EMMachine

The corerules allow allies from a different allegiance. And the grand Alliance has no restrictions for allies like more specific allegiances have. But it's more likely a narrative thing

Yeah, but this doesn't say that "Brutish Cunning" of the Command Traits and "Up and At'em" Ability of the Ironfist Battalion can't use the rule or that it doesn't work for those two abilities when used in a Great War! Allegiance. It only says that an Ironjaws Army automaticly has those two abilities. Up and At'em allows Mighty Destroyer it for the Big Boss of the Battalion and Brutish Cunning allows it for every Hero that could use the command Trait. Mighty Destroyer itself isn't restricted on any Allegiance.

It should be legal. Most likely an Error in Azyr.

No, the Gaming Book has the following content from the following books. Core rules (Corebook, PDF Download) Rules For endless Spells (Corebook, Malign Sorcery) Pitched Battle Rules (Generals Handbook 2019 without Erratas) Pitched Battle Battleplans (Corebook, Generals Handbook 2018, Generals Handbook 2019) Realm of Battle Rules (Corebook, Malign Sorcery) Artefacts of the Realms (Malign Sorcery) Grand Alliance Allegiance Abilities (Corebook)

Spells and prayers are entirely different things. Prayers are basicly normal abilities. They aren't casted, can't get unbound by wizards and things that affect spells don't affect prayers. It should be possible because the Chaos Lord on Manticore can get the Khorne Keyword. In case of the Artefact, you need at least 1 hero who takes the "Thronebreaker's Torc" which is not the Chaos Lord of Manticore in that case and to take the sword of judgement you need an Battalion (so you get a second artefact)

Actually the Ability Mighty Destroyer itself doesn't say anywhere that it is used in an Ironjawz army. It only refers that it is used on an IRONJAWZ Unit and that only the unit has to be in range of an IRONJAWZ HERO with the Ability. You refering to "Command Abilities" in the Ironjawz Allegiance Abilities, that an Ironjawz Army gets the Command Abilities "Mighty Destroyer" and "Ironjazw Waaagh!" . This allows the rule to all heroes in the Ironjawz Army but doesn't restricted the use of it in "Brutish Cunning" of the Command Traits and "Up and At'em" Ability of the Ironfist Battalion At least I don't see a point that says: Only in such a case it wouldn't work. After the blue marked part isn't in the ability itself the two abilities can use it.

It's part of a problem I have in this thread, too, after they basicly created a new hole last weekend. The Problem with Legion of Grief is that the Allegiance only gives units the Keyword, but not Battalions. And after the FAQs I quoted in my thread above want that the Battalion has the Keyword or is from the same battletome (in that case the Legion of Grief) the Battalion is not part of the Allegiance.

It would fit better into one of the Novel threads but to say that much. It's possible that it was the entire "we are greedy duardin, we are greedy duardin, we have a codex, we are greedy duardin" theme (it's possible that is was inflicted by the Prismatic King) and the point that the book has quite long chapters (not the best thing if you are communter mostly reading while travelling (2-4 hours per day), where you have to find a good starting point for the next part of traveling before leaving the train. I have basicly seen the same problem with the first Realmgate Wars Omnibus Book with the amount of text on the page). It took quite long for me to read Overlords of the Irondragon(and that with the german version). I think it took me between 1-2 months until I finished . I didn't had that feeling with Shiprats (which is with the irondragon crew too). And in comparison I have read Ghoulslayer (the german version) in about 1,5 week nearly only by traveling and have read about 300 of 400 Pages of Hamilcar, Champion of the Gods (there is only an english version) in about 2 weeks. Sadly I have expected that. Well Inferno 4 should be on preorder on saturday, so it will take me 1-2 weeks to find out what AoS Stories are in it. Really hope that there are some of the 16 quickread stories in it that don't have a physical release yet With "The hammer & the eagle: Icons of Warhammer" I have to wait until end of January. I only hope they do not print "Prisoner of the Black Sun" or "Great Red" again after I already have 3 Books with those stories in it (Realmgate Wars Omnibus Volumn 2, Hammerhal & other Stories, Sacrosanct & other Stories)

In my option it should work. The point is. You do not get the Command Ability Mighty Destroyer of the Ironjaws Battletraits. "Brutish Cunning" of the Command Traits and "Up and At'em" of the Ironfist Battalion are basicly 2 abilities that use the same rules as Mighty Destroyer and instead of rewriting the complete ability (maybe except the of the first sentence about command Ability) they referred the Ability and made both rules shorter (and if playing Ironjawz, or both Abilities there is still the restriction that it can't be stacked).

Interesting. I found Overlords of the Irondragon partly quite tough to read compared to other stories but it will be interesting if this book will be a prequel or sequel to it. Another point. Do we have any information what stories will be in "The hammer & the eagle: Icons of Warhammer" and "Inferno 4"?

It's not really labeled an "Orruk battalion". Thanks to the Core FAQ the Battalions have all allegiances of the Battletome. So at the moment a Battalion with Ironjaws Models is a Bonesplitterz Battalion as well because Bonesplitterz is a Faction of the Battletome (so you can basicly play Bonesplitterz in an Ironjaws list without spending Allypoints if they are in a Battalion) 🙄. I have this entire Allegiances and Battalions Problem in this thread here: The rule of the Battalion only uses the rule of Mighty Destroyer (so they don't have to write the same rule twice), it doen't use the Ironjawz Allegiance itself. And it's only a once per turn ability. I think there was a similar case with the Blessings of the Cauldron Ability of the Scrapskuttle's Arachacauldron that let's the wizard know all Spells of the Lore of the Moonclan (which is normally a Gloomspite Gits only lore but the endless Spell is not bound to the Allegiance only to the Keywords of the Wizard. There is nothing in the rule that says that you need a certain allegiance that the rule would work.

I think it's not only the casual manner of rule writing. GW basicly created the entire problem with 2.0 . When we look back to the old rules, the rules for Battalions were quite simple: You can put a battalion in a list where either all units inside the Battalion have the keyword or it matched the Faction of the Battalion All Units inside a Battalion count towards the Allegiance (but if not having the keyword they can't use abilities that require the keyword) With those two points, every single point I said in the first point don't exist because in all monobattaltions there was still the fallback on the Unit Keywords (in that way the Problems with Soulblight, Beasts of Chaos, Defenders of Lethis, Legion of Grief and Orruk Warclans had never existed with the old ruleset). This was the whole reason for the god Battalions of Everchosen which are are even in Everchosen Allegiance mostly unusable because the Everchosen units eat so many points and Marauders and Warriors couldn't fill the battlelines anymore after 2.0 (which is a point I didn't even mention in the opening post). With the idea in 2.0 to restrict Battalions to mostly a single faction + grand Alliance with the FAQ GW basicly created something quite messy because it wasn't wrote in a way that worked at all without the FAQs (because Battalions had simply bypassed the Ally Rules in case of Listbuilding) and with FAQ we have the named cases of above.

Hi, I think we all know the rule mess that is Allegiance + Battalions. For those of you who don't know. Here some of the points that already exist. First of, the corerules itself don't care about battalions in case of allegiance. They only say that units in Battalions don't count towards the number of allies. The Corebook FAQ tried to clear this with those two points: Which basicly kills off how Battalions were used in 1.0 (with the combination that allied units are still allied units, without counting against ally restrictions) With those points they created basicly that Soulblight can't take the "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" Battalion because it is classified as a "Death" Battalion, not a "Soulblight" Battalion. In case of Beasts of Chaos they had to make an Errata for the 4 god Battalions, so they can be used in the god list as well as in a beasts of chaos List (because the 4 chaos God Allegiances weren't part of the Beasts of Chaos Book Defenders of Lethis and Legion of Grief can't get any Battalions because they forgot to write in the text that Battalions get the keyword (but still having the problem in case of Legion of Grief that Deathmarch is a "Death" Battalion, not a "Deathrattle" Battalion. And now with the release of Orruk Warclans, GW created basicly a new hole thanks to their FAQ. As we see in the FAQ above, belong the Battalions to all Factions in the Battletome. So the Ironjawz and Bonesplitterz Battalions belong to Ironjawz, Orruks/Big Waagh! and Bonesplitterz. Which means, that you can basicly put an Ironjawz Battalion into a Bonesplitterz list or vice versa without spending any allypoints because the Battalion is part of the Allegiance. That raises the question (at least it has been mine for years), whether it would have been easier to give the battalions keywords as well, whereby Ironjawz Battalione would have "DESTRUCTION, ORRUK, IRONJAWZ" and Bonesplitterz Battalione "DESTRUCTION, ORRUK, BONESPLITTERZ " With just a minimal change in the basic rules that allied units in battalions do not count against number / points, if the battalion has a the correct alleginace keyword and you would have had beat nearly all the FAQ points battalions in the subject. What is your oppinion to this?

The only stories of Neferata I had so read/listen to so far were "The Dance of the Skulls" and Black Atonement (+ here presence in Spear of Shadows and Soulwars). Listening to Black Atonement I had partly the feeling that she also has "One Bat short of a Belfry" like they named the rule for Konrad von Carstein in the Compendium.

Thats the problem when GW makes FAQs instead of Erratas in such cases.

Here are the FAQ Points @XReN meant, both in the Corebook FAQ:

They are basicly trying to bring the factions on a kind of similar level. The unit I'm a little unsure of are the ardboys (there weapons to be specific). It's nice that they now basicly have the "Big Choppa profile", while hitting better and it helps much with the situation of the weaponary of Standardbearer and Musician, but it took all the thinking about advantages/disadventages of weaponchoice. Before the new warscroll we had to decide if we want 2 Attacks with 4+/3+/-1/1 with the Big Choppa or 2 Attacks with 3+/4+/-/1 and a 6++ Aftersave with Choppa + Shield or 3 Attacks with 4+/3+/-/1 with 2 Weapons. Now we have 2 Attacks 3+/3+/-1/1 on all models and every Shield you give adds another model with the Aftersave but there is no advantage not to take the shield (what was the 3rd Attack or the Rend before)

The orcs and goblins are already legends (they have their legendslist since January 2019 on warhammer community. The thing that will most likely happen in my oppinion is that we will get an Errata in the Generals Handbook 2019 like this: Or update the GA Destruction Errata: Last thing is quite unlikely because they didn't update after Gloomspite Gitz or Gitmob (in last case they simply vanished from the shop and the Generals Handbook) Not really a fan of them either, not because of the casual stuff (I like casual and narrative) but more because the hide halve of their campaigns behind a paywall.

I have the feeling that shadow warriors have more in common with the Shadowblades than the Phoenix Temple (I know the Shadow Warriors have scale armour while the dark riders have chainmail but it is still a more similar theme).

Hi guys, I know that there are at least 2-3 other fanmade Path to Glory versions, where most of them use tables that needed to be refined when points are changed (which is one of the problems the original game is lacking. I just made a version that determines the number of follower slots a champion has and the number of follower slots a unit needs by using the point values of the Pitched Battle Profiles. This first version here Path to Glory Pitched Battle Edition 1.0 has mostly the structure of the original ruleset but it can be restructures later, so that it would more look like the Pitched Battle ruleset or the Skirmish Ruleset from White Dwarf. The rules actually include the use of parts of the Allegiance Abilities (most likely Battletraits, Spells and Prayers), one thing that was never really mentioned in the original rules. One thing I have to do later is most likely to add some of the Champion and Follower Reward Tables that were only in the path to glory book or find another way of Reward. After there are no specified tables the random unit selection is gone too at the moment, and the win condition for adding 5 addtional followers as well (because the game would most likely be over after 6 rounds or everyone is taking a unit everytime). What do you think, where are points that need additional fixing or could this version work without having to much refinement when Points are changed.

After the rules say "wholly within of the unit" the entire unit creates a fieldbubble like said in Fieldcontrol: A unit that covers 12"x1" would have a bubble of 36"x25" where the unit could be fit in. So 1 and 2 are possible.

It is not changed in general. In most cases the rules are changed with an Errata. Here is the Errata for the Aetherkhemist you meant in the Kharadron Overlord Errata. In all cases the wording of the rule is importent if the ability is stackable or not and in case of Murderous Paragon I don't see the case in the wording that multiple CP on one unit would trigger it multiple times. It only enables the ability to attack with models that are slain. It's more interesting when there is an additional ability that let's the model attack again after it has attacked, so this would trigger after Murderous Paragon as well.

@AverageBoss answer. The rules for named Characters only restrict command traits and artefacts.

I would say it is part of the core rules, page 1. returning slain models is basicly a set-up action, so you are forced that they will be a single group at the end.

Some of my projects are paused too at the moment because I'm waiting for the new battletome. The one thing that makes me sad is that GW has basicly killed the "bow profile" 1 Attack, 4+ to Hit, 4+ to wound, no Rend. It was a profile that more or less on all three types (infantry, cavalry, chariots). At the moment we only have the worse looking profile Repeater Crossbows 2 Attacks, 5+ to Hit, 4+ to Wound, no Rend, the Handgun variants, 1 Attack, 5+ to Hit, 3+ to wound, -1 Rend (not on chariots) or the elite archers that hit on 3+ but only can be infantry.