AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion

[The_Dudemeister]

PSA: Don't use the Shyish Reaper!

 

Even with the new Endless Spell mechanics and buffed warscroll it is not worth more than triple the price. I'm puzzled how GW only changed the numeric values (like casting value, mortal wounds etc) instead of the actual gameplay.

 

Has anyone, including the GW rules team, actually played with that thing? With its massive base, wholly within 6" cast and mere 8" movement, there is only a narrow window where to set it up and where it lands. Specifically if at the start of your hero phase, an enemy unit is exactly between 8"-12" away from a wizard, then sure... go ahead and cast it. That is it, you only get this 4" corridor.

 

Even in 40k where the movement phase happens before casting, that would be a helluva restrictive setup. Malus points if one of your own units is anywhere in the 4"-8" window or behind the enemy unit as then you might not even have room for the setup. You could try to go in at an angle, but that makes the window where the Reaper can fly over even smaller than the 4". It's baffling really.

[EnixLHQ]

3 hours ago, LordPrometheus said:

NH keep getting screwed for literally no reason

I'm convinced there's something about Nighthaunt that the devs know that we as a community don't. I have no clue what it is, but this is so common for us now you can set your watch for it.

The only thing I can think of is that there's something about our allegiance abilities that if they were overtuned just a bit too much we'd break the game. Or that by changing some aspect of our abilities there would be a ripple effect that would get out of hand, like an ethereal rules change that would affect any army with access to that condition. A buff or change that would be minor to us could be devastatingly OP to someone else.

Or, it could be, that they just don't play Nighthaunt. Other than showing them off when they first came out, the devs moved on and just don't care, or have the capacity to care with everything else they have to do. The NH project is done, have to move on until they design the new tome.

I highly, highly, highly recommend going over to my Twitter thread here and ask about how their calculator weighs stats. They said they'd write an article about it if there was enough demand for one, and at the moment there's very little. Maybe they value things differently than we do. Maybe there was a tournament upset with us that they are looking to avoid. Or, maybe, we'll force them to look at how the weights are disproportionate to us and they will then make changes or at the very least say something about it.

But I agree.

17 minutes ago, The_Dudemeister said:

PSA: Don't use the Shyish Reaper!

 

Even with the new Endless Spell mechanics and buffed warscroll it is not worth more than triple the price. I'm puzzled how GW only changed the numeric values (like casting value, mortal wounds etc) instead of the actual gameplay.

 

Has anyone, including the GW rules team, actually played with that thing? With its massive base, wholly within 6" cast and mere 8" movement, there is only a narrow window where to set it up and where it lands. Specifically if at the start of your hero phase, an enemy unit is exactly between 8"-12" away from a wizard, then sure... go ahead and cast it. That is it, you only get this 4" corridor.

 

Even in 40k where the movement phase happens before casting, that would be a helluva restrictive setup. Malus points if one of your own units is anywhere in the 4"-8" window or behind the enemy unit as then you might not even have room for the setup. You could try to go in at an angle, but that makes the window where the Reaper can fly over even smaller than the 4". It's baffling really.

I think the reaper was always meant to be a "combat spell." Used by a wizard who's near combat and in the thick of it with the unit they're accompanying. But, yeah, these changes aren't substantial enough for me to seriously consider them competitively.

I'm looking at these changes as clues more than anything else. They took the time to redesign the spells, graphics and all, for a FAQ. I've never seen that before. 

[CaptainSoup]

1 hour ago, EnixLHQ said:

I'm looking at these changes as clues more than anything else. They took the time to redesign the spells, graphics and all, for a FAQ. I've never seen that before. 

I imagine they've done this for everyone else, so giving Nighthaunt similar design treatment shouldn't be difficult for them. As far as clues go we don't have much to go on. This can be either a good omen or a bad one depending on one's perspective. Good meaning that there is no point in giving a lot of change since a new book is in the pipline, or bad in that they have no interest in doing any serious work on a faction they don't take seriously anyway, so they gave us some bare minimum changes. Whichever flavor of thought you have, the FAQ isn't going to make or break us more than the edition always has (or presumably going to). 

Edited July 2, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[LordPrometheus]

1 hour ago, EnixLHQ said:

I'm convinced there's something about Nighthaunt that the devs know that we as a community don't. I have no clue what it is, but this is so common for us now you can set your watch for it.

The only thing I can think of is that there's something about our allegiance abilities that if they were overtuned just a bit too much we'd break the game. Or that by changing some aspect of our abilities there would be a ripple effect that would get out of hand, like an ethereal rules change that would affect any army with access to that condition. A buff or change that would be minor to us could be devastatingly OP to someone else.

Or, it could be, that they just don't play Nighthaunt. Other than showing them off when they first came out, the devs moved on and just don't care, or have the capacity to care with everything else they have to do. The NH project is done, have to move on until they design the new tome.

 

I don't think it's our abilities. I think you were right the second time and they just don't play Nighthaunt, like, at all. Or maybe we're getting a new tome soonish and they couldn't be bothered to fix anything until then.

 

It's a real shame though, because NH is one of the most gorgeous model ranges in the game. 

[Btimmy]

New hero confirmed to not negate mortal wounds with the new FAQ. Must state mortal wound, not just wound in order for it to be negated. In 1.6 of the FAQ. 

 

"Q: If an ability says it negates a wound, will it also negate a mortal wound?

A: No, unless the ability specifically says it negates mortal wounds. By the same token, an ability that negates only mortal wounds will not negate wounds."

[Neck-Romantic]

Welp.

[LordPrometheus]

15 minutes ago, Btimmy said:

New hero confirmed to not negate mortal wounds with the new FAQ. Must state mortal wound, not just wound in order for it to be negated. In 1.6 of the FAQ. 

 

"Q: If an ability says it negates a wound, will it also negate a mortal wound?

A: No, unless the ability specifically says it negates mortal wounds. By the same token, an ability that negates only mortal wounds will not negate wounds."

Garbage

[Btimmy]

To be fair, this rule was around for a long time. Glad to see it clarified, and uncertain why they didn't just chose to allow the hero to do both. But at least he is a totem so he has increased ranged on CA I guess. 

[CaptainSoup]

On 7/2/2021 at 6:40 PM, Btimmy said:

New hero confirmed to not negate mortal wounds with the new FAQ. Must state mortal wound, not just wound in order for it to be negated. In 1.6 of the FAQ. 

 

"Q: If an ability says it negates a wound, will it also negate a mortal wound?

A: No, unless the ability specifically says it negates mortal wounds. By the same token, an ability that negates only mortal wounds will not negate wounds."

EDIT: Huh, Deathless Spirits says its wounds and mortal wounds. Its been so long since I read it I'd forgotten. I guess this is wrong then.

Edited July 4, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[EnixLHQ]

52 minutes ago, Btimmy said:

New hero confirmed to not negate mortal wounds with the new FAQ. Must state mortal wound, not just wound in order for it to be negated. In 1.6 of the FAQ. 

 

"Q: If an ability says it negates a wound, will it also negate a mortal wound?

A: No, unless the ability specifically says it negates mortal wounds. By the same token, an ability that negates only mortal wounds will not negate wounds."

I believe you are misreading this ruling.

The KC does not have an ability that negates a wound. Its ability is if it makes an enemy suffer a wound, then empower Deathless Spirits to roll on a 5+. Deathless Spirits is now a ward ability based on Core Rules 14.3. So the KC's ability empowers the ward and has nothing to do with negating wounds itself. It's the ward that negates both mortals and normal wounds.

Nothing it the KC's scroll says "this ability negates a wound" of which this FAQ clarification would apply.

[Liquidsteel]

I still think it's mortals on 6+ and regular wounds only that get upgraded to a 5+. And the FAQ seems to support it.

[Btimmy]

3 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

I believe you are misreading this ruling.

The KC does not have an ability that negates a wound. Its ability is if it makes an enemy suffer a wound, then empower Deathless Spirits to roll on a 5+. Deathless Spirits is now a ward ability based on Core Rules 14.3. So the KC's ability empowers the ward and has nothing to do with negating wounds itself. It's the ward that negates both mortals and normal wounds.

Nothing it the KC's scroll says "this ability negates a wound" of which this FAQ clarification would apply.

This interpretation was incorrect then and is still incorrect now. The ability states "wounds," NOT mortal wounds. This is literally what the FAQ is addressing. No point in rehashing this conversation again. 

[Jabbuk]

7 hours ago, Btimmy said:

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Jabbuk
Found my answer

[EnixLHQ]

11 hours ago, Btimmy said:

This interpretation was incorrect then and is still incorrect now. The ability states "wounds," NOT mortal wounds. This is literally what the FAQ is addressing. No point in rehashing this conversation again. 

I don't agree. I don't think you are correct. And I don't appreciate your tone as though you were the authority on the matter. You are not.

I am beyond disappointed with the way Nighthaunt has been handled in the wake of Broken Realms and 3.0. From both of our faction highlight articles having incorrect information, to basic universal abilities being rewritten to become unavailable to us, to our day one FAQ having no information about BR content at all despite Be'lakor and Kragnos getting attention, and then GW's silence on all of it, it's very hard to feel like Nighthaunt is taken seriously right now.

And, unfortunately, all we can do is continue to send questions to the FAQ email. This is our only avenue for support. They are the only true authority on questions like this and it's disappointing they didn't take the opportunity to do so yet.

But in this case, in this particular warscroll, I think it's empirically clear where the ruling lies. Core Rules and today's Core Rules FAQ both taken into consideration.

Is the KC granting a wound-negating ability? No, it's altering an existing one.

Is the KC granting a ward? Yes, Deathless Spirits in the same way all faction heroes do.

Is Deathless Spirits a ward? Yes, under the Core Rules definition of save-after-save abilities. In addition to this definition, while doing so also the text includes both just "wounds" by itself and then later together with "and mortal wounds."

Does Deathless Spirits negate both mortal and normal wounds? Yes, as written in the Nighthaunt battletome. This clears up the FAQ section 1.6 as this is not an ability that is missing either wound designation in its rules.

Does the KC replace one Deathless Spirits with another Deathless Spirits that's different? No, and there is no precedent where an ability has ever been replaced by another ability of the same name but different effect during the course of gameplay.

Does the KC lower the threshold for Deathless Spirits? Yes, the ability cites Deathless Spirits specifically and gives it a new threshold of 5+.

Does the lack of "mortal" on the KC's ability trigger text change how the ability itself works? No, the ability is referencing how Deathless Spirits gets triggered, not Deathless Spirits itself, does not include language such as "this ability replaces Deathless Spirits," and includes the words "on a 5+ instead of a 6+."

Therefore, the empowered Deathless Spirits negates both mortal and normal wounds on a 5+.

If you want to follow the logic that not having the words mortals somehow alters the core ability in a whole other book, and does so without a FAQ or warscroll update, then you have to ingore everything above, too. And that's cherry-picking rules. It's pedantic, and in the wrong way.

I've consulted tournament organizers, store managers, test players, and veteran players, and I have never had anyone take the side that, somehow, mortal wounds are left out of the ability.

At this point I'll agree with you that there is no reason to rehash this conversation again. I will be operating under the logic I've displayed here, backed up by research, reference searching, and consultations, and will be updating my guide accordingly. I have done more than my due diligence concerning this and until a FAQ comes out that contradicts this, I won't entertain otherwise.

[Honk]

47 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

somehow, mortal wounds are left out of the ability.

While I think, that this is one of those fatal RAW vs RAI mess up,

I would love for GDubs to implement „damage“ instead of the wound/mortal wound distinction. That would make things a lot easier and clearer…

[Neck-Romantic]

Technically all Mortal Wounds become regular wounds after they have been allocated. All they do is bypass a model's to-wound and/or armor save steps depending on when they occur.

I would agree with Enix's take on the KC.

I would also agree; with no heat or venom implied, that being affiliated with blogs or websites pertaining to the hobby does not make one infallible or the final word on rules discussions.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Neck-Romantic

[Liquidsteel]

The issue is the FAQ to core rules states that unless a rule specifically calls out mortal wounds, it does not apply to them.

KC only mentions wounds. 

Obviously people's interpretations reflect their individual bias, and I can see why people think it does, but KC ability to me is an upgrade to Deathless Minions on Wounds but not Mortal Wounds.

[mojojojo101]

The KC ability is basically the same rule as the Hagg Narr Command Trait.

That ability was FAQ'd to clarify that it Fanatical Faith still only negates a MORTAL wound on a 6.

Common sense then would suggest to me that the KC is also intended to work the same way, however it hasn't been FAQ'd so at this point it's just go with whatever the TO for that particular event says.

[Bayul]

11 hours ago, Liquidsteel said:

Obviously people's interpretations reflect their individual bias

If you think you can convince people with Ad Hominem fallacies then you shouldn't take part in this debate.

I tend to interpret the clarification in the FAQ as an exclusion to mortal wounds. I think what @EnixLHQ tried to do was to apply a logical parent-child relationship: Deathless Spirits inherits its rules by being a child of the Ward ability type, which acts as parent. KC's Empowering Excruciation is its grandchild in this case. Therefore mentioning mortal wounds would be redundant, because there's a logical precedence in the relationship.

That was correct before, but I think that's obsolete now. The FAQ does not refer to Deathless Spirits, which "specifically says it negates mortal wounds" but to cases like Empowering Excruciation, which – although being an influence to Deathless Spirits – is an ability by itself and literally does not include mortal wounds.

[EnixLHQ]

No, what I was trying to do was point out that the ability Empowering Excruciation is not granting a ward of any kind at all, and thus not affected by FAQ 1.6. And that Empowering Excruciation is only modifying when Deathless Spirits triggers, not modifying the ability Deathless Spirits itself, and thus not leaving out mortal wounds on the save roll.

And what I'm saying overall is that the argument of Rules as Written is flawed and knee jerked, because no one is actually reading the rules as written in the first place:

If any wounds inflicted by this model’s
Phantasmal Torture are allocated to an enemy
model and not negated, this model becomes
empowered until your next shooting phase. The
Deathless Spirits battle trait negates wounds
allocated to friendly Nighthaunt units
wholly within 12" of any friendly empowered
Krulghast Cruciators on a 5+ instead of 6+.

Read that as written. If this model's shooting ability inflicts an enemy model with at least one wound, and that wound is not negated, then the battle trait Deathless Spirits fires on a 5+.

If we want to argue that because the word "mortal" isn't included in this instance of the word "wounds" then we could also argue that because the ability says "If any wounds inflicted by this model’s Phantasmal Torture are allocated to an enemy model and not negated" then that means that if you scored 4 wounds and of those 4 only 3, 2, or 1 went through due to enemy negation, then the ability doesn't fire. But no one's arguing that. No one's choosing to die on that hill because that has no precedent (that I'm aware of) and goes against the logic of such an ability. It'd be crazy. To say that this ability is either A) creating a new Deathless Spirits ward that has no mortal protection despite it not saying that it's creating a new Deathless Spirits without mortal protection, or B) say that this ability modifies the existing Deathless Spirits to no longer grant mortal protection despite it not actually saying to use this version of Deathless Spirits over the one that's provided by the battletome is actually RAI, because it doesn't say any of that.

And here is my biggest proof of that "wounds" is sometimes used to just mean "damage" when it's implied there are different kinds:

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.

The very first sentence doesn't say "mortal." Yet, the rest of the section continuously does. If we were to be extremely pedantic then the first instance missing "mortal" would mean abilities that negate wounds are wards while abilities that negate mortal wounds or both mortal wounds and normal wounds are not, or are a different kind of ward. But that the ward roll can still apply to it. That's what it literally says, but we're not fighting over this because we understand that the first instance of "wound" simply means "an allocation of damage." Because if we were to start arguing that there are more than one kind of ward then we'd be entering into tinfoil hat kind of crazy, because the whole section above was created to point out that there is only one kind of ward. A Ward. And then give it a name: Ward. "Hey, this thing that some armies get to prevent damage after a save fails? Let's call them all one thing, a ward. That way we can just reference the ward roll later."

KC's ability saying only the word "wounds" is the same kind of "wounds" as written above. It just means "an allocation of damage." It's implied there are different kinds. Because the entirety of 14.3 is implying there are different kinds. And that a ward roll negates them.

Edited July 4, 2021 by EnixLHQ

[EnixLHQ]

2 hours ago, mojojojo101 said:

The KC ability is basically the same rule as the Hagg Narr Command Trait.

That ability was FAQ'd to clarify that it Fanatical Faith still only negates a MORTAL wound on a 6.

Common sense then would suggest to me that the KC is also intended to work the same way, however it hasn't been FAQ'd so at this point it's just go with whatever the TO for that particular event says.

This is often used as a counter argument to the one I'm making. But what I want to point out is that this happened to a different army. Daughter's of Khaine play(ed) differently, are/were stronger as an army, and their ward ability was definitely stronger in the way it is applied. It's not apples to apples.

But we can try to look into why the decision to limit the ability was enforced.

Fanatical Faith, their ward, is truly universal. They don't need hero cover to use it like we do. Sniping their heroes doesn't open up pockets of vulnerability like it does for us. And they, as an army, don't have to worry about sending out their units unsupported by a hero, so they can cover more ground easier.

Devoted Disciple is a command trait, a forced one, and is similarly always on. The range is the same as the KC's, but doesn't need a condition to be met for it to be enabled and that general is always going to have it. Set in stone.

So these are buffs that don't require rolls, don't require CAs, and can't be unbound or dispelled.

Unfortunately, GW never explains their reasoning so we'll have to speculate to go further, but...

Ruling that Devoted Disciple doesn't save mortals seems like it was a way to reduce that defensive power. I'm not familiar enough with the accepted way it is used, but either the DoK units within the area for Devoted Disciple get a 5+ against normals and a 6+ against mortals, or just the 5+ against normals and a big ol' - against mortals. Either way, since the ability is always on, it could be argued it was the intention of the rule to introduce some risk/reward. Either that for the risk of their general taking some heat they can enjoy some extra protection for the troops that surround them, or that for the risk of using their general in combat who might be powerful at it they and their troops might take extra mortals.

The rule was written to not include mortals in the battletome. The FAQ only enforces what was already there. But we'll never know why it was written that way or why they felt the need to remind anyone who was making full saves they can't.

Maybe that was always the intention and it was poorly written? If so why repeat that mistake later on the KC? Were both written at the same time?

Maybe it wasn't the intention, but the FAQ writer who got the question made a judgment call and went with it and now it's canon. Too late to back out now?

And I've said it before, if a FAQ comes out for NH that says that I am completely wrong with the KC and how the ability works I'll totally own up to it and concede my defense. It will be setting a very dangerous precedent, but that will be their call to make and deal with. But there is no harm in playing the KC like it enhances all saves until then. The point I made about consulting other players and TOs still stands in that, for the current time, if I go play at any GW store or official event I know how they're going to rule. They told me. FAQs change that kind of reality all the time for players and TOs alike, so it's not a big deal if a ruling comes later that alters play. I mean, poor OBR, amirite?

At the end of the day the goal of this game is to have fun. Play and have fun. They want balanced games that are fun. This DoK rule was seen as detrimental to that, so it was nipped. Are NH players at the same risk? We'll see.

[Bayul]

5 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

No, what I was trying to do was point out that the ability Empowering Excruciation is not granting a ward of any kind at all...

Was this whole reply for me? Because I am aware of all of it and came to a different conclusion.

But are you under the impression, that somebody claimed Deathless Spirits does not grant protection from mortal wounds with Empowering Excruciation anymore or KC creates a new ward? Why did you mention this?

Edited July 4, 2021 by Bayul
a word

[Liquidsteel]

5 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

If we want to argue that because the word "mortal" isn't included in this instance of the word "wounds" then we could also argue that because the ability says "If any wounds inflicted by this model’s Phantasmal Torture are allocated to an enemy model and not negated" then that means that if you scored 4 wounds and of those 4 only 3, 2, or 1 went through due to enemy negation, then the ability doesn't fire. But no one's arguing that. No one's choosing to die on that hill because that has no precedent (that I'm aware of) and goes against the logic of such an ability. It'd be crazy. To say that this ability is either A) creating a new Deathless Spirits ward that has no mortal protection despite it not saying that it's creating a new Deathless Spirits without mortal protection, or B) say that this ability modifies the existing Deathless Spirits to no longer grant mortal protection despite it not actually saying to use this version of Deathless Spirits over the one that's provided by the battletome is actually RAI, because it doesn't say any of that.

Can I please present option C because it's what I've been saying for months but seems to have been omitted from your summary. I don't think anyone has argued that it stops you keeping the original 6+.

It doesn't create a new Deathless spirits as per A, it also doesn't stop it providing Mortal Protection.

Option C is that you STILL get Mortal Protection on a 6+, same as before, no change.

In addition, under the empowered effect, your save against Wounds is improved to 5+.

Take 3 Wounds and 2 Mortal Wounds? Roll 3 dice for 5+ and then 2 dice for 6+

 

[Neck-Romantic]

Option C is the same as A. Theyre saying the KC only boosts for failed armor saves so youde have default mortal saves.

Nobody is saying the KC boosts armor save ward while removing regular 6+ mortal save ward.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Neck-Romantic

[lare2]

Disappointed to see conjecture rear it's head again in relation to the KC. I'm confident it's a 5+ against mortals but can see where people are coming from. Think I'll be running it past TOs beforehand. Their house their rules. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by lare2