Liquidsteel

I don't think they can. Rerolls happen first.

You would have to pick one. You, as the person rolling the dice, get to choose. A question I'm not sure about is whether this is true if the effects occur from different results of the same dice roll, for example because of how Blades works, you can give them +1 to hit and it will trigger on 5s and 6s. In this case, you would still have to decide which effect is being triggered on the roll of 6, however perhaps you can still activate Blades on the 5s.

The ability was FAQd and they removed the last sentence about benefitting more than once per phase. As it stands, the ability can be stacked up to 3 times.

One thing to watch out for is whether your High Sentinel has line of sight or not. If he does, then he cannot use his lantern, meaning you might have other models in the unit that cannot see and thus cannot shoot.

I think Crypt Horrors in particular have gotten worse, due to save stacking. They were already questionable before however the total lack of rend is a big problem. I think with Flayers you can comfortably run a big block of 6 or even 9. Yes you lose output but they still retain their rend and mortal wounds, their movement got better thanks to smaller boards and they can now unleash hell with their screams. Stick them in hunters of the heartlands and you can always guarantee to make them fight twice.

I imagine the next edition of GHB will feature something, new commands inspired by the realm of Ulgu. "Shadow Blades" or something to allow a unit ignore the enemies positive save modifiers etc Don't forget that we have access to Roar in this edition to somewhat counter stacking, I whiffed big time this weekend when I charged Nagash in to a Maw Krusha, I failed my Roar and he succeeded in his, meaning I lost my +1 to hit and he gained a crucial +1 to save.

Fair enough but that's not something I would agree with, something like Nagash or Archaon should only be tickled, even if it's 100 skeletons. The skeletons should not do more than a few wounds to the God character at best, what they should do is keep him busy for a turn or two, so that the actual threat behind them (Vhordrai, Grave Guard) can line up the ideal killing blow the turn after.

I wonder how things would change if All Out Attack / Defence came with trade-offs? For example All Out Attack could provide +1 hit in the shooting phase but +1 to hit and an additional -1 rend in melee, at the expense of -1 save. All Out Defence could still provide +1 save in both phases, at the expense of not being able to pile in or reducing your attacks in the combat phase. I'm loathe to say that giving universal access to 6s to hit do mortals could be a good thing, because then you'd get problems with hordes taking out God Models again, which is obviously something that was intended not to happen anymore.

So it's not actually clear either way, however everyone I've spoken to has come to the conclusion that they are not exclusive and it's how I would play it myself unless something changes. With the FAQ, both abilities are written with the exact same terminology. "Each destroyed unit can only be replaced once – replacement units cannot themselves be replaced.’" Gorslav effectively gives you the comfort of being able to guarantee when you get to bring the unit back, for the cost of a CP.

No there is not, unfortunately. On the flip side they are tankier than people think, especially with Nagash giving them reroll 1s to save.

It definitely has potential! Unholy Impetus is nice as it effects all SBGL units, so you kill something first with your VLoZD and suddenly your nearby blood knights are on +1 attack, hopefully on 2s and 2s thanks to Mannfred.

Can bonereapers use All Out Defense? Against rend 3 Nagash should still fail on 2s and any failed reroll 1s.

Yeah of course, it just depends, Belladamma is certainly not underutilised though, she's almost always in if I can fit her! I'm not too keen on the Vampire Lord myself, not having the bodyguard mechanic is tough when you only have 5 wounds, too easy to remove at range in my opinion, of which there is far too much. Really a wasted potential model in my opinion, would have loved something to match the lore better.

Yeah I'm not running one at the moment as I'm on the Nagash and Kastelai train. I think he also gains worth if you're shooting for a Warlord battalion and need the extra hero.

Realistically you probably want them in a block of 30, with a Necromancer to support and have them in hunters of the heartlands so they can't be roared/stomped. Which is 255 + 125 points. It's not exactly a huge points sink as the Necromancer can be useful throughout the game, however a lot of people are going big on Monsters or other units and so 255 points on a battleline unit can often be too expensive if all you need is a screen or battleline tax, especially when you consider 230 points is 2 x 20 or 1 x 40 zombies. 85 points for 10 is decent and I have used them in the past, however for only 30 points more you get an extra 10 zombies that offer a few additional tactical choices with their pile in shenanigans as well as coming back as 10 not 5 via Endless Legions. If they got to stand back up every time they took damage (a la Resurrection Protocols) they would be so much better. They're not even that bad, just the amount of shooting and spells you face these days reduces their effectiveness somewhat.

I mean I disagree but I can appreciate your point of view and if you choose to play it that way that's fair enough. The clause "That unit has then fought" could be interpreted your way. My line of thinking is that when it's your turn to activate a unit, the picking of the the unit is FIGHT. Within this you are correct that in 12.1.1, you a) Make a pile in move and then b) attack with your all of your melee weapons. It does quote 12.3 in this which expands by saying you must attack if you are in range to do so which is then explained in 13.1.2. So my logic is that you have fought, because you were selected to fight and then you piled in, and did not attack because you were not in range. We had a similar issue with whether a command ability granted by a core battalion counted as having been used, because it was not issued and no command point was spent, it was only received. GW ruled that this counted as having been used and thus could not be duplicated. I would therefore argue a similar logic should take place here. Going a step further and slightly off tangent, if not attacking means you have not fought, then you could argue that the game state cannot proceed, because the fight sequence cannot complete without attacks being made.

Nagash with Blood Knights went 5-0 (and also 4-1, me) at Mancunian Carnage last month.

Correct they are -1 rend and 2 damage. The app is wrong.

I think its quite clear to be honest. The rules say that you are eligible to fight if you made a charge move, and picking a unit to activate is keyword bold "fight". Fighting has two parts, piling in, then attacking. So even if you only activate to pile in, you still count as having fought.

Unfortunately both rules were played incorrectly, which in a weird way isn't so bad because now you have two bits of information to take you forward in your next games. 1) The triggers for being able to pile in and fight are that you are within 3" of enemy units OR that you made a charge move that turn. So because you made a Charge, you were indeed eligible to pile in and fight the hero. Effectively from where you finish your charge, providing you kill the screen in the first activation, you have a 6" threat range with the Fanged Maw for the second activation (another 3" pile and 3" maw). For what it's worth, the hero being 3.1" away mean you could still use your 1" reach attacks. 2) He was incorrect. Feeding Frenzy is not a separate activation as you are not picking a unit to fight, you are allowing a unit that just fought to immediately pile in and attack again. So thanks to Savage Strike and Feeding Frenzy you can fight 3 times before your opponent gets his turn to pick a unit.

Yeah its a shame, no reason it couldn't have been 3 to 4 Vampire Lords or something, priced appropriately.

I like the Varghulf, he does everything just a bit better I think. Though I don't actually ever use a regular Infernal as he looks too similar to the Flayers and I don't like that.

I think you can still take them but they can't gain or benefit from other stormhost allegiances

I did a search and a quick scan over the Core Rules and the FAQ, but couldn't find anything that mentions it. Worth submitting in to the FAQ. Til then I don't think anyone will disagree that units are wholly within themselves, the rules do not say that they are not, and in AoS 2.0 it was clear that they were.

Could be interesting for sure. I've never played Warcry, or Kill Team for that matter but it definitely seems like AoS and 40k suffer from certain matchups having 1 or 2 big turns and that's it, e.g. getting doubled turn 2 to 3 by a killy army and doing nothing but take your models off for 2 turns.