thatdave

I'm with Raindog. Though I doubt mine will ever be truely finished either....

BONUS: it can be sent out for in-game "refreshment" runs!

AgentP and Kremmet have it right.

I am intrigued as well.

Wait....What's this 'pilgrim' unit you speak of? Is it for the Warhammers? Prove it! What book is it in?

The 20-nil system isn't used in my area. We play win/loss/draw with the standard 100 vp differentiation.

I had a spotted nurgle leak yesterday. I thought it was only going to be air - turns out it was a bit...more moist than that.......

I don't think 20 Saurus will hold up long. Maybe with some Life buffs, but I suppose Soulblight could help them. Death is obviously a good lore, but I'm not seeing a lot of synergy with your list generally speaking. Dropped LD and some panic tests, but not a lot else. Besides the typical sniping. A lot if dodgy units (evasive) and shooty, but I don't see a lot if meat in the list frankly. Having said that I do think it could do well in some matchups, though not so well in others. Edit: not much advice I realized (sorry), but I don't know what your model pool looks like nor the play style you have in mind. Those two pieces of information would help in offering something constructive.

Assuming they are valid issues and not just 'I don't like it'.

My suspicion is that GW will indeed put out books like these for 9e. My doubt is that they will be these End Times books. My bet is that there will be new and similar books, with a similar price tag.

There does seem to be some ebb and flow, with the 'Official Rules' camp gaining some momentum. I think GW is putting this out there and gauging the community and the acceptance (or not) as a precursor to 9e. Just my opinion, but that's what my gut is telling me b

I'm with you AgentP. Nurgle this, Nurgle that, blah, blah, blah. I wish it would all just wander off and rot already! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!

What unassembled models do you have? I have a bit of Lizardmen left. Are you looking for particular items or starting fresh?

Good on ya both! I will say that reforming changes the situation vs. a making way scenario, obviously. I will have to reread some posts and make sure I didn't misinterpret something that led me to believe we were discussing something we weren't. Hypothetically, let's say you failed your leadership test to reform. That would have forced the Cauldron into BtB with the flanking unit, correct? I know the CoB rules state that it must be placed in the center of the first rank, but if there are only two models it would occupying as much of, and as close to, the middle as possible.

Yeah, I didn't think about the corners 'contact' with 5. You are correct.

I think, as the majority if the internet community seems to view the End Times as a campaign that will lend it's history to the 9E and not an army book per se, the point is moot. Until then I say no way, as it says TK army and the ET:N replaces army wide rules. Doesn't seem right to me to be cherry picking rules. There's some saying about having your cake and eating it too that may apply here.

Wouldn't the Cauldron only be able to attack knights 1 and 3 as Supporting Attacks cannot be made to the flank?

Also, per the "Make Way!" rules on page 100 the character has to make his move at the beginning of the combat, before Impact Hits even. So I also agree that the later round move was not played correctly.

Shouldn't knights 1 and 2 have fought against the Cauldron per the "Incomplete Ranks" on page 49?

I'll need to check more into it as well as I think I didn't read it correctly either.

I concur on both counts.

Nothing is settled yet, as has been said. There is an OFCC 2015 ideas thread in the OFCC forum. Go there and voice your opinion Here: http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/22739-ofcc-2015-ideas/

Daemons don't sparkle!! Vampires do!

I've been looking at 2400/2600/2800 point lists. Nothing has been announced for OFCC 2015 yet and I am keeping my options open. I imagine that lists will be comped at the normal SwedeComp values at whatever point level is settled on. I don't think the comp values are distorted enough to warrant modification of the values. If anything, I feel like 2600-2800 point lists using standard SwedeComp will result in lists being steered towards the softer side. Which fits well with the OFCC goals I think.