Then why would GW bother to go the extra mile to define a retreat in the rule without directly stating that the action can only be done when retreating or some related synonym? I'll give it to you that my friend is generally under the impression that retreating is not a normal move in itself, but barring any significant update to the core rules, Ride of Ruin doesn't do Blood Knights any favors, especially in the manner that GW intended (that is, running over screens to get at units behind them.) Besides, when having to choose each turn between unloading each model's total attacks (charge or not) vs inflicting d3 mortal wounds per tagged unit during a retreat, there are very few circumstances where that decision will ever be in favor of inflicting mortal wounds.
Using that same logic you could argue why didn't GW just put "this unit can still charge in that turn" or something like that, as it does with all other scenarios that allow retreat and charge. As mentioned in my original post, I believe this specific wording is to future proof it. "Retreat" will mostly likely refer to specifically a charge reaction in 3.0 while there will be some kind of "if a unit starts a normal move within 3" it can not shoot or charge later in the phase" type of language to refer to what we currently call a "retreat." Also, as mentioned before the ability is probably very useful assuming they do get retreat and charge through some other means which I see as a pretty likely scenario. If your friend is under the impression that a retreat is not a normal move he should check the faq I linked above or the core rules where it is explicitly and without question defined as a normal move. If you don't define a retreat as a normal move it also means all mentions of "make a normal move" no longer allow you to retreat which, as mentioned, creates a lot of really wonky interactions.
I would certainly hope that they clarify that a lot better than currently presented. The first paragraph regarding Enemy Units and Retreats states that when a unit makes a normal move, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy model. The paragraph immediately after runs counter to this ruling by stating that a unit starting a normal move within 3" must either choose to remain stationary or retreat. Call me a rules lawyer here, but the prerequisites for the latter statement would not be feasibly possible without a separate ruling that circumvents the first one (either by superceding it or by defining it as a separate move type altogether) instead of the conflicting catch-all we currently have.
Which is why I posted the FAQ earlier that elaborates on what specifically a "normal move" entails and the rules that govern it. That, in conjunction with what is laid out in the core rules, actually makes it a relatively well defined part of the AoS rules (if you can call any part of GW's rules well defined...) and quite intentionally includes a "retreat" as falling under the umbrella of "normal moves." The problem is that they use 'normal move' as a referential term and not a specific term. For example "make a normal move" isn't one specific thing you're doing. It's a range of things you can do (retreat, run, move) that all fall under "how does this model move in the movement phase" sort of broad umbrella definition. I think you have to always assume path of least resistance. If blood knights could retreat and charge, why not simply state they can retreat and charge? I don't have a great answer for this. The other question is, if this counts as a retreat, why not call it a retreat? This question can have several answers. A) The terms are interchangeable as defined by the Core Rules and subsequent FAQ. or/and B) There is further developments in 3.0 that will make this specific language clearer. Since we already know charge reactions will be a thing and "retreat" was a charge reaction from fantasy, its not outlandish to assume that they are isolating that language of "retreat" to that charge reaction in 3.0. That interpretation also avoids the strange situation that comes from trying to separate a "retreat move" from a "normal move." If those are separate actions, it creates A LOT of interesting scenarios for the several rules that allow "normal moves." For example, it means the hero phase move from FEC's Royal Mordants battalion can no longer be used to retreat... which seems to directly contradict what the FAQ outlines. Simply put, the type of interpretation your friend is implying creates a lot of other problems if you extrapolate that same logic to the rest of the game.
Well, to be fair this is clearly a 3.0 army book still dealing with 2.0 rules. This could be perfectly clear when 3.0 drops /shrug. I doubt it, but it could
Lol i don't disagree with you there. It was a ridiculous statement to make regardless because its just clearly, clearly, CLEARLY never going to happen haha.
Mwha, spirit gale has potential with their ability to cast twice. In general, the fact that they might trigger twice seems key for these spells. Curious how likely they are to reach the required 9+ casting roll. If triggering that double cast is reliable then it's not that bad. If the double cast is rare then this is quite underwhelming. Soulpike seems like it could have potential against the right opponents. A destruction army would be suffering a lot of wounds with something like this. Vile transference is odd, shouldn't that also deal damage? Not a whole lot of transference like this. O companions are a new keyword. His spell seems powerfull. The teleport seems kind of annoying to face, another unit that can't be tied down in a meaningfull manner...
very good as in very good because it seems to be a correct and balanced cost, or very good in that it is a great deal for their abilities?
a great deal for their abilities. they are faster more durable deal more damage and are cheaper then our stegadons and the buffs you can put on them are crazy. they have access to a 12" aura +1 to hit wound command ability and several perma buffs if they kill the right types of units. im a big fan of these guys
Thats the way 40k has done it so its probably going to be. They are trying to make the rules as similar as possible.