EMMachine

It's basicly the only way, to restrict the game that there aren't only hordeunits on the field (except for cases like Clanrats what only have 20 or 40 models)

In case of Free People, it is partly the same. I have wrote a list in the Free People Thread: where basicly everything except for the hero is battleline it I would play Free People Allegiance.

It's kinda funny. I have build my Alarielle worhsipping tribesmen on optics and things that could work with the tribeslore alone, not on optimising on effectivity. But my list I have at the moment would be playable in Meeting Engagements (even I'm quite unsure, what unit should be in spearhead, mainbody or rearguard): Leaders Battlemage (120) Freeguild General (100) - Shield & Sigmarite Weapon Battleline 10 x Freeguild Archers (100) 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields Units 3 x Demigryph Knights (140) - Lance and Sword 10 x Freeguild Greatswords (140) Total: 920 Okay, considering that non of the units I use won't hopefully get more expensive, with some additions a planed 1000 point list would more likely look like this: Allegiance: Free Peoples Leaders Freeguild General (100) - Shield & Sigmarite Weapon Battlemage (120) - Specialisation: Jade - Allies Battleline 3 x Demigryph Knights (140) - Lance and Sword 3 x Demigryph Knights (140) - Lance and Sword 10 x Freeguild Archers (100) 10 x Freeguild Archers (100) 10 x Freeguild Greatswords (140) 10 x Freeguild Guard (80) - Spears and Shields 10 x Freeguild Guard (80) - Spears and Shields Total: 1000 Extra Command Points: 20 Allies: 120 / 400 Wounds: 84 But it's interesting that I created a playable list for a system I didn't even know it would exist. 😀

Perhaps Deepkin has do go with MSU deployment so you have 6-7 units and field 3-4 Units in the Spearhead and fast stuff in Main and rear.

A little additional modelbuilding for myTribesmen. The bodyguard of the chieftain, 10 Greatswords So this army looks like that now: Leaders Battlemage (120) Freeguild General (100) - Shield & Sigmarite Weapon Battleline 10 x Freeguild Archers (100) 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields Units 3 x Demigryph Knights (140) - Lance and Sword 10 x Freeguild Greatswords (140) Total: 920

Hm, I really would like to give my Tribesmen some mounted Archers (most likely Stags from Wildriders). But if I want them as Free People there is not really a fitting warscroll. The closest thing in case of Range Free People have are "Freeguild Outriders" but the Profile of the Repeater Handgun is too strong for Bows. In Grand Alliance Order there were these too: Mounted Yeomen (from Bretonia, but its a Legasy unit that is quite weak in case of Bravery. Reavers (Swifthawk Agents, that would be perhaps be the closest profile) Let's see if there are some changes in the Generals Handbook with the Free People Allegiance, after it isn't a good allegiance, so this with the reaver warscroll could be an option (let's hope GW doesn't remove them like they did with the Poison Wind Mortar, after it was a Spire of Dawn Box only release) . Or I would have to write my own warscroll like I did with the Maidenguard or my Brotherhoods of Korhil. This option has the adventage that I could bring the units closer to the Tribes theme, but it would be unofficial like the other two, and if I want to put them on the battlefield I need the agreement of my opponent.

You look for every role seperatly, so you roll the other 3 dice, and if you would roll 4 times 6 you would make 4d3 mortals wounds

In that case it would be that all models have to be complete in range, but this is mostly counting for close combat because there is also the Obstacles Rule (and most terrainfeatures are Obstacles), where all models habe to be within 1" to get cover and behind it, against Missile Attacks.

Does anyone remember the tribal warriors in the beginning who worship Alarielle? I made a little tinkering and the fraction increased a little bit (but not yet with 1000 points) Points wise it now looks like this. Allegiance: Free Peoples Leaders Freeguild General (100) - Shield & Sigmarite Weapon Battlemage (120) Battleline 3 x Demigryph Knights (140) - Lance and Sword 10 x Freeguild Archers (100) 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields 20 x Freeguild Guard (160) - Spears and Shields Total: 780 1 Chieftain (Freeguild General) 10 Archers ( I have received the bows from Ungors, which I actually don't know had been how long in the sprue, but only assembled today ) 208/5000 3 Demigryph Knights (The Gryphchargers of the Vanguard Palladors I still had from the plague war box). The acolytes run in some cases so broad-legged that you can place them in the saddle. 😀 Another plan would probably be 10 more Archers (for which I still need a box of Ungors) and a second unit Demigryph Knights (would still ne unit Vanguard-Palladors needed). Kairic Acolythes, heads and other parts that are needed, I should have enough. Unfortunately, it would currently be 1020 points, but let's see what the new Generals Handbook still brings in terms.

In this case it is actually the question if GW realized this. I mean, the rule is mostly unchanged (except for the 4+ requirement) since the first Generals Handbook (2016). And the first Generals Handbook hadn't the rule yet, that the generals mount doesn't profit.

Even if we have multiple modifiers on the Move Characteristic, the Soulsnare shackles would come first because of point before line. There is also a question in the Rules FAQ Page 6. Edit: Okay, I had overlooked that @Isotop posted this part of the FAQ already.

After Nick Horth is the writer of "Thieves Paradise" my guess would be that it is a story with "Shev Arclis" who was also in Callis and Toll: The Silver Shard

I have more the feeling it could be the other way around. That the Battletome Sylvaneth is Delayed because of the Generals Handbook. I mean, there was this ruleleak (most likely from the Appleversion) where the "Awakening Wyldwood" or how it is called is build of 3-6 Citadel Woods, and it sounded like the Citadel Woods would be the fencelike Treepieces. At the moment the Generals Handbook has rules for the Citadel Wood bases with the three trees, and it could be easier waiting until the new GHB comes out (where perhaps the Scenary rules for the Citadel wood are removed or renamed than having two warscrolls with the same name for 1 month).

@Skabnoze, @Drib The Question is, if a british company (where they most likely use Inch as measuringunit instead of millimeters) really realizes that Inch to mm is 25,4 or if they simply thought 1" = 25mm and tested it this way. (and it is one year, GW has measuring from bases for AoS, in the time before it was measuring from modelparts or being in Basecontact) Its only about the statement "The GW trays are bad because I can't max out my 25mm Base models" Perhaps it wasn't intended to maxout the attacks of 25mm base models and we are only playing it this way because of measureunit conversion.

Basicly yes. If a Command Ability is limited the ability states it. For example with sentences like these:

There is also not really much room for release. The LARP-Trailer from May stated July 2019, so it is either release day or start of Pre-Order on July 20, 2019 (because July 27, 2019 is the last releasesaturday of July).

If GW even realized this possibilty or choose basesize on optic alone. Many new models do have 32mm. New models on 25 mm are quite rare. You mentioned Gloomspite Gitz. Squig Herds and Squig Hoppaz had the same Basesize in WHFB (20 mm Square) but Hoppaz got 32 mm Bases. Grundstok Arkanauts have 25 mm while Grundstok Thunderers have 32 mm. I really don't know if GW itselfs tests 25mm Units with an additional rank.

I think there was a part of FAQ about allocating wounds but only found this one at the moment that was for another case. I would say 14, becasue after the model is slain, you can't allocate more wounds to it.

Sounds more like the fixation on '25mm is < 1" so I get more attacks' is the main problem here.

Yeah, the thing with the Black Coach is really a bad thing. I don't know if I get you right here (in case of Soulblight it should also be "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" not "Deathmarch" We are speaking of this part of the FAQ: The Problem is, with this FAQ in mind, a Deathmarch Battalion having the Deathrattle Keyword instead of Death could be used nicely in a Deathrattle Army or a Death Army because of the blue marked part, but you can't use it in 2.0 in a Deathrattle Army because of the Death Keyword. Because the Death Keyword is another Allegiance than Deathrattle, so anything inside the Battalion becomes an ally. The Legions do not care because Legions of Nagash shares the Legion Keyword to a Battalion, so if I choose Legion of Sacrament and want to use the Deathmarch Battalion the Battalion gets the Legion of Sacrament Keyword and becomes a Legion of Sacrament Battalion. And if they wouldn't have forgot the part about giving the Legions of Grief Keyword to Battalions too, The Legion of Grief in Forbitten Power would have Access to the Deathmarch Battalion if the Battalion had the Deathrattle Keyword. Why can't it simply be Deathrattle + an Undead Constructions faction with a special allegiance (basicly like the Legions). Why does it have to be a second faction with the same units.

The fact, that the change of the Allyrules in case of battalion let me doubt about the point that LoN was written for 2.0 If it would be the case"Deathmarch" would be a Deathrattle Battalion and "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" would be a Soulblight Battalion. It makes no sence that they are Death Battalions, because even with the Deathratte or Soulblight Keyword, they would be Death Battalions as well. The Battalions were clearly written for the old rules, where you could choose the Allegiance of the Battalion or all units inside the Battalion, not the new rules were all units inside the Battalion become allies, if the Battalion doesn't match the Allegiance. GW should at least change this with an Errata, if they are not getting a new book. I don't even play LoN but those Battalions shouldn't be limited to the Grandhost + 3 Legions. They should be playable in there own Allegiance without houseruling.

The definition of "wholly within" is in the rulebook FAQ on warhammer community. Sadly GW forgot the specification in the corerule as it looks like (besides twice it is mentioned to use. @ElectricPaladin I think I would simply play smaller units if I want to get wholly within buffs from.

"Unit wholly within" means, every model has to be completly within range, not only a small bit.

Even I'm not a LoN Player I would say yes. And those are my reasons. The Death Allegiance is printed into the book (and should be outdated by the Rulebook 2.0) There is no uniting keyword (except the optional Legions) in the Legions of Nagash Battletome (like for Beasts of Chaos, Gloomspite Gitz or Skaventide). For example Royal Terrorgheist and Royal Zombiedragon do only have the Death Keyword Nighthaunt units aren't up to date anymore after the Errata is telling us that we should use those from the Nighthaunt Battletome Nighthaunt Units had to be added to Legions with the Errata "Deathmarch" is a Death Battalion instead of a Deathrattle Battalion "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" is a Death Battalion instead of a Soulblight Battalion (which makes it impossible to use in a Soulblight Allegiance Army). The main problem with the last two points is, that Allegiance worked different in the old edition, after you could either take the Allegiance of the Battalion or the Allegiance of the units within the Battalion. Now with the rules that units become allies when the battalion doesn't have the right keyword it hurts mostly those two battalions (especially after it is needless making them Death-Battalions after they would be Deathbattalions as well if they where Deathrattle/Soulblight Battalions) It is understandable that the Battletome was a little cruid, after it was the first mixed keyword battletome. As for the Legions. Instead of the following ruling: It would be better the units that could be part of the legions would be more Keyword based (like in the Legion of Grief, where they sadly forgot the battalions.

They had to do the Errata because normally mounts wouldn't be affected by the rule. The problem is, you can't split the activation of a unit. If Savage Strike would only have count for the general itself, the Terrorgheist or Zombiedragon would't be able to attack the entire game because the general is forced to attack at the start of the combatphase.