Ring_of_Gyges

I'll notice. I'll notice and tut disapprovingly. Your mother also sent me a quick note saying how disappointed she was in you.

I hate my job, so it's philosophy of language time! I'd vote for the wording being so ambiguous as to plausibly admit of multiple meanings. As a philosophical matter I just don't think that it is the case that all sentences have a definitive meaning that can be determined from the text. Some do of course, but not all. Take my favorite Beatles lyric. It's from Michelle. "I'll say the only words I know that you'll understand." Is there a set of words that he is certain she'll understand? "I know you'll understand" Is there a set of words that he knows, some of which she'll understand. "I'll say the only words I know" I think it's just a philosophical mistake to think one of those readings is correct and the other incorrect as an objective feature of the sentence. One meaning was presumably intended by Paul McCartney or John Lennon, just as one meaning was meant by Games Workshop, but a) we don't know what it is and b) I'm not sure that the intent trumps the actual written word. As support for "b" consider the following. I say "Turn left" meaning "Turn right", I intend for you to turn right, but I just misspeak, a slip of the tongue. The sentence "Turn left" means turn left, despite my intention for my sentence to mean something else. Where does this get us in rules interpretation? I think the best question isn't "which interpretation is slightly stronger than the others" and looking hard at comma placements and subtleties of word choice. I think the best question is "Given that the rule is unclear, what interpretation generates the best games?". In this case the Truthsayer is a decent, but unremarkable bargain for a level 3 or 4 wizard and has access to two lores. Losing access to Wildform takes a bite out of Beasts, it's probably the best spell in the lore. Without it, there isn't another unit augment (there are a bunch of character augments). Given that any army can take a Truthsayer, maybe a lore of character augments and a lore of unit augments (the other lore the Truthsayer can take is Light) is a good deal. Trading Wildform for Transformation just reinforces that dichotomy, which makes the choice between lores more interesting (IMO), so I like 3 from a gameplay standpoint. It makes the choice between Beasts and Light more stark, one can't hedge beasts' character focus with a unit buff, it's all characters for beasts or all units for light.

You get magic resistance against spells, and while miscasts are caused by spells, they've been ruled to not be spells themselves (hence no MR). I'm pretty sure there is a FAQ to that effect somewhere.

That's pretty cute. : )

http://shogunminiatures.com/ Plain flat metal sheets, super cheap, super ferrous, border flanges if you prefer.

I love it. You hit with rolls of X or more, and wound with rolls of Y or more, but killing blow triggers on Z, not Z or more. A natural five becomes a six and a killing blow, but a natural six becomes a seven and not a killing blow.

Pivoting a war machine for extra range is independent of whether it is on a base. People seem to be misunderstanding the practice. Here is what it is: Step 1: Deploy Cannon like so: The red dot is the center of the model, the black line is the edge of your deployment zone. Step 2: When you're turn comes round, take a fee pivot like so: The red dot is still the center and the black line is still the edge of your deployment zone. Because the cannon is longer in one dimension than the other, pivoting around the center moves the barrel a little bit towards the enemy. I used a cannon as an illustration because the image was handy, but the principle is more effectively used on a Hellblaster which has a 24" range and otherwise couldn't hit something deployed against the edge of the enemy deployment zone. The extra inch or so doesn't really matter for a cannon, but it can be handy for a hellblaster.

Ogre, Irongut, & Maneater units which have a standard bearer may buy a look-out gnoblar as a unit upgrade (as can an Ogre BSB). A look-out gnoblar has the following effect: It's an easy mistake to make, but defining ranks as three models rather than five doesn't affect look-out sir. Look out sir is pure number of models, not the presence of one rank.

Boo to unwritten rules and dick punching. Boo I say! NTK asked for a house rule, that's fine by me. Try "A unit may only contain a second rank if it's front rank is at least five models wide in the case of infantry, war beasts or cavalry, or three models wide in the case of monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry, swarms or chariots." Some people like 2x2 monstrous infantry, which would be forbidden under the above, but personally I find them funny looking (the units, not the players. Well, ok, some of the players too, but mainly the units). Easy peasy. If a tournament announced they were instituting that rule, it wouldn't affect my decision to attend one way or the other. What I can't stand is the idea that we don't need to change the rules, we can just get mad when people do things permitted by the rules. I find it infinitely worse sportsmanship to object to an unambiguously legal move than any of the "cheese" examples provided. I don't like en passant, it's an exception to how pawns normally move, it's not necessary, it adds ugly clutter to an otherwise elegant game. That's on me though, my opponents get to make legal moves and play the game we agreed to play not the secret one that only exists in my head. Abnormally narrow units are dishonorable, well except when it's fast cavalry (but maybe only while they're moving), or maybe when its Ogres, well four Ogres, not other numbers , but definitely not if you've got a character in the unit, or if there is a challenge, or if it puts a BSB into the second rank. Single file stubborn units are right out (unless it's a lone stubborn model like a Beast of Nurgle, then it is a redirector and can be in one rank). Pivoting immediately after deployment is fine, or maybe its not, or maybe ok for chariots but not for war machines (or was it vice versa?). It's poor sportsmanship to expect other people to accommodate rules that a) they never agreed to and b) haven't been written down. Boo unwritten rules. If you say "let's play Warhammer", I'm going to assume you mean the rules in the big book that says "Warhammer" on the cover. If you expect me to follow a rule sanity requires you tell me what it is first. If you want to change the rules, knock yourself out, GW isn't owed any special deference, I'm sure there are all sorts of rules changes that would improve the game (I'd like to see flank charges break steadfast for example and while we're at it bring back lapping round). What you don't get to do is change the rules unilaterally mid-game without notice and pretend objecting to surprise Calvin-ball is poor sportsmanship.

My $.02: You have to determine whether the charge is successful or not before moving any models. If (2d6+Movement) is greater than or equal to the distance the charge is successful. BRB p.19 The hero leaves the unit (and drops to move 4) after the charge is determined to be a success. However, "[a] charging unit can move an unlimited amount - it's already been found to be within charge range, so we don't worry about distance from this point on". BRB p.20 I think it is as clear as anything ever is in Warhammer that the charge completes successfully. I've never seen it come up in play, but that is how I would rule it without hesitation.

Each model has a unit type, not each statline. What I mean by that is a Chaos Lord (the statline) isn't anything until all the options are selected. Select no mount and he's infantry, buy him a horse and he's cavalry, buy him a Juggernaut and he's monstrous cavalry, etc... A "Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut" model is monstrous cavalry would get look out sir from other monstrous cavalry. It wouldn't get look out sir from infantry (despite being part Chaos Lord) and wouldn't get it from monstrous beasts (despite being part Juggernaut). The armybook encourages you to think of him as infantry that becomes cavalry or whatnot, I find it tidier to think of him as not having a unit type at all until his mount options are nailed down.

Beastmen, Brettonians, Skaven, and Wood Elves haven't had books for 8th edition. I don't expect Wood Elves, because they seem very difficult to make work in 8th edition. If 9th edition is just around the corner, I'd expect them after that with some BRB changes to make the idea more viable. I'd be unsurprised to see any of the others next though. If it were up to me I'd suggest they redo Brettonia next as the other 8th edition books all work pretty well.

And somehow they manage to offer them at 35 euros for 30 models...

"my armies always look nice at a minimum" may be a bit of an understatement, unless "look nice" is shorthand for "are literally used by GW to show off the range".

Frenzy is a lot better in 8th edition than it was in 7th for a couple reasons. First is that units are generally easier to maneuver and harder to avoid, so leading frenzied troops on a merry chase is harder. Second, it isn't an auto-charge anymore, a leadership test will let you opt not to charge. A +1 leadership banner is revoltingly cheap and either that or a BSB is generally enough to keep them in line. It adds an extra random factor which makes them harder to control, but I think the +1A is worth it.

1) I suspect the "only one character can charge and the rest of the unit sits there" answers are right, but I haven't looked it up. 2) I agree with you. "Etc" is about as vague as one can get, but if something other than weapons is meant to be excluded what else could it be other than magic effects? 3) Tossing the maximum six dice at a spell is very common, the feedback scroll isn't. Since everyone shares dice it is common to only have one wizard (often a level 4), so it would be the only arcane item in the army. Those level four wizards running around everywhere tend to have some sort of ward (4+ is available to everyone) and the one, maybe two wounds, don't trouble them too much. Most of the time you'd rather have a dispel scroll and stop the spell cold. 4) It looks to me like you'd still use the magic lance. Page 501 says if you have a magic close combat weapon you have to use it, and the lance is a magic close combat weapon. I think a weapon that says "+2 strength on the charge and attacks are flaming" for example would be flaming all day long. 5) Trebuchets are super effective, taking two is pretty common. I don't have any experience defending them though. 6) The greater the chance of being turned into a wet smear by Lord Stabby McPointyteeth the greater the honor in killing him!

The more you charge, the more money you make per box. The less you charge the more boxes you sell. There is an ideal point at which you maximize your profits, trouble is you don't know where it is. My guess is that they're a trial balloon to see how that price point does. They hope they'll make more by increasing the profit per box than they'll lose through lost sales. If they're right, expect to see lots of $60 kits to follow.