes, including time for friendly chit-chat. Anyway, no particular insights or Ogor-related wisdom, just wanted to share. I'm having a great time with the Beastclaws as my main army.

D3/D6 per unit. Relevant wording: After this model has moved, each unit that has any models it passed across suffers D3 mortal wounds, or D6 mortal wounds if that unit is also within 3" of any Awakened Wyldwoods.

The basic summary is: When you build your army list, you can give one Artefact to a hero of your choice. For each warscroll battalion in your list, you can give an additional Artefact to a hero. An individual hero cannot have more than one Artefact. A named hero cannot be given an Artefact at all. Allegiance subfactions normally specify a particular Artefact that must be the first one given to a hero. (In this case, Hammers of Sigmar - the God-Forged Blade.) Therefore: If your army includes only named heroes, nobody can be given an Artefact. If your army includes at least one unnamed hero, you must give one unnamed hero the God-Forged Blade. If your army includes any warscroll battalions, you may give one unnamed hero (who doesn't already have an Artefact) an Artefact of your choice from any available list of Artefacts (from your allegiance, realm, etc) for each battalion in your army.

Which part of the Core Rules makes you think that only one unit can garrison? There's no inherent restriction in the Garrison rules, and there are examples where multiple units are clearly implied, such as in the Siege Command Abilities Demolition Charges - "Roll a dice for each enemy unit garrisoning that terrain feature." - and Boiling Oil - "pick a terrain feature that is garrisoned by a friendly HERO and at least five other friendly models." (both p. 295)

My Beastclaw army is great fun, and generally very effective. Being able to count as 10 models for objectives really is the special sauce that makes all the difference. The Stonehorns actually went up in durability, up in hitting power, up in speed, and down in price - they're really solid, especially the Frostlords. (Thundertusks are sadly terrible now, you're much better off going all Stonehorns.) Gristlegore Terrorgheists can be pretty devastating, but they're a bit too swingy for my taste. You're basically putting all your resources - spells, command traits and abilities, mount traits - into maximising the number of dice you get for their bite, in the hope of rolling sixes. If you can roll a bunch of sixes, yeah they'll vaporise anything in the game. If you get unlucky, or if you get charged, you're in big trouble.

Cities of Sigmar might be an interesting option to look into. It has easily the widest range of sculpts available to any army (it has humans, aelves, duardin, monsters, cannons, carriages, steam tanks and so on, plus you can include Stormcast, Kharadron or Sylvaneth units you like the look of without using allies), can be tailored to a wide range of playstyles, has plenty of tricks, and is decently competitive without being overbearing.

Sounds like a bug. You shouldn't have access to the Lore of Cinder in a Living City army.

Generally not. Most wizards know Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield, a spell from their own warscroll and one spell from an Allegiance list. It doesn't matter how many spells they can cast per turn. This is governed by the wording of the Magic ability on the wizard's warscroll, and the Allegiance rules for their magical lore. If you're asking about a specific allegiance and wizard that has different wording, let us know which one you're thinking of. For example, in a Nurgle army, all the Wizards also know Foul Regenesis in addition to the standard, warscroll and lore spells.

Yes, Favoured Poxes does not end during the caster's next Hero Phase. The tradeoff is that your wizard basically can't do anything.

Yeah, I'm definitely with you on that. It's one of the big changes that I really expect to see come through into the next edition of 40K, because it sweeps aside a huge amount of needlessly fiddly damage rules. It's so simple, but very slick.

AoS feels like the bridge between GW's "traditional" systems (e.g. 40K) and its "modern" systems (e.g. Warcry). At the time, it was quite an innovative change - a streamlined re-interpretation of well-established concepts that captured the same feel but let the game flow faster and smoother. But when things start to evolve, they change fast. After AoS shows that challenging tradition leads to better outcomes, newer systems are created with even more abstract and streamlined mechanics, and suddenly it becomes obvious how much the old concepts that still form the foundation of AoS' mechanics are unnecessary.

It can still be a single drop, yes. When you set up the battalion, you set up each of the units in that battalion. You set up the Hunter, and you can choose to set it up in ambush. You set up one of the units of Sabres, and you can set them up in ambush along with him. You set up the other unit of Sabres, but since they can't be set up in ambush they will have to be set up on the battlefield. Basically, as one drop, you can set up two units in reserve and one on the battlefield.

Unfortunately not. Since the trait doesn't say that a non-Wizard model becomes a Wizard, they aren't one. Instead, they're governed by the non-Wizard casting rule (p.233 in the Core Rules): Sometimes an ability will allow a model that is not a wizard to attempt to cast or unbind spells. They do so using the rules below and are affected by abilities that modify casting or unbinding rolls, but they are not a wizard for any other rules purposes. Since the Attuned to Magic ability specifies that it must be a friendly Wizard casting the spell, it will not come into effect when a friendly non-Wizard casts a spell.

Words are contextual, and their meaning changes depending on how they are used. In your example, "all" and "any" are not equivalent. In the rule you quoted, they are. As I said, a weird quirk of English grammar. Edit: More students and malls: Students may visit all malls. Students may visit any malls. (These are equivalent.) All students may visit the mall. Any students may visit the mall. (These are also equivalent.) Can all students visit the mall? Can any student visit the mall? (These too.) When you are dealing with permission, "any" and "all" are often equivalent.