TheCovenLord

It feels like unnecessary rules bloat, it should have been closer to an endless spell of some sort as they already have that system in place. This whole extra layer of states is getting to be a bit much so I hope this is a one off. My group has suffered from the rules creep heavily - the game in 3rd ed plays better once you get the hang of it but the complexity and knowledge floor is so big now that it is difficult to get new interest in the game and some of the more casual players have stopped playing completely as it is getting to be too much. The flip side is also the more rules-interested players no longer see the game as casual fun and have ALSO stopped playing to move onto tighter more complex rules systems elsewhere. Really not a fan of the model either - looks like stretched taffy over some bits found in a drawer somewhere. Cool conversions would definitely improve this (like a ghostly dragon for night haunt perhaps). Interesting way of giving all armies access to monsters.

I have been hoping for quite a while that the Forgeworld miniatures I do own would be updated to match AoS as it has progressed. Nothing but disappointment so far with many of them being discontinued, moved to legends or left to languish with no points changes for years. The greater daemons remain the only relatively stable part of the roster and frankly they are starting to show their age. I believe currently you cannot even use some of their newer models due to the Contest of Generals points limit on individual models forcing things like the not so strong and uber expensive Khorne Dragon out of matched play (unless they drop it 100 points). As someone stated earlier. Buy them as "art/hobby pieces" first and play pieces absolutely dead last (unless your group is particularly favourable to proxying).

I believe your list is likely in the minority as it sounds like you had a very particular strategy in mind and built specifically around min-maxing it. This is a zero change from 2.0 for myself and my games group. We almost never opted for 2nd turn and still don't in 3.0.

Its a very mixed bag. Most units are totally fine. The exceptions need to be hit with the points hammer. Preferably sooner rather than later. A good question is how do you even points cost units like Thanquol at this point as he is functionally immune to charges from non-elite infantry squads for 1 CP as written. Some notable outliers have been: Irondrakes, Warpfire throwers/shooting attacks that do not roll to hit ex: any flavor but Thanquol was exceptionally punishing, units that can pump mortal wounds on hit and just fish for the 6's ex: buffed skinks were pretty big offenders, our Lumineth player does not lean on Sentinels thankfully.

A friend of mine is just shelving his Slaanesh completely unless there is FAQ to help mitigate it. He has played the factions through the peaks and troughs but he got hit hard with the double whammy of points increases (which are ludicrous even from someone who used to run Drakespawn knights at their original points cost) and he made extensive use of chaos warrior blocks as battleline (even before the mortal Slaanesh release he really enjoyed the idea of a mortal following with daemons being summoned in from their exploits). He is unfortunately not made of money so updating his battleline is currently out of the question and we played at a shop with a mixed bag of players (tournament preppers and casuals) usually defaulting to following the GW rules to keep things civil so no chance of sweeping house rules to make them playable. Sad, I really do hope the points are reverted somewhat in an FAQ but I sincerely doubt it.

Problem is they lose the "battleline" keyword for the Chaos warriors making them inherently less useful. Still possible to use them though

Not really that huge if you take into account new coherency rules. It seems like its mostly to keep the combat doable rather than a nightmare under the old nearest model rule.

I won't jump to any conclusions until I can see the full rule set. In a vacuum with our current edition, yes, it does look a little nutty. But there have also been rumours about significant change to points values, unit sizes and unit allowances. A unit of 10 models shooting twice is way less menacing than 20-40 shooting twice. And that is only one of many rumoured rules to come. So it may be a complete non-issue in the context of 3.0. We will just have to see and hope GW doesn't drop the ball (even though they do have a bit of a worrying history...).

Painting all my grey tide to table top quality. Even the stuff I rarely run in my lists just for completeness sake.

I would argue that they are necessary but in their current incarnation they are becoming unhealthy (in that they are too common). It is far too easy to add "6's" do a mortal wound in addition to basically everything. I am also not in agreement that there are significant defenses against mortal wounds present across armies. Maybe this is coloured by the types of armies my local meta comprises but there are few outside of death factions sporting natural shrug saves and even then rarely above a 6+ which is a pretty paltry defense for how common they have become. Maybe there are a few armies that have widespread defenses (ex: Daughters/Death factions) but it really is not common for the forces I face off against making it far more appealing than rend which is slowly becoming a forgotten stat in our group. Many factions also distinctly lack defenses or even shrug saves whatsoever against mortal wounds and it further adds to their struggle in this high shooting/high mortals/high magic era.

You must activate and fight if eligible. The core rules are a bit murky on piling in being mandatory as part of fighting. The combat phase portion states that an eligible unit (one within 3" of an enemy) must be selected to pile in and fight during the combat phase. However, the piling in portion of text uses wording that makes it seem to be optional (lots of use of "...a unit CAN make a pile in move...") key word being the can which makes it sound optional. Due to this most players I know play as if the pile in portion of the text is optional. As @Aelfric has stated a way to meet all the criteria set out by the rules is that you can always move the unit 0.1mm (or less, even a molecule closer counts technically) as long as they end closer to the closest enemy than before. If their weapons are in range they MUST strike.

Fair point. Goes to show rule writing isn't as easy as we would all like it to be. I do stand by that there should be an easier way to convey the information without leaving it open enough for players to abuse (such as in this case).

They really should just say "models that flee are removed from play" and it would resolve this. No use of the word "slain" to confuse the issue. GW is notorious for murky language though

By the very wording it is not split. They are only counted as slain for removal purposes. They are not actually slain per the wording of the rule. RAI vs RAW the very idea is ridiculous. They are running away not splitting to become more brave and stay and fight. The people you play with play in bad faith. EDIT: Not to say AoS rules aren't riddled with contradictions and silly RAI vs RAW moments but this is RAW and RAI agreeing and them splitting from fleeing is not how the rule works.