AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, Sception said:

Where are people getting the idea that core battalions don't cost points?  AFAIK whether they do or not was still an open question, since that information wouldn't be in the core book and so far that's where all the previews have been coming from.  Was there confirmation somewhere that I haven't seen, or has someone been leaking info from the general's handbook?

The Sprues and Brews dominion article confirms it:

"With existing Warscroll Battalions no longer being usable in Matched Play games (they can still be used in other battlepacks however such as Open and Narrative games) Games Workshop have instead created a list of 6 core battalions that you can form your army into. These don’t cost any points however and there is no limit in the Matched Play battlepack in the book as to how many you can take. "

[Sception]

But how do they know?  As far as I can tell, that article is based purely on information in the Dominion box set & core rule book.  The points costs for core battalions, if any, wouldn't be in there regardless, they would be in the pitched battle profiles booklet packaged with the generals handbook.  The core rule book not listing or mentioning points values in the description of the core battalions doesn't actually mean anything.

This is the equivalent of someone getting a preview of a unit's warscroll, not seeing a points value on it, and then telling everyone that the unit is free.

[Sharrankar]

Long time lurker, got drawn back to AoS by the new edition - curious what people think about GW "fixing" Nighthaunt, namely addressing the issue of named characters not being named characters (Crawlocke the Jailor, Liekoron etc). Do you think they will see some changes or the boxes will remain as they are?

Also, what changes are you folks expecting from the new book, once it eventually comes out? Chainrasps going to min. units of 20 maybe? Plastic Mourngul? Etheral changing into ignoring negative mods? Any warscrolls you'd like to see rewritten in order to make Nighthaunt competitive? 

Curious what do people think and wish for!

[CaptainSoup]

5 hours ago, lare2 said:

I don't see any reason to be negative about NH in the new edition. I think it's important to just forget what you ran in 2nd. Your army lists in 2nd edition won't work in 3rd. We've no idea really what our lists will be and how well we'll perform, especially when the new tome (finally) drops. 

I'm not even considering old lists, as those are clearly not usable anymore. I'm just trying to think of how we can even do damage anymore outside of heroes as well as survive. Unit coherency hurts all of our core units except Reapers (assuming they keep their 2in range. The bone bois of SBGL lost their spear range) so our damage will be capped to our frontline models since we won't be able to wrap as effectively as before and there are currently no rules that say models behind other models in the same unit can attack like 40k does.

As for survivability, We will be incentivized to create smaller units which will mean there are less models to use when the damage comes our way. We die to a stiff breeze and the lack of extra models to help mitigate that will hurt. That being said, abilities like Rally will help us out in a pinch, and while other abilities like adding save bonuses and from terrain will (so far) continue to be useless to us, the ability to heal our ever important heroes will help a lot, assuming they don't die in a single turn. 

Like you said though, we need our new Battletome to show up, arguably more than any other faction. My vain hope is it'll come sooner rather than later. 

Goonhammer and Sprues and Brews are offering good articles that talk more in-depth with the new edition, though from the time of this post the GHB and FAQs is still under lock and key so there is still more info to be had. 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[CaptainSoup]

41 minutes ago, Sharrankar said:

Long time lurker, got drawn back to AoS by the new edition - curious what people think about GW "fixing" Nighthaunt, namely addressing the issue of named characters not being named characters (Crawlocke the Jailor, Liekoron etc). Do you think they will see some changes or the boxes will remain as they are?

Also, what changes are you folks expecting from the new book, once it eventually comes out? Chainrasps going to min. units of 20 maybe? Plastic Mourngul? Etheral changing into ignoring negative mods? Any warscrolls you'd like to see rewritten in order to make Nighthaunt competitive? 

Curious what do people think and wish for!

That's something I've been wondering as well. For example, the new totem hero we have, is he a named hero we can only take one of or is he a generic hero we can take multiple of? 

I have a laundry wish list of changes that are by no means the best changes, just things I can think of off the top of my head: 

• Updating min models for most of our units. This can be fixed in a day 1 FAQ or the GHB.
• Giving us more keywords so we have access to new free stuff that 3rd edition is offering the other factions (Priests, more monster choices that are actually in the book)
• Updating or changing Ethereal to only ignore negative mods. This may or may not be FAQ-able. 
• I would like the entire book re-written from the ground up, units and all. Our relics are pretty sub-par and conflict with those that are now in the core rulebook, Our units need to deal more damage somehow, we need some sort of new mechanic or abilities that allow us to survive better, etc. I don't expect this to happen completely, but anything will help at this point. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[Sception]

Honestly, yeah, the book already needed a pretty serious rewrite, and it's now desperate for one.  The model line is ~pretty~ good, though a monster would be nice, but the packaging really needs to be reworked, especially with soul wars getting retired, and this could conceivably be used as an excuse to revisit minimum unit sizes as well.  A lot can be done with FAQs, but more is going to require a proper new battletome.

Hopefully a new NH book isn't too far out.

[EnixLHQ]

3.0 Core Rules are out now. You can get a copy here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/14/download-the-new-edition-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-core-rules/

I just got the book and probably won't be able to really digest it until later tonight or later. Let's see what you all think. (I lied. I got in it pretty deep right away and spammed this thread with a few highlights.)

Edited June 14, 2021 by EnixLHQ

[LordPrometheus]

 Just chiming in to reiterate what others have said. We don't get to benefit from a good chunk of the new good stuff (All out Defense, garrison, Mystic shield, Monsters). We are literally (currently) the only army that I know of that cannot use some of the best Core Rules, and that's a shame. 

 

The optimist in me says this means a new tome is in the works, or at the very least a reworking of how Ethereal works. But after reading the Core Rules, I don't think I'll be playing my ghosties until that tome or a updated Ethereal shows up. We're already a bottom tier army, and this will just make everyone else better while we get nothing. 

Fingers crossed!

[Neck-Romantic]

Mourngul is a Monster, isnt it?

[Landohammer]

So i have read through the rules real quick. Here are some tid bits that haven't been covered here yet.

1) First turn is a roll off. Tie goes to whoever finished dropping first. So you no longer know if you will have first turn while deploying.

2) Engagement range is still 3" and Redeploy doesn't work if your are outside 9". Our deepstrikes will still be quite useful.

3) Command abilities are once per phase and once per unit. This makes Unleash Hell a bit easier to swallow. Since you won't be hit with it multiple times in the same phase.

4) Flyers cannot land on buildings that can be garrisoned. Also Flyers no longer ignore forests for the purposes of LOS. So we can hide in forests now! 

Those were the big ones that stood out to me. 

[Landohammer]

2 minutes ago, Neck-Romantic said:

Mourngul is a Monster, isnt it?

Correct, but he is A) extremely overcosted for what he does and B) a constantly out of stock FW model thus making many of us believe he is perpetually in danger of being dumped to Legends. 

I'm hoping he sticks around with a healthy points drop, but i wouldn't recommend anyone buy the model anytime soon lol. 

[Neck-Romantic]

Ehhhh he is overcosted but not massivly so.

The aura is still great, he benefits from GoS and Spirit Torment auras, you can tuck him in with bladegheists/reapers as they plow into their preferred target and have him leap out to swallow most heroes whole while debuffing a huge swathe of the enemy.

Now as a Monster they have access to all the new abilities, thus increasing usefullness. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Neck-Romantic

[CaptainSoup]

2 minutes ago, Neck-Romantic said:

Ehhhh he is overcosted but not massivly so.

The aura is still great, he benefits from GoS and Spirit Torment auras, you can tuck him in with bladegheists/reapers as they plow into their preferred target and have him leap out to swallow most heroes whole while debuffing a huge swathe of the enemy.

Now as a Monster they have access to all the new abilities, thus increasing usefullness. 

There's an argument to be made to include him into lists for the monster buffs, especially if he happens to get a points drop in the GHB. The idea however that we have no monsters in our book and we have to go out the way to get a rare model from FW doesn't taste great, so I personally wouldn't write that off as a solved issue just yet. 

[EnixLHQ]

14.3 WARDS
Some abilities allow you to roll a dice to negate a
wound before it is allocated to a model. Abilities of
this type are referred to as wards, and the dice roll
is referred to as a ward roll. Up to 1 ward roll can be
made for each wound or mortal wound before it is
allocated to the model in question. If the ward roll is
successful, the wound or mortal wound is negated and
has no effect on the model.

Huzzah for this one. "Ward" is now the ability type, and the type will now link back to this wording. The name of the ability is now just flavor. This means our Deathless Spirits ability is now a ward. This means the Kulghast, despite not saying "mortals" on its ability, will enhance the ability to save both mortals and normal wounds because it is enhancing a ward.

[EnixLHQ]

18.1.2 CONTESTING OBJECTIVES
A model must be within 6" of an objective in order to contest it. If a
friendly unit has models within 6" of two or more objectives, you must
pick 1 of those objectives for the models from that unit to contest. Unless
noted otherwise, each Monster counts as 5 models for the purposes of
contesting objectives, and each model with a Wounds characteristic of
5 or more that is not a Monster counts as 2 models for the purposes of
contesting objectives.

Mourngul = 5 models

Olynder, Kurdoss, Reikenor, Knight of Shrouds (both), Guardian of Souls, Spirit Torment, Dreadblade Harrows, Lord Executioner, Black Coach, and Krulghast Cruciator = 2 models

I don't imagine this is too different than other armies, but for us who usually will always have a hero near by we get an extra model count for objectives.

[EnixLHQ]

22.3.2 COMMAND MODELS
Some units can include uniquely named champions, standard bearers
or musicians. These are known collectively as command models and the
warscroll may include upgrades that apply only to them or abilities that
can only be used if they are part of the unit.

So even the Glaivewraith Stalkers benefit from this one. Deathbeat Drummers are now command models, and thus can be used to issue command abilities. And, since all Glaivewraiths can be Deathbeat Drummers, this particular unit is never without this option.

[EnixLHQ]

27.5.2 UNIVERSAL ARTEFACTS OF POWER
Amulet of Destiny: This amulet subtly influences
the fate of the one who bears it.
The bearer has a ward of 5+.

A new artefact you can give a KoS that's leading a Shroudguard so they all get a 5+ ward.

Also, many of these universal artefacts are similar to what we already have. Arcane Tome, for example, is Midnight Tome but without access to any spell lores. Similar, but not the same, meaning that a few of these can be taken together to expand what we can do, like giving out both of these artefacts to get two more wizards on the field.

[CaptainSoup]

24 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

27.5.2 UNIVERSAL ARTEFACTS OF POWER
Amulet of Destiny: This amulet subtly influences
the fate of the one who bears it.
The bearer has a ward of 5+.

A new artefact you can give a KoS that's leading a Shroudguard so they all get a 5+ ward.

Also, many of these universal artefacts are similar to what we already have. Arcane Tome, for example, is Midnight Tome but without access to any spell lores. Similar, but not the same, meaning that a few of these can be taken together to expand what we can do, like giving out both of these artefacts to get two more wizards on the field.

Its important to remember that the current warscroll battalions cannot be used during matched play, which is most likely how most people will play 3rd edition. Also the idea of stacking similar relics is an interesting niche, I doubt that is intended and will probably be removed when our Battletome arrives. For now though, its a nice little loophole to exploit. 

[EnixLHQ]

1 hour ago, CaptainSoup said:

Its important to remember that the current warscroll battalions cannot be used during matched play, which is most likely how most people will play 3rd edition. Also the idea of stacking similar relics is an interesting niche, I doubt that is intended and will probably be removed when our Battletome arrives. For now though, its a nice little loophole to exploit. 

Let's not go running off like that.

Nothing in this book says warscroll battalions can't be used, and says exactly the opposite in a few areas. Namely, in 26.0 where it says the battlepack will determine which of either kind can be used, 26.1 and 26.2 where they continue to be named, and in the sidebar where it says when a new republished version comes out it takes precedence over any earlier versions. You can certainly use them with 3.0 rules and 2.0 books/battleplans, as was mentioned in the designer's preview videos officially by GW writers. Until a battlepack comes out you have GHB 2020's battleplans which don't have limiting language.

Same applies to stacking artefacts. The rules are pretty clear here in the new edition. Artefacts are considered enhancements (27.3.3), they must go to a hero, an a hero cannot have more than one. Unique enhancements (27.3.7) are different and will include rules explaining how they are to be used. Unique heroes will have "unique" in the Notes column (25.6.1) and will be subject to Enhancement Restrictions (27.3.1) where enhancements cannot be given to unique units at all unless specifically noted. And finally, universal enhancements can be used by any army (27.0) and include Arcane Tome (27.5.2). So, intended or not, giving one of our heroes Arcane Tome, and the other Midnight Tome is perfectly legal, and since the universal option is less powerful without access to our spell lores why wouldn't it be made available?

We can't tackle these rules like we used to in 2.0, where every instance of a rule is negatively recursive (if language is lacking, so is the rule). Try to give the language as written a fresh perspective and not tack on negatives that aren't there.

Edited June 14, 2021 by EnixLHQ

[Zashier29]

15 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

(By the way, someone else said Mystic Shield doesn't apply to us anymore. 19.2 says it does, by modifying the roll.)

Can you explain this a bit further? It says it modifies the Save roll, Mystic Shield and All-out Defence, but Ethereal states:

"Ignore modifiers (positive and negative) when making save rolls for attacks that target this model."

your differentiation just doesn't make sense to me is all. 

[CaptainSoup]

12 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

Let's not go running off like that.

Nothing in this book says warscroll battalions can't be used, and says exactly the opposite in a few areas. Namely, in 26.0 where it says the battlepack will determine which of either kind can be used, 26.1 and 26.2 where they continue to be named, and in the sidebar where it says when a new republished version comes out it takes precedence over any earlier versions. You can certainly use them with 3.0 rules and 2.0 books/battleplans, as was mentioned in the designer's preview videos officially by GW writers. Until a battlepack comes out you have GHB 2020's battleplans which don't have limiting language.

Same applies to stacking artefacts. The rules are pretty clear here in the new edition. Artefacts are considered enhancements (27.3.3), they must go to a hero, an a hero cannot have more than one. Unique enhancements (27.3.7) are different and will include rules explaining how they are to be used. Unique heroes will have "unique" in the Notes column (25.6.1) and will be subject to Enhancement Restrictions (27.3.1) where enhancements cannot be given to unique units at all unless specifically noted. And finally, universal enhancements can be used by any army (27.0) and include Arcane Tome (27.5.2). So, intended or not, giving one of our heroes Arcane Tome, and the other Midnight Tome is perfectly legal, and since the universal option is less powerful without access to our spell lores why wouldn't it be made available? (By the way, someone else said Mystic Shield doesn't apply to us anymore. 19.2 says it does, by modifying the roll.)

We can't tackle these rules like we used to in 2.0, where every instance of a rule is negatively recursive (if language is lacking, so is the rule). Try to give the language as written a fresh perspective and not tack on negatives that aren't there.

The PDF does not include what battlepacks are available in the full core rulebook. In the Matched Play Battlepack it specifically states that Warscroll Battalions are not allowed. This has been mentioned in the Sprue & Brews review and the Goonhammer review as they have the full book on hand. If 40k is any indication, the majority of players will use the Matched Play battlepack, therefore the WBs will have less effectiveness. Now, its possible I could be wrong and that open play and narrative games will dominate the majority of AoS gameplay (which would be cool imo), but based on similar games and from 2nd edition, that probably will not be the case (with exceptions to whatever local meta you hail from).

I did not imply it wasn't legal, only that it was most likely an unintended consequence of having an old Battletome. When our new Battletome arrives I would like to think we would have different and more unique and flavorful enhancements to choose from, but until then we can take advantage of stacking similar enhancements for an added, if maybe not intentional, effect. 

If 3rd edition is learning anything from 40k's 9th edition, then explicit wording and RAW will be the rule of the land and that's not a bad thing. 

[EnixLHQ]

4 minutes ago, Zashier29 said:

Can you explain this a bit further? It says it modifies the Save roll, Mystic Shield and All-out Defence, but Ethereal states:

"Ignore modifiers (positive and negative) when making save rolls for attacks that target this model."

your differentiation just doesn't make sense to me is all. 

I'm walking back on this one (and editing that in the post). I misread 13.3.3 and thought that this overrode Ethereal. It does not.

6 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

The PDF does not include what battlepacks are available in the full core rulebook. In the Matched Play Battlepack it specifically states that Warscroll Battalions are not allowed. This has been mentioned in the Sprue & Brews review and the Goonhammer review as they have the full book on hand. If 40k is any indication, the majority of players will use the Matched Play battlepack, therefore the WBs will have less effectiveness. Now, its possible I could be wrong and that open play and narrative games will dominate the majority of AoS gameplay (which would be cool imo), but based on similar games and from 2nd edition, that probably will not be the case (with exceptions to whatever local meta you hail from).

I did not imply it wasn't legal, only that it was most likely an unintended consequence of having an old Battletome. When our new Battletome arrives I would like to think we would have different and more unique and flavorful enhancements to choose from, but until then we can take advantage of stacking similar enhancements for an added, if maybe not intentional, effect. 

If 3rd edition is learning anything from 40k's 9th edition, then explicit wording and RAW will be the rule of the land and that's not a bad thing. 

What battlepack where? I did a quick google for "matched play battlepack" and came up dry. And as has been pointed out to me in the past (rather harshly) you can't site sources like Goonhammer for rules interpretation. Bell of Lost Souls agrees with you, but also point out it's a rumor and that we'll have to see. Either way, the battlepack isn't out yet, and until it is it's not superseding anything. Everything else you mention here is speculation, which is what we're trying not to do right now. Speculation tends to be negative for us as an army since we're already primed to believe everything new will nerf us, while the stuff that has actually come out, like these rules, actually seem to balance the field in a good way. RAW was and is the way to handle the rules, but you can't do that while also injecting speculation.

My word of caution here is simply this: The game designers went out of their way in each of the reveal videos to say that 3.0 rules were written with existing battletomes in mind, and they will continue to work and play in any game using 3.0 rules. They then added text in the 3.0 Core Rules that everything that was valid before is until it is superseded by publication date. This means that until books get updated, their existing rules are still valid. They have to be, otherwise no one could play anything right now. Like I said, if you were to play a game today, what materials would you have access to? These 3.0 rules and your current battletome. So warscroll battalion up (and with current points) to your heart's content, even if it's matched play.

If it's true the first battleplack(s) we get say no warscroll battalions, then that's what the rule is going to be when it/they get released. If that's tomorrow, then my entire point here is moot tomorrow. But it could be next week, or next month.

Everything beyond that is speculation. We can speculate that the reason for this kind of call is to remove the more powerful battalions from matched games until they can be balanced in a new book. Or that they want a very sterile matched tournament scene where they are better able to balance around abilities and artefacts since they said they want to use the FAQ system far less than they do now. Or, that it was simply made that way for testing purposes and there will be new language in the final release that will allow warscroll battalions with caveats attached, like maybe only 1 per 1,000 points or something. None of this makes any difference, though.

[CaptainSoup]

I don't recall ever replying to you in any harsh manner, but if I appeared that way that was not my intention (my ASD doesn't help with that unfortunately, especially online over text). 

Battle packs are mentioned in 1.1 of the core rules PDF and are mentioned by name 33 other times from the document. There are different battle packs to choose from the core rulebook (and presumably the GHB) which explains step by step how to setup and complete your games, each with specific restrictions and additions depending on which pack you use. These are not rumours, these come from those who are confirmed to have the full core rulebook. Places like Goonhammer obtain early copies of new books from GW so that they can review them ahead of launch and is a very common practice. Their articles are not speculative, they're reviews. As for actual speculation let's be clear here, your mentions of the rules helping NH are also just as speculative as my negative ones. Both are perfectly valid and healthy for the discourse. 

And I can't stress this enough, I am not saying stacking similar relics is invalid, it's just that GW most likely intends to replace relics that offer similar effects from battle times with other ones and until that happens they will allow us the ability to stack those enchancements. 

But if you would rather not take for granted what reviewers say and wait until you have the book in hand yourself that's perfectly valid. It's best to be sure of things yourself, but it's my opinion that until then so long as you speak clearly that what you're saying is speculation or from what you're saying was from a verified reviewer then it's worth mentioning. 

I feel that I've been as clear as I can be on that front about my speculation, but I'm only human and there is always room for improvement. It's very possible that I'm wrong about everything and honestly I'd welcome that. It would mean our ghost Bois will be in a far better than they are now. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[EnixLHQ]

1 hour ago, CaptainSoup said:

I don't recall ever replying to you in any harsh manner, but if I appeared that way that was not my intention (my ASD doesn't help with that unfortunately, especially online over text). 

Battle packs are mentioned in 1.1 of the core rules PDF and are mentioned by name 33 other times from the document. There are different battle packs to choose from the core rulebook (and presumably the GHB) which explains step by step how to setup and complete your games, each with specific restrictions and additions depending on which pack you use. These are not rumours, these come from those who are confirmed to have the full core rulebook. Places like Goonhammer obtain early copies of new books from GW so that they can review them ahead of launch and is a very common practice. Their articles are not speculative, they're reviews. As for actual speculation let's be clear here, your mentions of the rules helping NH are also just as speculative as my negative ones. Both are perfectly valid and healthy for the discourse. 

And I can't stress this enough, I am not saying stacking similar relics is invalid, it's just that GW most likely intends to replace relics that offer similar effects from battle times with other ones and until that happens they will allow us the ability to stack those enchancements. 

But if you would rather not take for granted what reviewers say and wait until you have the book in hand yourself that's perfectly valid. It's best to be sure of things yourself, but it's my opinion that until then so long as you speak clearly that what you're saying is speculation or from what you're saying was from a verified reviewer then it's worth mentioning. 

I feel that I've been as clear as I can be on that front about my speculation, but I'm only human and there is always room for improvement. It's very possible that I'm wrong about everything and honestly I'd welcome that. It would mean our ghost Bois will be in a far better than they are now. 

Not trying to speak harshly, either. Sorry if it seems that way. Just trying to understand as much as possible, which will be important when I update the guide.

I am confused somewhat about our back and forth about the battlepacks. From today's download I can see section 1.1, and follow it to 28 where it says what to expect in a battlepack, like the battleplan, whether or not there are restrictions to army selection, maps, and more. But I don't see where a complete premade battlepack is.

Is there one somewhere else? Are these are included in the pre-order hardback or as a part of Dominion?

I'm expecting them to be a full A to B to C kind of thing, like what they have for tournaments. If I'm mistaken please correct me.

[CaptainSoup]

58 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

Not trying to speak harshly, either. Sorry if it seems that way. Just trying to understand as much as possible, which will be important when I update the guide.

I am confused somewhat about our back and forth about the battlepacks. From today's download I can see section 1.1, and follow it to 28 where it says what to expect in a battlepack, like the battleplan, whether or not there are restrictions to army selection, maps, and more. But I don't see where a complete premade battlepack is.

Is there one somewhere else? Are these are included in the pre-order hardback or as a part of Dominion?

I'm expecting them to be a full A to B to C kind of thing, like what they have for tournaments. If I'm mistaken please correct me.

You're absolutely fine.

The core rules PDF only show the bare minimum rules needed to play a game of 3rd edition. If you go to the downloads page of Warhammer Community you should still be able to download last edition's core rules PDF and you'll see that it does not have all the rules, just the bare bone basics.

Once we have the full core rule book it should have the battle packs written in along with the core rules, missions and sections regarding matched play, open play and narrative (Path to Glory).