The Procession of the Enixian Duskhaunt

8 hours ago, Tamachan said:

Great article and interesting insights.

I found that at times, the likelihood statements were slightly confusing or might be even wrong, though.

Let's take this example:

 

How did you calculate the 33% increase from a 6+ to a 5+ safe? It's either a 50% increase in relative terms (twice as likely to roll a 5+ than a 6+ terms) or a lot clearer in absolute terms a 33% chance to save instead of a 16.6% chance to save. I think to talk about percentages in absolute terms would be clearer in your text.

Keep up the great work.

The chance to roll a 6 on a single six-sider is 16.6%. The chance to roll a 5+ on a single six-sider is 33.3%. It is a total chance of 33% to make the save on any given throw. That is an absolute increase of +16.6%, and relative increase of 50%.

But, to tell someone they will take either 16.6% or 50% less damage isn't accurate since a player won't be looking at an individual dice throw and would be looking at the total dice they have to roll once their standard saves have failed, a number that is a variable. Assuming the player reading my guide is a beginner (like I was) and would just like to know what to expect with a better save as they toss 3, 4, 5, or more dice hoping for that 5+ Frienzied save, saying you're increasing your chance TO 33% for damage negation is accurate.

Does that make sense? With Mathhammer we have to be careful not to see the forest for the trees.

15 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

 Assuming the player reading my guide is a beginner (like I was) and would just like to know what to expect with a better save as they toss 3, 4, 5, or more dice hoping for that 5+ Frienzied save, saying you're increasing your chance TO 33% for damage negation is accurate.

Stating it as an increase TO 33% is correct - regardless of whether you are a beginner or not - and regardless of how many dice you roll. 😉

I couldn't get this from your statement "Just how much more saving is that? Why it's 33%. In a game of dice and random numbers, giving two of some of your best units a 33% increase in the chances of just totally ignoring incoming damage is nothing to scoff at."

 

Okay, point taken. I'll reword it.

Please don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your work on this very comprehensive guide. However, I have to get back to some numbers, as they seem implausible to me. Let's work on this to further Nagash's realm! 🙂

Quote

Glaivewraith Stalkers: You've got, like, 30 of these, right? Sorry about that. They shoved handfuls of these in Storm Strike, Tempest of Souls, and Soul Wars starter sets, so most players will have an abundance of these guys. I won't harp on them and say they're literal trash, they can be converted into Reapers after all, but they aren't great. They do have some redeeming qualities to keep in mind; they are cheap, come in units as small as 4, have 2" range that can add up if you have a lot of them, they can retreat and charge in the same turn, and re-roll failed hits if they've charged or been charged. Despite this, they will do a massive 50% less damage than Bladegheists if the gheists charged that turn. Worse, this gap only lessens to 30% if Bladegheists didn't charge. Their battalion, Death Stalkers, doesn't help this situation much either, buffing that 50% deficit to 30% of charging Bladegheists (or breaking even if the 'gheists didn't charge), but only to one enemy unit for the entire game. You really might want to convert these or wait for them to get a Dolorous Guard of their own.

I agree that the unit underperforms, but I am not sure, in which scenario you calculated the 50% less damage of Bladegheists? If you quote numbers like these it's good to be transparent about your assumptions (How many Bladegheists vs. how many Glaivewraith Stalkers, attacking a unit with which armor save).

This page allows to create exact scenarios with fancy graphs: https://aos-statshammer.herokuapp.com/

Otherwise it's probably best to leave out exact numbers.

Quote

The Emerald Host: The only super-battalion I'll get into detail here, this is the third of the offerings from White Dwarf. I only want to point this out because it's cheap, and requires no more than the taking of both battalions above to unlock it. What it does is give an enemy hero of your choice a permanent -1 save from all attacks that target that hero. This can be devastating on the right target, bringing some enemy's +2 save up to a +3 and netting a whole 50% more potential damage on it. Also note that this debuff comes from all sources that are "attacks," not just from your army. In most cases, that might not make much of a difference, but in a team or multiplayer game, you just brought a powerful debuff everyone benefits from. And, though I'm not aware of any abilities acting this way if your enemy can damage themselves for a buff and that counts as an attack, well that's debuffed as well. This, a CP, artefact, and one-drop option on the other two battalions above? Not bad. Not bad at all.

Did not understand how bringing up a save from +2 to +3 leads to "50% more potential damage". It leads to 16.6% more potential damage.

 

Quote

Shademist: Since, as an army, we will want to focus on staying alive, and in the fight, Shademist is likely the superior spell for any wizard who's not Reikenor or Lady Olynder. Maybe even if they are. Casting on a 6, a Nighthaunt unit wholly within 12" gains a buff of -1 to wound rolls for all attacks that target that unit. Not a lot of abilities buff wound rolls out there, so this tends to be a harder counter to taking damage than -hit effects. And, having it doesn't preclude Mystic Shield or All-Out Defense from also being used for extra protection. To give you an idea of how powerful this is, a reduction of 1-to-wound is about 25% less damage on average coming in.

This is likely the same mistake here. Reducing 1 to wound is not 25% but 16.6% less damage incoming. 

 

Quote

Spectral Lure: Guardian of Soul's unique spell - D6 wounds must be healed if possible, otherwise worth of models returned to any unit wholly within 24". Probably the very definition of risk-vs-reward for us you have here the potential of returning a full 6 models to a 1-wound unit, or even up to 2 Spirit Hosts, to a unit allllll the way over there, but on a spell that requires a 6 to cast, can be unbound, and only one attempt to cast it no matter how many GoS's you have. This would be downright amazing if it could cast on a 4, especially when comparing it to everything else listed here, but the best you will be able to do about that is spending an artefact slot on Wychlight Lantern to get a +1. As an aside, the other Guardian of Souls artefact, Beacon of Nagashizzar, can add +3 to the models/wounds returned to a unit. Still, if you're going to give the GoS any artefact the Wychlight is statistically more sound (+30% chance to cast a spell vs. +3 models).

You usually cast Spectral Lure on a 6+. Having a +1 bonus turns this into a 5+. This means you improve from a 72.2 probability to 83.3 probability. How do you get to a +30% chance to cast the spell?

Quote

All-Out Attack: If you have the Command Points, re-rolling 1s to hit can be a snap damage boost. This is best when used when you're going to throw 15+ attacks (that's about where the +50% damage threshold is), or any units that'd like to see more 6's.

Didn't understand what 15+ attacks has to do with +50% damage threshold. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Again, just working to improve the guide.

4 hours ago, Tamachan said:

This is likely the same mistake here. Reducing 1 to wound is not 25% but 16.6% less damage incoming. 

This is an English discrepancy not a maths one. If previously your opponent wounded on a 3+ but now wounds on a 4+ you have reduced the incoming damage by 25%.

 

22 minutes ago, Spears said:

This is an English discrepancy not a maths one. If previously your opponent wounded on a 3+ but now wounds on a 4+ you have reduced the incoming damage by 25%.

 

Oh, I see where you getting at. The problem/confusion with this statement is that it needs an absolute base to be calculated. (That's why I prefer to express probability statements as percentages based on a D6, i.e. increasing the wound roll for the enemy is a 16.6% reduction of the likelihood to wound.)

In your example specific example of wounding on a 4+ instead of 3+ this is a 25% reduction of damage indeed. That does not work for a reduction from 4+ to 5+ or 2+ to 3 though. Therefore the statement that increasing the wound roll by 1 reduces incoming damage by 25% is not correct in many cases. Does that make sense? That's what confused me.

Which presumably is why the op has written "To give you an idea of how powerful this is, a reduction of 1-to-wound is about 25% less damage on average coming in." 

 

52 minutes ago, Spears said:

Which presumably is why the op has written "To give you an idea of how powerful this is, a reduction of 1-to-wound is about 25% less damage on average coming in." 

 

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply. How does that connect to my post?

56 minutes ago, Tamachan said:

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reply. How does that connect to my post?

Because it qualifies the 25% as being About and Average. It's a beginners guide and the maths is sufficient for what is being illustrated, although i do think some of the numbers might just be wrong. 

I'm going to take the time to go through each of the concerns here, but before I do let me give a general disclaimer about my position about all these statistics:

First, I'm not going into this being defensive. There were a couple good catches here that I will use to update my guide. However, since I will be throwing out some numbers here it is going to look like I'm trying to defend my points with math, and that can seem harsh. That is not my intention. It's just for clarity.

And second, be careful of mathhammer.

I don't know of an easier or faster way to kill your enjoyment of the game than to mathhammer it into the ground. By adhering to statistics and math over your enjoyment of the game you will often find yourself in situations where your statistically-perfect unit or army gets inevitably shafted by dice probability or your own tactical mistakes stemming from those numbers. There is a danger to succumbing to a general smugness that comes from thinking you are starting from a superior advantage. I am not saying anyone here correcting me is being smug, but I am speaking from personal experience that trying to math every move is a frustrating waste of time, taxes your enjoyment of the game, and makes you less fun to play against. This is not to say that you shouldn't learn and know your army and know its strengths and weaknesses--you absolutely should--but please make sure you are enjoying your time with the hobby first and foremost, and that everything else comes second. /soapbox

Okay, now on to my self-defense.

8 hours ago, Tamachan said:

I agree that the unit underperforms, but I am not sure, in which scenario you calculated the 50% less damage of Bladegheists? If you quote numbers like these it's good to be transparent about your assumptions (How many Bladegheists vs. how many Glaivewraith Stalkers, attacking a unit with which armor save).

I used https://aos-statshammer.herokuapp.com/ just like you did. What likely skews our agreement here is unit size, using all available buffs on the warscroll, and the enemy save. Whenever possible I try to skew my statistics and math to real-world expectations and point-to-point comparisons.

In this case, a single model of Bladegheists vs a single model of Glaivewraiths, if you enable all the buffs on each (charged and ST on 'geists, charged on 'wraiths) is 25% more damage for the 'geists against a 4+ save.  But at max unit size, 20 for the 'gheists and 16 for the 'wraiths, the 'geists will do 66.24% more damage assuming all the models could attack, which isn't a realistic scenario. However, 10 'ghests who can all attack, and 12 'wraiths who also all can attack, which both cost the same amount of 180 points, is a difference of 49.36708860759494 damage. Granted, I rounded up instead of down to 49.4%.

8 hours ago, Tamachan said:

Otherwise it's probably best to leave out exact numbers.

Exact numbers have a way of not being exact. As I said above, any change of the variables involved, sample size, or even replication size can skew the results. Very few people who mathhammer actually use statistically sound biases and frequently find themselves subject to something called "P-hacking" whether they mean to or not. In order to prevent that as much as I can for myself, I try to stick to comparisons that are likely to show up on the board or be a factor in people's lists. For example, point-for-point comparisons because most people will wonder what to do with 200 points and not 20 vs 16 models, and reasonable expectations of how many of those models will actually be doing something, which I will get into below. I'm just trying to offer "back of the napkin" math and do so only in areas where it illustrates the point.

8 hours ago, Tamachan said:

Did not understand how bringing up a save from +2 to +3 leads to "50% more potential damage". It leads to 16.6% more potential damage.

This is likely the same mistake here. Reducing 1 to wound is not 25% but 16.6% less damage incoming. 

You usually cast Spectral Lure on a 6+. Having a +1 bonus turns this into a 5+. This means you improve from a 72.2 probability to 83.3 probability. How do you get to a +30% chance to cast the spell?

Didn't understand what 15+ attacks has to do with +50% damage threshold. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Again, just working to improve the guide.

It's 50% more damage that gets through the save based on the pior examples. Not your rolls, theirs. Which is a sliding scale. +2 to +3 is 50%. +3 to +4 is 25%, +4 to +5 is 20%. It's the end-result we're looking at here.

As for Spectral Lure, casting is two dice needing to meet or exceed a base value. In this case 6. The probability of a 6 or higher appearing on two dice is 

6	13.89
7	16.67
8	13.89
9	11.11
10	8.33
11	5.56
12	2.78

 or a total of 72.22%, like you say. Dropping that cast to a 5+ adds 11.11% to that pool, making it 83.3%. Again, just as you say. Until you factor in the unbind attempt. Those 72% and 83% chances are for your roll, now you have to see if an opponent can snipe it and unbind you. Assuming you made the exact roll you needed to make to cast each time (6) then your opponent needs to roll a 7 to beat your roll, no matter your bonus. They'll have a 58.34% chance to undo you. If you add this in, then your actual chances of getting the cast off is 72-58=14% for the 6 and 83-58=25% for the 5. So, you have a 25% chance at getting the spell through with the +1. So, if I were to correct it I would drop the 30% statement I made down to 25%, which I can do. And honestly, I got the original 30% from TellTaleNoob. I assumed I could shorthand it by stealing his stat.

And lastly, the 15 attacks statement. This one I need to go back and reword for sure. I don't mean that All-Out Attack will increase your damage by 50%. I'm trying to say that spending a CP on All-Out Attack will be worth more on units that can throw out more attacks in general, and that I personally don't like spending it on units that won't be throwing out at least 15, because 15 seems to be the breakpoint of reasonable attacks you can actually get to throw and is 50% more damage than if you threw any less. 

In before that gets challenged, here is my math on it. Let's assume that you have Y unit with X number of attacks and no other buffs. You may or may not have various ways of increasing the number of X, like the Knight of Shrouds on steed's CA or Bladegheists charging. 10 Bladegheist attacks will average 2.96 wounds against a 4 save. 15 attacks will average 4.44 wounds. That's 50% more. For Spirit Hosts, let's say you had 12 vs 18 attacks. 12 is an average of 2.5 wounds and 18 is an average of 3.75 wounds. Again, 50%. This will hold true across most units that have ways of generating both below and above 15 attacks, making it the breakpoint. So, if you want to know where to spend a KoSoES CA, look for places to push the number of attacks to at least 15. And if you are looking for where to spend CA on All-Out Attack, don't waste it on units who will be attacking less than 15 unless it's all you've got (and aren't spending the CP on charge re-rolls instead).

3 hours ago, Spears said:

Because it qualifies the 25% as being About and Average. It's a beginners guide and the maths is sufficient for what is being illustrated, although i do think some of the numbers might just be wrong. 

Which ones? I want to be as accurate as I can, even if I am glossing over how I get there for the sake of the reader.

I really appreciate the time that you took to answer my questions. I absolutely agree on your caution about mathhammer and I am not trying to accuse you of being defensive. My point was that IF people engage in mathhammer it's important to do it right or when assumptions are made to make them transparent. The latter point helps to make sure that I understand you correctly.

@ Blade Gheists vs. Glaivewraith Stalkers: Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense to me.

Quote

It's 50% more damage that gets through the save based on the pior examples. Not your rolls, theirs. Which is a sliding scale. +2 to +3 is 50%. +3 to +4 is 25%, +4 to +5 is 20%. It's the end-result we're looking at here.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you were just referring to the change from +2 to +3, which as you state would be an increase of 50% damage that gets through (in relative terms), which is the same as my statement that you increase the likelihood to make damage by 16.6% in absolute terms. Get your point here. (Yet your example only holds for the 2+ to 3+ change, but therefore saves the reader from engaging in his/her own computations.)

15 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

As for Spectral Lure, casting is two dice needing to meet or exceed a base value. In this case 6. The probability of a 6 or higher appearing on two dice is 

6	13.89
7	16.67
8	13.89
9	11.11
10	8.33
11	5.56
12	2.78

 or a total of 72.22%, like you say. Dropping that cast to a 5+ adds 11.11% to that pool, making it 83.3%. Again, just as you say. Until you factor in the unbind attempt. Those 72% and 83% chances are for your roll, now you have to see if an opponent can snipe it and unbind you. Assuming you made the exact roll you needed to make to cast each time (6) then your opponent needs to roll a 7 to beat your roll, no matter your bonus. They'll have a 58.34% chance to undo you. If you add this in, then your actual chances of getting the cast off is 72-58=14% for the 6 and 83-58=25% for the 5. So, you have a 25% chance at getting the spell through with the +1. So, if I were to correct it I would drop the 30% statement I made down to 25%, which I can do. And honestly, I got the original 30% from TellTaleNoob. I assumed I could shorthand it by stealing his stat.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that you included the ban rolls here. I wasn't sure about that. I think that the calculation is likely incorrect though, because you cannot assume that you either roll a 6 or a 7 (including the +1) and your opponent has to simply beat that. Actually your opponent has to roll +1 higher than you without the buff and +2 higher than you with the buff. This should be in the likelihood range well below 50% (you said 58.53%). So in order to get the correct number (or test whether TellTaleNoobs statement is correct) one would have to multiply the chance of casting a spell successfully with the likelihood of your opponent not banning it. I might take some time on the weekend to do that. 🙂

15 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

And lastly, the 15 attacks statement. This one I need to go back and reword for sure. I don't mean that All-Out Attack will increase your damage by 50%. I'm trying to say that spending a CP on All-Out Attack will be worth more on units that can throw out more attacks in general, and that I personally don't like spending it on units that won't be throwing out at least 15, because 15 seems to be the breakpoint of reasonable attacks you can actually get to throw and is 50% more damage than if you threw any less.

Okay, that makes sense to me. Thanks again for the clarification.

I hope I didn't get across as being a mathhammer zealot, but I wanted to make sure that I understand what you were advising. I think the process of discussing helped me to get most of your points and I hope it can improve/make the guide a bit more clearer while still staying beginner friendly.

Updated:

• Relics Primed for Corruption artefact section updated with the new GHB2020 selection (and some passive-aggressive salt).

Coming soon:

• Updated sample lists with new points (once the NH PDF supplement drops)
• A new "all-comers" list designed to be as solid and versatile as possible against all opponents.

Really looking forward to the all-comers list... Might let me start a nighthaunt army.

I was just starting to read this blog and it looks golden. But I was immediately taken aback by this statement 'By default, the rule to claim an objective is to simply have more of your models within 6" of the center of it at the end of your turn than your opponent does, and it remains yours so long as your opponent can't beat that count at the end of their turn, even if your models are no longer there'.

No one on here seems to object so I'm assuming this is correct. However when I read the core rules "At the end of each player’s turn, you must check to see if either player has gained control of any objectives. To do so, you and your opponent must count up the number of models you have within 6" of the centre of each objective; you gain control of an objective where your count is higher than your opponent’s count. Once you gain control of an objective, it remains under your control until the enemy is able to gain control of it."

So the way I read that is :

• At the end of each turn you & opponent each count the number of models within 6".
• You gain control when your count is higher that your opponent's count.

So when I claim an objective because I have 40 chainrasp and the opponent have 10 whatever, I claim it in battle round 1. But when I move them away in battle round 2, we count again and now my opponent has 10 where I have 0, so my opponent claims the objective.

But you're stating it like they would still have to beat 40. Could you explain to me if I'm understanding it wrong?

I think you are just reading into it wrong. What he is saying is that as long as you control an objective, you don't lose it until your opponent outnumbers you on that point. Meaning you can take a point and leave it empty so long as your opponent doesn't get any models on it. 

As an upcoming NH player this article was super useful so thanks!

However i noticed that you still reference Dolorous Guard and Emerald Host several times. But infuriatingly the white dwarf battallions were all FAQ'd out of matched play. 

Might be a good ideal to update those references to avoid confusing newbies like me 👍

On 9/7/2020 at 8:27 AM, Landohammer said:

As an upcoming NH player this article was super useful so thanks!

However i noticed that you still reference Dolorous Guard and Emerald Host several times. But infuriatingly the white dwarf battallions were all FAQ'd out of matched play. 

Might be a good ideal to update those references to avoid confusing newbies like me 👍

It's all legal! I was away for a while and didn't update this guide to reflect their momentary removal from legal matched play, but that's moot now. Emerald Host is completely legal to play.

Updated with a sample list Mortal Reign mk. 2. Have fun with this one, it's my favorite!

Howdy. 

I've mentioned this before, but thank you so much for the resource. 

One question for you is I'm wondering why you didn't include the Purple Sun in the Endless Spells. In particular, it seems like a natural fit in your Mortal Reign style lists. It's admittedly been a while since I've played, but I always found bringing it with Reikenor was an effective combo. It was sort of like hiding units in the underworld, as it's presence and threat caused my opponents to game plan for it, which often meant they would allow other spells to go through while waiting for me to drop the Sun with Reikenor. 

I'm not sure if you've tried it out before, but if not I definitely recommend giving it a try for a few games. 

2 hours ago, dmorley21 said:

The question for you is I'm wondering why you didn't include the Purple Sun in the Endless Spells.

I've never tried it. I should. The only real reason I haven't is the 50 points being spent on a CP and it being awkward trying to find something else to cut or keep.

I'll give it a try, though.

Just realized I've been neglecting this comment section. 😶

Guide has been updated to AoS 3.0, including all FAQs as of this post.

As always, please comment any questions, corrections, or observations you like. Enjoy!

Where are the pictures mentioned in the talk with Sotek?

Updated for our new 3.0 battletome!

• The Nighthaunt guide has been fully updated for AoS 3.0 as well as our own brand new battletome
• Includes Seasons of War: Thondia expansion content
• Almost a complete rewrite of existing content. Not just a search-and-replace, you'll see all-new descriptions and takes on everything from abilities to allies and everything in between
• Refined tactical styles section with more detail without the fluff
• Hosted on my own site. I did this to accommodate the dense chapter structure and facilitate easier editing
  • No ads, no pay gate. Just click on the banner and start reading
  • Light/dark toggle mode for reading comfort
  • Zoom to top button to get back to the table of contents in a flash

Please head on over and take a look! Feedback welcome.