Romes

This is usually true, but there are a couple spoiler items that seem like they'd be a pretty big deal. "Which caster is Hellheart on? (since compensating for it is pretty determinate of the movement phase) or "that random hero has sword of anti-heros?" come to mind. The one I would think that most commonly could swing a game is whether or not a character had OTS, as it's common but often there's no room for it and it drastically alters some charge decisions. Anyways, thanks for replying, it sounds like you guys just haven't had it be an issue, which is good to hear. I guess a more technical question is - does this mean on lists that you share you don't include the point totals of units or characters?

You scared me, they just went from 1.14 to 1.14.1. I did a translate on what was changed according to the admin: "No changes other than clogged holes (dual agency, dwarf-scrolls, WE special chars), more comprehensive update will have to wait until after the QFA." I assume dual agency is a mis-translation but don't know what it's referring to.

I guess I mean "as an area" /northern Washington. I've played a lot of GTs over the last couple years and never run into this before so I was curious if this was the norm for you all. How do you control information between rounds? Like, if I finish round one early can I not walk around and watch other games? What if someone has to reveal the kit on their general in a game I'm watching and I play that person next round? If other people finish round one early, is it an issue for them to watch my game? Don't players discuss how their round 1 game went at lunch? Do you just assume that no one mentions a magic item that came up to a friend?

Is it normal for you guys to have closed list tournaments?

Not sure if you're still planning on moving to this list. If so isn't Hellheart an arcane item? If so I don't think the hunter can have it.

I don't really have an issue with re-rolls. When they're built into units they're point costed out, and they tend to reduce variance. Yes a witch elf has poison and lots of re-rolls in a cauldron unit. It's also an 11 point naked elf, what you're paying for is the reliable high number of wounds being put out. Generally re-rolls are on the stuff with the lowest base statline. The only time re-rolls feel like they're "to much" is when they can be used in a way that the unit is not correctly costed for. For example, murderous prowess on a Dread Lord doesn't really increase it's point cost, and at S4 the actual increase in performance is negligible, but when combined with giant blade, you're either re-rolling all fails or on a 3+ re-roll ones, which significant'y improves reliability and you're not really paying for it (note that that you DO pay for it in Swedish!) I don't like Dwarf re-rolls though. Not because they're too good, I don't think they are, but because it is a power difference you pay for and it means in a third of the games your fighting undercosted troops and a third of the games you're fighting overcosted troops. Re-rolls are great when they make things less swingy, not more swingy. Also, I agree that elite stats often Clown re-rolls. This weekend I had 3 SC (with 2 in the front rank and one in the back due to some shenanigans on my part of prevent another charge) get charged by 40 halberds and a warpriest in the flank, he got the re-roll to wound off too. S5 T4 6 attacks a model 1+ armor save. I won combat. Sure SC are really good against infantry, but they're sort of the perfect example of re-rolls not being enough. Unless you can punch through the armor, all the re-rolls in the world aren't going to help. This doesn't mean they're not good, they're just not the one best thing ever, they're a super useful tool that (except for dwarves) are generally part of the cost of the unit. TLDR: much word vomit - re-rolls feel balanced.

I don't have the book on me, I would think it's listed as a particular unit type under the mounts table? However, the base size is never determinate. For example, a disk of Tzeentch is on a 50mil but is a war beast, and thus cav while a daemonic mount on the same base is is a monstrous beast and so monsterous cav. Another example is Tyrion (spelling?) who is a high elf cav lord on a 50 mil, just because that's how GW happened to put out that model on a 50 mil.

Glad to hear it! I'm curious, are you keeping the no armor save weapon know that you know it doesn't interact with poison? I kind of like it anyways.. it's a good idea.

My gaming group uses these with the cardboard removed and "cabinet liner" added. Works well as long as you don't have to take them on a plane or something. And cheap! *seconded on shogun for the actual movement trays! http://www.amazon.com/Snapware-Oranament-Seasonal-Storage-Square/dp/B000630F7E/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1412969494&sr=8-4&keywords=ornament+storage

That's much clearer in text! whew! 1. You can make way with Malekith because. as stated in the thread previously, you can make way through command models. 2. The cauldron gets to fight and is exposed to attack. Note the wording in the FAQ entry I listed above. It's actually written to ensure that the COK get to attack the cauldron rather than the other way around, but what happens is that they fight "across the gap". *edit, 10.2 only indirectly covers it because it's talking about a rear charge. But it's the concept of fighting across the gap what I was getting at. You don't actually have to be in base to base to fight when units can't "go flush".

The unit type doesn't matter, cav was just an example because it is common for cav characters to join infantry units. Characters in units are treated identically whether they are cavalry, monstrous cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous beast, or in this case, chariot. They are either the same unit type as the unit they join, or are not. The difference is that be default, a chariot can't join a unit. Note that being the same unit type is the EXCLUSIVE requirement for look out sir bonus, whereas the base size is the EXCLUSIVE requirement for movement within a unit. Thus a goblin can join a unit of orcs and never move except to either edge event though they're both infantry and a character on a horse can join a unit of warhounds and move freely because of base size but never gets look out sir. The cauldron rules simply allow the chariot to join a unit. Other than than it's unit type, it's just a character on a 60 by 100 which can legally join a unit. This is why you can't shoot a cauldron with BS skill separately and why the cauldrons MR value passes to the unit. *Edit: I probably shouldn't used cav character in infantry as an example because you're talking about a cav unit, which could have been confusing, my bad on the example.

To the best of my understanding the cavalry character would be able to attack "virtually" across the gap here, as per the rules for incomplete ranks. Its possible I'm wrong here, but I don't think so? Also, please see Master's FAQ 10.2 for more on this https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_C3txZLBDaCSUU3QTd2SE1SSTJEa016ODBFX2FvVXZnZDgw/view

Murphy, The language is that the cauldron must be placed in the front center. That does not mean it dos not also occupy other ranks. For example, in a 5 wide warrior block a character on a daemonic mount can occupy both the first and second rank. Also, The screaming bell FAQ is unfortunately not really applicable to the rules for hte cauldron because of a few core differences (and the age of the skaven book and FAQ) One. The bell unit is type unique Two. You can single out the bell unit and target it with shooting, you can't with the cauldron. THree. Other stuff the skaven rules are old and bad. Basically, as far as I can tell, the cauldron is treated just like a cav character joining an infantry unit except in areas where it specifically says it is not (positioning for example).

This is clarified in the master's FAQ that just came out. According to the FAQ, you can make way at the beginning of each round of combat. I know making way in subsequent rounds has been an issue of debate before. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_C3txZLBDaCSUU3QTd2SE1SSTJEa016ODBFX2FvVXZnZDgw/view section 6.18

I'm not sure what you mean here? 1 3 and 5 are all on the cauldron's flank.

Came to say this is correct. You "fight across the gap" regardless of the weird base size. This means that both knights 1 and 2 can target the cauldron and the cauldron can target 1 through 6. This is a really useful tool when using a unit of say, 28 witch elves, horded, with a cauldron. The cauldron will get to fight to the flank.

I'd like to see this too. DE are one of the toughest comped armies. I'm surprised you found a significant hole there. Either that or we have very different interpretations of the term "douche swizzle".

Ha - good point Ok, focus on immediately killing all the knights via KB and the hag via normal wounds/killing blow? Also, even if not killing blow, every attack bypasses the 2+ ward and wounds on 3, just save him for last! 85 is still many!

1200 points? 85 bloodletters, horde (killing blow, unstable rather than breaking from wounds), magical attacks. Malekith is exposed to a minimum of 4.5 killing blow hits per round, they also just straight up do magic wounds on 3s. knights are likewise uncomfortable, hag dies quickly. 85 is many worse if daemons get the charge.

There are pictures. Those would be the smallest models ever if they're on 25mil bases! (nuglings in full plate!)

While I disagree with this particular ruling, I appreciate your explanation of the logic behind it. One thing I've found some people have a hard time getting about the Master's FAQ as a whole is that there will always be something in there you, as an individual, disagree with. Last year I'm pretty sure that each member of the FAQ team themselves didn't agree on at least one thing. However, the process you all are going through is great because it provide a common point of understanding between communities that play a lot of the ambiguous stuff differently. To me, in most (if not all) of the cases which require the FAQs clarification, its far more important to have a set of solid answers you and your opponent can rely on for a smooth game than that you agree with each one. Thanks for the hard work!

I assume it includes special characters in the books that it covers which exceed the normal lord allotment because while it's designed for 2400ish, it is possible to scale up, and it's better to give them an estimated value than none at all. Those costs are going to be the least well defined and are mostly guesswork. =P from the document: "This template is made to work for armies around 2400 points. Armies of points values to far from this will not get very accurate composition scores (2200 to 2600 should be fine). The composition values can be used for many things, some of the more common and tested uses are:" It allows, but does not suggest, applying the comp to much larger games.

I unit of 25 warlocks (+ tax for having MR2 in the army) is 256 comp points. There are certain things swedish effectively bans =P (for good reason!) -32 is pretty impressive though! *edit added a block of 100 witches for 484 comp points. Assuming full command on both I've got 635 points left to play with and I'm at -44! Weeee obscenely sized units. *note, swedish does not support the idea of obscenely sized units.

Are tickets on sale for those events yet? Just wondering if I can't find them or if they're just not up yet. Thanks!

Thatdave, what you're saying makes sense, and at 2800 in my opinion, the distortion isn't bad. But, what is important to be aware of is that there will be some distortion in power level. For example, the soft shooting cap for both DE and HE is 40. That number is based on the game impact of 40 "shots" from each of those armies against 2400 points of opponent. If you were to say, go up to 4800, the soft shooting cap would be so restrictive that BS shooting would be pretty terrible. But, instead of doubling the size of the armies, you're increasing by 25%. So, that means the soft shooting cap will be *slightly* too low. Now, you could say, "well, just change the soft shooting cap to 50." The problem with that is, that not all of the taxes are spelled out that way, the shooting cap is by far the clearest. For example, the artillery point cost chart is designed to apply a "balanced" cost to artillery in a 2400 point game. Well, should that chart change at 2800? Basically every entry that goes up in cost the more of it you take is at a slight disadvantage compared to units with a linear cost scale when you increase the point size of the game. That said, 2800 is not a huge point increase, and I think overall (at least in it's current state) you'd be super happy with the results!