Neil Arthur Hotep

They are not currently, but they could be. I could easily imagine a Cities battalion that makes you take equal amounts of elves, dwarves and humans. The Syll'Eske suballegiance already does this for demons and mortals. I believe that battalions and suballegiances are good tools to make army compositions viable that would not naturally be. There's no reason this could not include "no repeating warscrolls".

I'm not a ware of an official ruling, but my interpretation is that they do. All the language around LoN resurrection suggests that you return the same unit that previously died when you use Endless Legions: "You can use this command ability at the end of your movement phase. If you do so, pick a gravesite that is within 9" of your general, and then pick a friendly Summonable unit that has been destroyed. Set up that unit wholly within 9" of that gravesite and more than 9" from any enemy units." I take that to mean exactly what it says: You don't summon a new unit, the same unit you had before is returned. This is nice, because you keep battalion bonuses and battlefield role (which is set at the list building stage; summoned units don't get one). But it can also be a downside: If a unit is hit with a "for the rest of the game" debuff, dies and you resummon it, the debuff sticks around.

Looks like this could be the same mini as this one: Could possibly be the 40k priest from yesterday.

To me, what is happening in 40k seems more indicative of a more immature meta game after the recent edition change, to be honest. Younger competitive metas are usually more diverse compared to older ones. But I don't follow 40k very closely, so that might well a wrong assessment. I somewhat disagree. I don't think it the case in general, or for newer battletomes. There are some like Khorne or Gloomspite that are extremely balkanized by their implementation of keywords. But if you look at Cities of Sigmar, for example, it's not as much of a problem even though the synergies follow keywords pretty closely. Mostly this is because it's viable to have a block of dwarves buffed by a dwarf hero and a block of elves buffed by an elf hero in the same army. Battalions are a mixed bag. I already said that I think in general battalions increase the viability of different units in an army. But they don't usually serve to encourage diverse lists in the sense that you want. It's worth noting that the least restricive battalions, the ones like Changehost where you can just take whatever you were going to take anyway, encourage spam the most. More specific battalions do more to encourage diversity in a list. Battalions could also in theory be used to encourage more diversity by forcing you not to repeat warscrolls. But that's not being done anywhere yet as far as I know. It would be absurd to claim that there could not be rules that would result in more diverse lists. Like Enoby said above, if you just forbid taking multiples of a unit, that will do it (but it's kind of admitting defeat in terms of game design, because it's an admission that you can't manage to naturally make diverse lists attractive). But I think it's reasonable to claim that AoS is not especially bad in terms of ensuring the viability of diverse lists. At mid levels, a lot of units and lists are playable. At top levels, I don't personally see an inordinate amount of overcentralization (compared to other competitive games).

I disagree, and I tried to make the mechanism by which not universally optimal units still reward spamming clear in my last post. If your opponent has a diverse list with one or two counters to what you are spamming, but units that don't have an advantage against your spam otherwise, you will still likely be able to muscle past their counters. To pick up your example: Gyrocopters are good anti-horde units, but they do bad against elite units or monster. If you bring a normal amount of them, that is. Bring one and it kind of just does nothing. Bring three and you will be able to deal with hordes. Bring six and they can take down two-wound elites, just with raw damage numbers. Bring more than that and they will be able to deal with monsters by using spamming their once a game 1d3 mortal wounds ability. I'm not saying that Gyrocopters are the next big spam list, but it illustrates how spamming even a specialized unit increases that unit's ability to deal with it's counters. I would not look to competitive lists as my yardstick for list diversity, in general. The top level of any competitive game I have ever played or paid close attention to has always had a much lower diversity than the average game at all levels. Fighting games, deck building games, strategy games... Nobody really seems to have cracked that nut of diversity at the top level. AoS seems very much in line with other games in this regard, in my opinion. Again, I would not necessarily look to the top level for this. But at the 7 to 8 out of 10 power level, it seems to me that Gloomspite have what you want, currently. In as far as any Gloomspite list is viable, goblin horde, troggoths and squigs all seem OK after the recent White Dwarves. Possibly spiders too, since apparently there is a battalion that lets Arachnaroks move like Kharadron Airships now.

There is a general tendency in games like AoS where you get your build your list/team/deck to go spammy. It is a natural part of games that are built on a limited rock/paper/scissors mechanic. The idea of why it happens is this: As a player, you have the option to build a generalist army that can do a bit of everything and has one counter for any problem you are likely to encounter. But if an opponent goes all in on one choice, they will likely be able to overwhelm the counters to their choice by sheer brute force. For example, if they have high armour units, you'd usually be able to muscle past them with mortal wounds or high rend. But if they have only high armour units, you won't be able to keep up and they will eventually be able to get rid of your sources mortal wound/high rend. At the same time, your low rend units won't be able to effectively deal with their high armour. This kind of dynamic is, in my experience, part of any game with that works on countering opponents. This kind of design makes generalists weaker. Additionally, in AoS specifically, you frequently need to commit to a unit choice for it to clear a certain threshold of effeciveness. Ossiarch Crawlers are an example: You could probably just ignore or play around one of them, but if your opponents bring two the threat gets too high to ignore. Since the core mechanics of the game naturally encourage spam (same for Warhammer Fantasy, by the way), are there mechanics that encourage diversity? In theory, that should be the role of battalions and subfactions. And from one perspective, they do: In the most recent army books, for whatever unit you want to bring, it's likely that there are battalions or subfactions that make it workable (at like a 7 to 8 out of 10 on the power scale). But of course, that does not mean you are very likely to see all the different units an army has to offer in the same list. However, I believe that you would see even less diverse lists overall if there were no battalions or subfactions, because at that point whatever has the best/most spammable warscroll is just what becomes optimal. As far as diversity goes: It's true that it would be nice to have mechanics that encourage you to play armies with lots of different warscrolls, just as an option. But if this type of goodstuff list becomes the optimal thing to play, that is not necessarily more satisfying than a tendency towards more strongly themed armies. Overall, I don't think AoS is terrible at encouraging diversity., if we ignore certain outliers where faction internal balance is just not good (pre-broken realms Idoneth, Daughters of Khaine, Fyreslayers...). At least, I don't think AoS does worse in this regard than other games I know.

The first rumor engine teasing Slaanesh is from July 2019, so I'd say it's likely that we were supposed to get Sons of Behemat, the DoK update and Slaanesh mortals a lot earlier than we actually did. I believe that it's the most likely that that GW's release schedule has been pushed back 6+ months, but that their planned release order has not majorly changed. That's why I would not assume that GW is going to stick to whatever marketing plans they originally had in terms of reveal timing. It's more likely that we will get to see the remaining Slaanesh stuff around Christmas than whatever was planned before COVID.

Interestingly, the raven is sitting on the same kind of pillar found in this picture: Would be interesting if they are all part of the same model.

I hope it's an overhaul because I don't want my Legions of Nagash Deathrattle army invalidated for a second time after converting them over from being Tomb Kings.

My bet would be that all the ramshackle stuff we have been seeing is related to whatever Johann has been running away from. And I also believe that to be related to the Vampire underworlds warband for March. I think the timing makes sense. We know that Death related rumor engines have been around for a year or so. Vampires have been telegraphed as part of Broken Realms with Ven Brecht's history and his rescue by a leathery-winged creature. I'm going to commit to this: After the Slaanesh release, we will see a big Vampire-related Death release around March, and this stuff will be part of it.

Since we all know Vampirates are confirmed I think we can safely deduce that his must be a bottle o' rum. Yo ho ho!

The kind of picture that really makes you say "Yep, that sure is a bottle."

From a consumer's point of view, I don't really see what value Forgeworld's involvement in AoS adds. At least for me personally. Historically FW has produced premium models that would be too expensive for the average GW customer. That would mean that as an average GW customer, I should prefer their models not to be to good in the game, since that would create a pay to win situation, where people who are willing to spend extra money have an advantage in game. But if those models don't receive good rules, it becomes very hard to argue they are valuable. If I just want a model to paint and display, but not to play with, I could just go to any 3rd party model company out there. Buying from a semi-integrated second party like Forgeworld would have no advantage. If Forgeworld wants to get a way from being a supplier of premium models and move toward staples that get properly balanced rules and reasonable price points (such as the Troggoth Hag or Mourngul), it's even hard to justify why they should not just be integrated into GW proper, and their manpower and production capability be put to use to just produce regular models for AoS. Maybe this is not possible due to how the two companies are set up. But it would probably be preferable for me as a consumer. The last refuge of Forgeworld I can see are upgrade kits and alternate sculpts. I think alternate sculpts of centerpiece models would be the area where having a second party premium model company makes most sense. You'd be able to get more model variety for those who want it, but nobody would be forced to pay premium prices since there would be a regular GW sculpt available for each model. Upgrade kits are fine, too, but there seems to be little reason to have them produced by Forgeworld instead of GW proper. We know GW can do this: They are doing it with the upgrade kit for Legions of Nagash. I guess at first glance having a source of alternate heads and weapons that does not violate GW's 3rd party bits policies might be attractive, but really that's a case of a company manufacturing a problem and then selling a solution to it. As it stand, I think it would be preferable to have all models with unique rules properly under control of GW proper. I don't see the value of what is basically a licensed 3rd party company making their own models that may or may not get proper support in the future. Oh, and of course FW handling specialty games is completely fine. That's probably the best way to get smaller, more niche games made without taking away time from the 40k and AoS teams.

Congratulations on winning! I run nearly the same list with some minor variations. What made you decide on Decrepify on your Necromancer over the usual Overwhelming Dread or Fading Vigor? Is it because you knew your opponent was bringing a Frostlord on Stonehorn or do you generally bring this spell? And about your artefact choices: I am personally always scared to lose heroes to shooting (or at least get them bracketed into uselessness in case of the VLoZD). Have you considered the Shroud of Darkness/Wristbands of Black Gold on any of your heroes?

I think there's a skull decoration on the front. A black, gold trimmed, ornate boot with a skull on it could definitely be vampire thing.

There's a worse unit, and it's even found within Cities of Sigmar as well: The Battlemage on Griffin. It has the costs the same as the sorceress, 300 points, but it has worse spells, no command ability, no cast bonus and no synergies. I regularly forget it even exists, though, so it's not as big a disappointment.

Or maybe that's just what they WANT us to think! Wake up, Sheepaneth!

Not disagreeing with you, but this is exactly the kind of vagueness I'd exploit if I was a writer setting up a twist. I definitely believe that some kind of plot point about Slaaneshi corruption still lingering within Hysh and the Lumineth is possible in the future. It would be set up well enough, given the history the Lumineth have with Slaanesh and how closely they are tied to their realm. Could make for a good stoty to spring on us in a few years.

They might well be setting up a hint of chaos/Slaaneshi corruption within the Lumineth, given the repetition of bovine imagery in both armies. Plus, the geography of Hysh resembles an eight pointed star of chaos. @Thomas Lyons from Warhammer Weekly has been a proponent of this conspiracy theory since the Lumineth launched (although his pick for corruptor is Hashut).

The title is slightly misleading, he mostly talks about how it's easier for you to be creative in AoS. For example, he talks about how, sure, you can make your own Space Marine chapter, but the setting still restricts how much you can do with them fairly heavily. By contrast, AoS is a lot more open, and the Mortal Realms are so huge that a lot of weird stuff is completely acceptable. There is this sense that you have to stick with what has been mentioned to exist in 40k (somewhat), while in AoS you can feel free to invent stuff that has not been mentioned anywhere. And that's definitely true. It's fairly easy to see that GW set up the Mortal Realms specifically to allow players to be creative with their dudes and their lore. I would say that GW definitely recognized how the very defined and mapped out world of Warhammer Fantasy and 40k made it hard to for those that enjoy putting their own spin on things to do so. This is also reflected in the complaints you get from a lot of people who like the Fantasy world better: That AoS has no lore. But this is by design. It's done so that you can tell whatever story you want with your army.

Could be anything, really. Kind of reminds me of the guy who goes into the Hurricanum.

I want to emphasize that I believe running and remaining stationary is ruled out by RAW. I have laid out my reasons for this above, but once more for completeness: You can decide to run when you "pick a unit to make a normal move" as per the core rules. So does "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" refer to this? If it does, you would have the option to run at that time. But it does not, because if it did, then "remaining stationary" would be a normal move. And if it was a normal move, you would not be allowed to end within 3" of an enemy unit after you perform it. But since that's impossible, "remain stationary" can't be a normal move, and "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" can't be the same as "picking a unit to make a normal move". Thus, "remaining stationary" must be not picking a unit to make a normal move, and declaring retreat is the actual point where you "pick a unit to make a normal move", and this is the point at which you can choose to run. I believe this is RAW and not RAI, since due to the vague writing we are presented with two possibilities, but it turns out only one is consistent after closer inspection. It's not a case of "This is what it says, but this is what I believe it was supposed to say". It's "What it says presents us with two defensible readings, but only one actually works".

Yes, but it is not a workaround for anything as far as the scenario that is being discussed goes. The advantage you get from remaining stationary being a normal move would be that you could roll to run when in combat, see if your roll is high enough to give you an advantage in positioning and if not you could just stay in combat like nothing happened. You gain a bit of information (the die roll's result) here without having to commit to a retreat. If you tried to pull the same thing and move an infinitesimal amount, you'd still definitely have to follow the general retreat rules: That is, you'd have to move outside of 3" of any enemy units. You could not just stay in combat. I want to just quickly say that I disagree here. I don't believe that you can have your cake and eat it in this case: Either "remain stationary" is a normal move and you get to run as part of it, or it is not a normal move and you don't. I don't think the option to run as part of something that is not a normal move is available. And that includes the scenario described above, where you start your normal move, declare run and then remain stationary (but without this being a normal move). I think the rules on running are clear here: You can only declare to run on a normal move. The writing is definitely unclear here. It's fairly bad, even: If the rules for retreat just said "You can either choose not to move a unit when it is within 3" of an enemy unit or retreat", we would not be having this conversation. But I disagree that the matter is up for interpretation. It's just complicated. As I see it, there are only two defensible options: The whole "start to move in combat" complex is a normal move, and you can declare a run as part of it, or only retreating is actually a normal move and "remain stationary" is not a move at all. I believe that the first option is contradictory with the sentence immediately before it: "When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit." The only exception to this rules is retreating, sp specifically not the "start to move" complex. If "start to move" with it's two options of retreat or remain stationary was a normal move, whatever choice you make would always be subject to the above rule. So you would be required to end your move outside of 3" of enemy units when you remain stationary. I take that to be a contradiction and that we should reject the option that remaining stationary is a normal move in favour of the one that it's not a move at all, with everything that entails. Because only the latter option is logically consistent. Now for the further complication: Attempting to retreat, but failing. Ordinarily, this is not a problem. If you are straight up unable to move anywhere if you wanted to retreat, we could just say that you never had the option to make a move in the first place and must not attempt to retreat, because it would be an illegal move. But in the case where there is a chance to retreat, but it depens on the result of your run roll, that's not the case. You should be allowed to try to retreat. In this case, what happens if you don't make your die roll? Like, if you need a 6 but roll a 1? The answer to this is not found in the rules, as far as I can tell. I would say that the sequence of play goes like this. 1. Activate to move the unit. This means you count as having moved. 2. Roll to run, fail the dice roll. 3. You have no place to retreat. Thus you fail to retreat and cannot move the unit. So why do I think that in this case, you get to stay in combat even though that contradicts the rules for retreating? Simply put, because it's part of the logic of "must" that it implies "can". You can't be forced to follow a rule that is impossible for you to follow. This is not from the rules of AoS, it's a general characteristic from the logic of obligation that I am using here. I also believe, though, that your only option is to leave your models where they are, since any movement to a different position would be illegal. Since if you can't legally move, the only other option is to remain stationary, that's what you will have to default to. I think an argument could be made that if you fail to move, you don't count as having moved. I'd not be against this. It's a logically available option, but it would require "undoing" your activation to move and returning to an earlier game state which I don't think is ever done in AoS. I see this scenario as a genuine rules bug, where there is a chance that you have not option but to break a rule somewhere when you get yourself into this state.

It's a surprisingly tricky question and shows that GW would benefit from more careful rules writing. I had originally come to the same conclusion, but now believe it to be wrong. Here's why: I think there are two ways you can cash out "not having moved" or "remaining stationary". It could either mean that you don't activate the unit to move, or it could mean that you move every model in that unit 0". In the first case, you could not remain stationary and run at the same time, because running requires that you activate the unit to move. In the second case, you would be able to run and remain stationary at the same time. So we have to decide which of these two alternatives is correct. I would say it is the first one. I think so because otherwise the rules of retreating don't make sense as written: If "remaining stationary" was a normal move, then you would have to finish it outside of 3" of enemy units, as per part one of the rule. That's obviously not possible. That's why I would have to conclude that it is not one. Instead, we have to conclude that the part about "starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit" in the quote above has to refer to the moment in which you can decide to activate the unit for movement or not. And then your two choices would be to not activate the unit (remain stationary) or activate it and retreat (with all that entails, such as the possibility of running). I believe there is also one more state you could find yourself in: Activating a unit, retreating, and then failing to retreat. This could happen if you retreat, but need a run roll over a certain number to make a legal move (maybe the unit is blocked by enemies or terrain). Since you can't be required to make an illegal move, you'll have to remain in combat in that case. I would treat that case as still having moved, though, because the unit was activated.