Neil Arthur Hotep

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.

Lessen is fine, but a fantastical setting does not work without grounded, familiar elements. If GW are smart they will keep the normal humans, elves, dwarves, skeletons and orks around to make the weirdo factions really stand out. Also to give us some normal people to care about.

I'd like for Cities to stay and expand, and I'd love if that involved different mortals of the realms. I think it would be a shame to lose many of the subfactions that are currently part of Cities or to let then stagnate forever, but I also think it's not necessary to limit Cities to currently existing subfactions. There can definitely be new groups that could join the melting pot of the Cities.

I was about to comment the same. How crazy is it that the rapier that made everyone think Sigvald might come back didn't even make an appearance? Another thing I noticed while checking the rumor engines again, thoigh (probably already known): These two include the same style of ruined pillars. Until now I thought that bird would Death and the paw would be something else. No idea what to think now.

100% agree. I like OBR on their own merits, but they have nothing to offer to me as a Tomb Kings fan. It's not like High Elves and Lumineth, where they definitely work as a replacement (and even they are too far removed for a lot of people).

I was under the impression that Gavriels ability way within 9, not wholly within 12. But I have seen lists that take the stormkeep hero battalion which can include the Vexillor as well. Since that gives you the extra command points you want for Gavriel there is synergy here. Put in a Catellant as well and translocate him up for a chance at 30 2+ rerolling Liberators. If that whole build turns out to be too much investment, though, there is still Astral Templars with their 6" pre game move as another option.

Wholly within 9 of Gavriel? Correct me if I am wrong, but his command ability is within, not wholly within.

Give them +9 to charge with Gavriel Sureheart and tag multiple units.

I was not including anything but the Liberators and Lord Veritant in the cost, because the other units don't need to take part in the alpha, so you can have 1400 points running around doing their own thing if you use this strategy. But I see your point for general list building.

I feel like you have not thought through all the implications of this battalion. Depositing 30 two wound 3+ rerolling 1s bodies in front of the opponent turn 0 is definitely a good opener. You can combine this with low drops but you don't have to get the first turn, it's just that if you do you also guarantee you'll charge them turn 1. Yeah, maybe they will delete your Liberator block over two turns. But those are two turns that you gummed up their works and that the other 1500 points of your army can spend playing objectives. If you are playing a deep strinking army just you will still tarpit their non-deep striking units. Or you can just not do this and dump 30 Liberators on a point instead or spread them out to zone out their deep strikes. I want to stress that you can invest a lot of points into your Liberator alpha strike if you want. But you really don't need to. The battalion is cheap enough to include a big liberator tarpit in your list and still do another thing well.

Congratulations on calling it.

I think it's best not to get into this too deeply, because in the end it's going to only get resolved by FAQ anyway. So (with no hard feelings, seriously) this will be the last post I'll make about this. The problem is not that the intention is unclear. It's that the text does not say what GW (probably) wants it to say. You are right: The wording is specific. And by the normal rules of conversation, they would not bother to explicitly allow an option if it was unrestricted anyway. The problem is that just on the level of what this says in the book, there is no restriction of who can take the battalion (even though it seems to be intended). And that's just a problem of bad/inconsistent rules writing. You know that the context is important here. Allegiance abilities and battalions work differently. Allegiance abilities are restricted by default and need to be explicitly allowed to be used, while battalions are open inside a faction by default and need to be explicitly restricted. Don't turn this on me, please, that inconsistent way of doing things is also on GW.

I think you are right that the intention is to restrict the battalion to the new subfaction, so eventually I think they will FAQ it to be like you are interpreting it. But the rules writing does not reflect this at the moment. You (and the GW rules writers, by extension) are making a really common logic mistake here, which is to confuse "if" and "only if". Currently the rules as written say you can take the battalion if you are in the subfaction. It does not say only if you are in the subfaction. Since battalions are open to anyone by default unless restricted on their warscroll, this does not forbid other subfactions from taking it. To illustrate the difference, think about the statements "If it rains the streets get wet." and "Only if it rains the streets get wet." They are different statements. Only the first one is correct: There are a lot of ways that streets can get wet that don't involve rain. But again, I believe what GW intended was to restrict access to the battalion, because otherwise they would probably not have bothered to explicitly mention that you are able to take it. It's just that they... didn't.

Increasing a save is provides more benefits the higher your base save is, so +1 to save for a save '-' is not a big bonus, but for a save 3+ unit is insanely good. Going from a 4+ save to 3+ like Liberators do is huge. It increases your effective wounds by a third against no rend. You go from a 2x effective wound multiplier to 3x. Also, rerolling 1s to save gets better if your save is better, because the reroll will be more likely to be successful. Thirty Liberators at 3+ rerolling have 270 effective wounds against no rend. They are point for point more tanky than Mortek Guard, except they are also in your face turn 0. Way too many wounds to just mortal wound your way through. And you can buff their save even more if I'm not mistaken. This is an insane battalion. The +1 to hit is just adding insult to injury at this point.

I don't have a lot of nostalgia for many of the old Warhammer Fantasy characters. I feel like the two mortarchs we got that are new to AoS (Katakros and Lady Olynder) have been super cool additions, much more exciting that Kemmler or Krell (at least if they don't get reimagined). Besides, Arkhan is already the Necromancer Mortarch. I would not say no to a Deathrattle Mortarch, though.

I was just going to post something similar. The hand is in a really unnatural position if it belongs to the warrior.

Since we know that Broken Realms contains warscroll updates, what do you think are the chances of LoN getting some of those in the short term? I think if we don't get any Death-related news in the next preview, it's not out of the question. Especially since the clearest teaser we got about what will likely be the next Death faction/update (Johann running away from a scarecrow looking thing) does not look obviously vampire or skeleton related. A lot about LoN could definitely be fixed by warscroll rewrites. A lot of the basic tricks the faction has are still pretty good. My personal wishlist would include skeletons getting a new mechanic so you don't have to roll 200 dice when they attack and Black Knights getting rend -1 on their lances.

The word Decay and the green colour of the letters definitely suggest Nurgle, but there's some reason to think we might get something Death related instead or additionally. If you look through the rumour engine pictures, there are a lot of teases for stuff that could be Slaanesh. There's the chalice, the punch dagger, the crab claw maybe and the rapier. There's also a lot of Death looking stuff the crow with the key, the halberd, the pitted sword, the bone flute, the hand holding the skull and the hook. Plus the teaser image with Johann runnning from some kind of zombie or scarecrow or something. But there are comparatively few images that could be Nurgle stuff. If we are getting a big Nurgle release soon, it's at least strange that the rumour engines don't reflect this.

That's a meta shift nobody could have predicted. RIP in peace, skeletons.