Rob Hawkins

My thoughts exactly.

Thank you! I still have a ton of parts to eventually make more Censor Bearers, but those will have to wait for another time. :)

Last week I finished up my backlog of Skaven Clanrats, and they put my Skaventide army over 10,000 points! Including my Skaven-themed endless spells, 2 allied Cannons, and the Foulrain Congregation battalion, it adds up to 10,470. There are a LOT of Leaders/Heroes, but the Warscroll builder stops scaling at 2500 "Warhost" level.

I wonder if they will be reducing the points of the Gargants in the new GHB. People complain about gargants falling over when they charge, so a points reduction might "balance" them. Say, 130 points each would let people include 3 in a 2000 point list. OR, maybe it's GW's intention that people can't include all 3 in a "tournament" army, and taking all 3 might be reserved for larger games? Either way, I'll finally have an excuse to finish my zombie giant.

Those bone tentacles/ tails are probably going to be an endless spell from the Forbidden Power set, which is supposed to be all Death-themed.

Is anyone else getting a 404 result when trying to view the warscroll downloads for all the Skaven units on the GW site?

Like Captain Nippon said, it seems lazy. But because of the unit size increments, you'll be left with 2 unusable Horrors or Flayers if you build a Courtier Hero out of the box. You can try to build 3 Courtiers out of one box, using all the models, but the Courtiers use the "champion" bits and there wouldn't be enough in one box to appropriately kit out all three. Probably not much of an issue if you have a large enough collection; If you've combined two boxes into a 6-man unit, you'll have a spare set of champion bits, or you could eventually add up the spare models into a full unit increment. The Crypt Ghast Courtier is a little more egregious though, because it leaves you with NINE spare ghouls. (I guess you could pay points for 10 and field them one short, but still.)

I was thinking about a way they could do it too-- Rather than having a blanket ally with "Soulblight" (which I know they don't want) they could ally with keyword "Fell Bats" and "Bat Swarms." The unit's name is always a keyword, so you can add it to the list of allies to selectively allow specific units to ally in. So, the FEC allies list could read: Deadwalkers, Deathlords, Deathmages, Fell Bats, Bat Swarms. Done and done.

That makes sense if the throne is only set up wholly within the FEC deployment zone. But why would they have built it out in the middle of the board? It's like having a baggage train, and sending it out in the middle of the battlefield while the general ranks up his forces. The throne looks like something that should be in your army's "base camp" which (scenario and/or themed battlefield notwithstanding) would not be halfway between your army and your enemy. Actually, the more I think about it, I hope the throne's rules stipulate that it has to be set up in your own deployment zone (more likely "within your army's territory").

They could even get away with simply allowing the Fell Bats, Bat Swarms, Dire Wolves, Corpse Carts, and maybe Zombies to be part of the FEC. The bats should certainly be in there. And maybe a new kit for plastic bats & swarms could have pulled double duty for the FEC and the LoN units. The FEC range is just SO limited at the moment, it doesn't feel like it's even worth a new Battletome if they're not going to add anything. I agree about the throne. It would look appropriate in the main hall of an ancient catacomb, or at the heart of a FEC settlement built among some crumbling ruins, but most tables will probably just have this random stairway with a bone-throne on it, plopped in the middle of an empty field.

Here's a question: Do the rules for the Mortality Glass Guardian include Pitched Battle profile points? It's a different warscroll, and the NH book only includes points for the "Guardian of Souls with Nightmare Lantern" scroll. (2018 GHB perhaps?)

Beautiful army, Tom!

The problem isn't with the double turn itself, the problem is that whoever finishes deploying first decides the order and potential of the doubles. That's a problem that's not a simple matter of game play, it goes all the way back to list building. Because winning deployment is so important, it encourages building a list with as few drops as possible. By forcing your opponent to take the first turn, they basically won't be in range to do anything effective on their turn, If they move up enough to score any VPs on objectives, they risk being in a position to get charged and then doubled. You'll be able to move up cautiously and position units to both receive their charge if they win the priority or capitalize on your double. If the opponent was reckless, you might even be able to charge turn one. Either way, you have the first opportunity for a double. If you win the roll for turn 2, you can capitalize on the double, or not take the double, in which case you maintain the "2nd player" position. (Note that you can do this for the entire game (dice permitting) denying any double turns at all, simply because you finished deploying first.) If the opponent wins the roll for turn 2, they have the choice to either take a single turn, and remain the 1st player with no opportunity for a double on the next turn, or give you a double turn, which (if you've played correctly) could be devastating for them. So, by winning deployment and going second, you have controlled the double turn until at least turn 3. If you didn't already get a double, you are still the player who will get the first double. Either way, the 1st player cannot get a double until after you have already had one. That is where the problem lies. I don't really mind the double turns, but I would rather see 1st turn decided by a random roll rather than by whoever engineered their list for the fewest drops. It could be a roll-off with +1 for finishing deployment first, and allowing the opponent to seize initiative like 40K, or any combination of that. That would make the strategy more dependent on placement and turn order during the game rather than it ending at the list building stage because I took a Battalion. I want to out-play my opponent, not "out-list" them.

Nope to all of that. It's spelled out pretty clearly under "Allies" on page 76.