AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion

[Espy85]

true @Neck-Romantic. it would be more difficult to recover their models.
I think that the changes should affect our ability to assault the opponent. maybe giving us the opportunity to get the bonus to the charge even with a modified 10. or giving the possibility to some units (bladegheist and dreadscythe) in ambush to pull 3d6 for assault so as to make us an assault army.

[Tropical Ghost General]

1 hour ago, Future said:

Insert comment about many worse factions who could never win 3 big events

Agree, but it's about new books vs old with most of the really bad factions. As the inevitable power creep happens as well, it's not great to have a new book that isn't the hot stuff out the gate. 

38 minutes ago, Spears said:

game 1 was my second game of 2k Aos 

Well done on that win. That was ballsy going to a big tournament like that without having much play time under your belt. How did you find the whole event? 

 

15 minutes ago, Neck-Romantic said:

Blades and Harridans 2 wound

But without allies, our healing is pretty wack as it is. Maybe we need some multi wound thing, like morghasts. I may even ally in some morghasts in the next few games. 

[Neck-Romantic]

I strongly feel Dreadblades as elite cavalry small squads was the major missed opportunity on the 'morghast' issue.

It honestly doesnt feel like it would take much to shore up the book's shortcomings

[Tropical Ghost General]

12 minutes ago, Espy85 said:

charge even with a modified 10. 

That would be great but I think a bit too gross if it could be modified, as it's possible to get +3 with Death riders. The 3d6 charge would be great though I reckon. Makes the elite units more viable, because I'm looking at the points costs, range of attacks, amount of attacks and grims are better nearly everytime ?. 

In an attempt to get some more problem solving happening, what general issues are other players finding with the faction when playing games? 

[Neck-Romantic]

As far as bedsheets are involved, rsther than growing pains in precision model placement and transitioning from 40k to AoS.....

*Attrition mechanic is too easy to fail, and mostly underwhelming even when successfull. (Can be out of range, can fail to cast, can be dispelled, and can roll poorly)

*Obvious Bravery interactions without the tools in which to debuff bravery sufficiently. 

*'Wholly within' can be extremely tricky to pull off, more so if you attempt to engage with the aura character.

*Extremely hero-dependant book with exceptionally fragile heroes.

My experience has been that our games ultimately hinge on 2 things; Wave of Terror and Spectral Lure.

If you dont roll any WoT charges all game or succesfully cast your GoS's heals you are at an over-weighted disadvantage.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Neck-Romantic

[Espy85]

the reapers would always be better, they are already so. and that's why we need changes that improve only the other units, without touching the reapers. if bladegheist and dreadscythe could pull 3d6 for the charge, with them it would be easy to attack twice, and therefore would equal what the reapers do currently. we would have 2 valid choices instead of one (which we will soon lose).

for me the biggest problems are about the assault. I agree to be more fragile than LoN and not to have the same control of the nurgle field. but I do not accept to be inferior in the assault or in damaging the adversary bravery, that from bg they should be our specialties.

[Spears]

28 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Well done on that win. That was ballsy going to a big tournament like that without having much play time under your belt. How did you find the whole event? 

Thanks, the event was ace all round and was a good learning experience. I took a fairly soft list as I wanted to get some games in before committing to further purchases and painting. Also I ran out of hobby mojo.

Bladegheists are ace, however that 1 inch reach and a 32mm base is a massive pain in the ******, I hardly ever had them all fighting at once. That said the unit size did mean they weren't getting taken off the board too easily, I have been wanting to play shroudguard with two 20 man blocks but will probably do a 20 and a 10 now.

Chainrasps can really do some work with their buffs up but go down to either lots of no rend attacks or high damage attacks.

With the way our reserve works I found that I was deploying a few rubbish units like hexwraiths and executioner before being able to reserve stuff just to see where my opponent was going, I think as the list is already 8ish drops I might put in some minimum sized units just to delay the big deployment decisions.

Arkhan is bloody ace, definately stays in the list. Olynder made it in as she seemed easier to paint but I think she will get dropped to make way for Reiknor in future.

Overall I felt like two of the three losses were just down to player skill and I can definately identify the mistakes I made, the other loss vs daughters really felt like both the player and list completely outclassed me and am still not sure how to approach that matchup.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Spears

[Tropical Ghost General]

4 minutes ago, Spears said:

Arkhan is bloody ace

He's so good. I'm at a stage where I might have to break my purest roots and start bring in allies. 

Sounds like it was loads of fun, had a bunch of friends go up and they all had a great time. 

The blades 1" is annoying AF. I've been a big advocate for maxing out unit sizes for extra longevity but the two issues I'm finding is 1) The unit is too big to benefit from buffs and abilities, especially as everything is wholly within, so as combat happens and piling in spreads the unit out, v their losing all the buffs and bonuses, or models aren't attacking, just so that buffs can be kept. 2) Is the commitment to big units doesn't leave much points for other things. It also makes it easier for your opponent as they can really focus down on a big unit at a time, until it's all gone, whereas smaller units forces decisions about splitting attacks, yet smaller units have way less longevity on the board. It's trying to find that fine balancing act of optimum unit size for point cost, damage output, effectiveness and threat. 

[Vasshpit]

How are chainghasts working out for peeps?  I don't see them in lists that much or just 2. 

They seem like they could be solid range support in large #s or kamikaze melee bomb units as you should be able to get a decent amount of attacks with their "everything in 2" range" melee mechanic.

2 wounds each as well. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

@Vasshpit I'm actually playing some games on Wednesday using chainghasts. Experimenting using them to soften up targets before my bladegheists attack, running the two types together to see how well they synergise. I'll post how the games go. 

I'm experimenting with running 2x2 and 1x4 to see which works best. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Tropical Ghost General

[Future]

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Agree, but it's about new books vs old with most of the really bad factions. As the inevitable power creep happens as well, it's not great to have a new book that isn't the hot stuff out the gate.  

100% agreed.

 

I use nighthaunt for narrative games. I only have a few painted up after I realized they were fun to paint (thanks underworlds). However, having a new battletome should definitely put you in the top tier if for no other reason but because writers should be learning what works and what doesn't and iterating on that.

[Future]

@Tropical Ghost General Playing 500 point night haunt game tonight. Wife is going to learn the game with the dinos and we are doing a 2v2.

Was talking to my buddy about nighthaunt and he is of the impression that mostly whats holding the nighthaunt down are the 2018 scenarios. How do you feel about that. I know you do a really deep analysis of lists and units about once per page and a lot of what you say is deeper than just the objectives suck, but do you think it compounds the problem?

[Vasshpit]

@Tropical Ghost General

Good luck!!! Hope they work out as well as I hope / imagined. 

Planning on underworlding them?

My thoughts go to this a strategy. Pop those spooks up right where you need em and unleash "emotionally burdoned" hell!!!

Wish they weren't random missile attacks. 

Too much random across our board...

[Neffelo]

45 minutes ago, Future said:

@Tropical Ghost General Playing 500 point night haunt game tonight. Wife is going to learn the game with the dinos and we are doing a 2v2.

Was talking to my buddy about nighthaunt and he is of the impression that mostly whats holding the nighthaunt down are the 2018 scenarios. How do you feel about that. I know you do a really deep analysis of lists and units about once per page and a lot of what you say is deeper than just the objectives suck, but do you think it compounds the problem?

Good luck, I've played a few 500 point games, and it's really rough on Nighthaunt. We need a lot of support for our lists to work and we just don't have it available at that point level.   2v2 should help make that a bit easier.

 

My opinion for what is holding Nighthaunt  back contrary to to popular belief, I don't think Night haunt is in a bad spot. That being said, it's going to be ease of use and complexity compared to a lot of the other armies. It's a lot easier when you have an automatic chart ala DoK or Deepkin that gives your entire army a massive buff or the ability to bring back entire slain units compared to making sure you have all the right bubbles,  your heros are staying alive, making the right deployment/reserve choices.  In other words, Nighthaunt is a lot less forgiving, and this learning curve can turn a lot of people off of the army. 

 

I can totally understand it. It's much easier, and forgiving on the tabletop if you are playing LoN and then bringing back whole entire units of Grimghasts, for very little trade off. 

 

4 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Agree, but it's about new books vs old with most of the really bad factions. As the inevitable power creep happens as well, it's not great to have a new book that isn't the hot stuff out the gate. 

 

To be fair on this, I do think there was some serious power creep with Deepkin and DoK. I don't really think new books should be aimed that level, but instead those two need to be brought down. LoN has a host of things that need to be addressed, but I feel like all of these just need some light touches in the right place. 

[adreal]

I'm sorta sitting in the middle with my opinion of the bedsheets.

I also play wanderers which while still fun and have some strong combos, are very lacking, so I see nighthaunt as better then them.

But I also understand that while some things seem powerful, they are pretty easy to counter, kill the guardian of souls and our wheels come off pretty quickly, or fail some spells in a key turn and we are pushing it uphill so to speak.

 

It's sad that in LON ghosts are better then in our own battletome, so competitively speaking, run ghosts out of LON and you will have a better chance, but for me, personally, based on my local meta and my own abilities (I'm a mid tier player at best), I'm happy with my bedsheets

[Future]

Thanks for the advice  @Neffelo . since it’s a learning game I have no interest in winning. I’d rather my wife’s team win and have fun to be honest. 

[Espy85]

I played LoN for a long time, but as soon as the Nighthaunts were put on the market I left everything to start collecting them, I love this army, I'm not going to abandon it, but I can not deny that it has gaps, I think the problem is that the game designers did not have a clear idea of what he would do on the field, the limitations to the wounds recovered and the difficulty in having the second save are due to the fact that the developers feared the impact of the ethereal rule, which unfortunately then in the field it proves sufficient to be able to conduct a war of attrition. The 10+ to get Wave of Terror is another example of the fact that the designers had no idea of the impact that this rule has for us, some units such as chainghast or bladegheist and dreadscythe, can not absolutely withstand the adversary saturation, or the spam of mortals that Nagash and Tzeentch spit out, so it is vital for us that such units, once taken to the field, manage not only to assault, but also to get the bonus of wave of terror, that's why I said before that units like the bladegheist and the dreadscythe need 3d6 to load, like the Morghast. I do not say to do it for the whole army, but only for the two units I mentioned. I do not think this would have broken the game.
That said, the way to make it work is, I recently defeated the DoK in their best form (60 witches, 30 slaughterers and two cauldrons) and without deploying the reapers, but it all depends on how many 10+ you can do in charge, winning or losing for us depends only on that, and I do not find it right. Because it took very little to make a good book, not overpower, but only good. Meanwhile, maybe Sunday game against Tzeentch, and it makes me more afraid of DoK.
 

[Neffelo]

5 minutes ago, Espy85 said:

I played LoN for a long time, but as soon as the Nighthaunts were put on the market I left everything to start collecting them, I love this army, I'm not going to abandon it, but I can not deny that it has gaps, I think the problem is that the game designers did not have a clear idea of what he would do on the field, the limitations to the wounds recovered and the difficulty in having the second save are due to the fact that the developers feared the impact of the ethereal rule, which unfortunately then in the field it proves sufficient to be able to conduct a war of attrition. The 10+ to get Wave of Terror is another example of the fact that the designers had no idea of the impact that this rule has for us, some units such as chainghast or bladegheist and dreadscythe, can not absolutely withstand the adversary saturation, or the spam of mortals that Nagash and Tzeentch spit out, so it is vital for us that such units, once taken to the field, manage not only to assault, but also to get the bonus of wave of terror, that's why I said before that units like the bladegheist and the dreadscythe need 3d6 to load, like the Morghast. I do not say to do it for the whole army, but only for the two units I mentioned. I do not think this would have broken the game.
That said, the way to make it work is, I recently defeated the DoK in their best form (60 witches, 30 slaughterers and two cauldrons) and without deploying the reapers, but it all depends on how many 10+ you can do in charge, winning or losing for us depends only on that, and I do not find it right. Because it took very little to make a good book, not overpower, but only good. Meanwhile, maybe Sunday game against Tzeentch, and it makes me more afraid of DoK.
 

I agree with almost everything said. I agree that we have several flaws, that prevent us from becoming a great book. Several very minor adjustments that and small touches that would have turned a good book into a great book.  I do hope they make some of these adjustments in the future, like TGG and you mention, but in the meantime, I think we are in a good spot. The main problem is we have a few tomes that are well above the standard, that need to be brought down into the fold. 

Tzeentch in my opinion is one of the harder matchups, as Nighthaunt. I play Tzeentch and the amount of mortal wounds I can output is pretty staggering. Mass Mortal wounds is also a pretty big weakness to Nighthaunt, and Tzeentch can also snipe our characters pretty effectively too. 

That being said, Good luck! I look forward to your after action report.

[Espy85]

Thanks, let's hope it goes well, but the mortal wounds are a problem, I'll have to try to eliminate the wizards as soon as possible, exploiting the Myrmourn. Surely a short battle report will do it.

[Tropical Ghost General]

7 hours ago, adreal said:

, I'm happy with my bedsheets

This is the best way to be. I also agree that if we don't get that one spell or 10+ charge the whole game is so much more difficult. 4 out of 5 wins for me have been to getting 10+ charges in games. 

 

8 hours ago, Neffelo said:

In other words, Nighthaunt is a lot less forgiving, and this learning curve can turn a lot of people off of the army

Ain't that the truth. I've stopped playing legions in 2.0 because it's too easy. It saddens me that GW put so much time into making the best looking army (without a doubt) yet have made it a lot more difficult to be able to get balanced games with. The vast majority of my loses have been where the opponents army completely out classed me or was able to bring something to the table with no way to counter it. On the plus side, less spook players makes the army more exclusive so less chances of mirror matches. 

 

7 hours ago, Espy85 said:

I recently defeated the DoK in their best form 

Well done. Couldn't have been that easy. DoK are fortunate in that they have lots of best forms, there aren't really any bad units, and their book is solid. A friend works at a GW store and he tends to play the really strong/broken armies, and he picked DoK because of how gross they are. Against Tzeentch let them have first turn, their spells are 18", so it gives you the chance of the double turn. I would have tabled my Tzeentch opponent in turn 2 last week had I not failed 6 charges (with 1 re-roll), whilst cogs was activate, needing rolls between 4 and 6 ?. Being out in the open to mortal wounds hurts, a lot. Try and keep 2 heroes in range of units with Tzeentch so you can get death saves as well. Looking forward to hearing the results. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

9 hours ago, Vasshpit said:

Planning on underworlding them?

No sneakiness this time. The 1k games I have on Wednesday are the beginning of many extensive tests with the spooks. I'm playing the games with as little buffs and bonuses as possible, so no cogs, etc... Reason for this is to get some game time in running units as vanilla as possible, to see how they stand up to the rigors of battle. I have to take this approach with units as I find it a lot easier to see where the faults are, than playing them at max awesome and being able to identify just how they are awesome, if that makes sense.

So this week's games are testing lots of 10 man units, as it will help me to determine optimum unit size. I'm also testing the warscroll synergy of chainghasts/bladegheists, trying to see if they are a better option than torments, whether the only missile attack in the book is worth using, seeing if the unit of blades gets better support from 2x2 or 1x4, etc... Obviously any conclusions I'll post up for sharezeees. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

11 hours ago, Future said:

I know you do a really deep analysis of lists and units

Haha. That's another way to describe my rambles and moans. OK, so below is my interpretation of the 18 missions and how we fair in them, etc... I maybe completely wrong in my interpretations but am happy to be corrected. 

1 - Blood & Glory (BRB): A straight forward smash and hold type of mission. Needing to wait until turn 3 before claiming objectives is good, as we can underworld units off the board and charge in and swarm the enemy objectives. As points aren't scored, we can truly ambush on this mission, which works in our favour. Only downside you'll face is if your opponent has used their units to screen you effectively. I would say this is a good mission for us. 

2 - Escalation (BRB): Again, this is a fairy straight forward, smash, grab and hold. Not scoring points until turn 2, takes the pressure off doing an alpha strike or needing first turn. The shenanigans with different units needing to deploy different distances away also works in our favour, as we can underworlds most non battleline and all behemoths, so they can sit on objectives really quickly. Issues with this is that most large monsters can cover 24" without sweating. Focusing on 2 objectives but sacrificing a dummy unit to secure a 3rd can make your opponent split his force. If you are 7 points ahead by end of battleround 3, you have won the game. So sending chaff onto a 3rd objective can win it early on. I would say this is a good mission for us. 

3 - Border War (BRB): More tactical than the first two missions, baiting your opponent is the best way to secure victory. Unless your opponent has left a massive gap at the back deployment, aiming for the back objective is often not worth it. I normally sacrifice a unit of 10 grims or 20 rasps to charge their castle on the back objective, because it forces them to deal with the threat, it's not a super threat but enough that it needs attention. Big blobs of rasps or grims sitting on the objectives in turn 1 and 2 will pretty much win the game, as you'll be up 10-2 by end of battleround 2. I would say this is a good mission for us. 

4 - Three Places Of Power (BRB): This one is difficult for us to do. We struggle to deal with big monster heroes and we have none ourselves. Having a 14 wound monster with doppelganger cloak sit on an objective the entire game will win it for you, especially as the points increase the longer your on the objective. As our heroes are so squishy, the only thing we can do is use fast moving heroes (like Reik or dreadblades) to sit on objectives early turn 1 and bubble wrap the hell out of them, so only shooting attacks are able to get through. This mission is not in our favour though. I would say this is a bad mission for us, really bad. 

5 - Gifts From The Heavens (BRB): This is an odd one and the points scoring can make the game swing wildly either way. Using chaff to sit on our objective is key, as you'll need everything else to be focusing on your opponents attacks on your own objective and your attacks on their objective. As objectives are secured by most bodies within 6", you can use superior numbers to claim last minute victory. Big units of rasps or grims with lots of healing/reviving can make this an easy mission depending on your opponent. I would say this is a neutral mission for us. 

6 - Take And Hold (BRB): This is basically a straight up fight to the death. Any missions with just two objectives means there is very limited focus for you and your opponent. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to underworlds onto their rear objective. Lower model count armies will struggle against us but they'll more than likely be more aggressive as well. Double bubble wrap our own objective and create as many endless waves of attacks as possible. Our fly ability, even when piling in, makes it a lot easier to secure the opponent's objective, especially as the models can be from different units. I would say this is a neutral mission for us. 

7 - Knife To The Heart (GHB18): Another smash and grab type mission. Really similar conditions to Take And Hold, except there is more room to underworlds behind your opponent. Any missions with a single focus aren't great for us in my opinion. I would say this is a neutral mission for us. 

8 - Total Conquest (GHB18): A pain in the bum to set up, a lot of players I know veto this one just because of the deployment set up ?. Having multiple objectives is good for us as it splits the opponents focus. As this is about scoring the most points, be careful not to take am objective unless you are certain you can hold it, as you score bonus points for reclaiming previously held objectives. Using dummy/sacrificial units can lead to giving more points away. Luckily big blobs of rasps or grims can be hard to shift. Whether we do well on this mission is massively down to who you'll be facing on the board. I would say this is a neutral mission for us. 

9 - Duality Of Death (GHB18): Basically a more difficult version of Three Places Of Power, as there are only two objectives rather than 3. Points increase the longer the objectives are sat on, so again it favours behemoth heroes, which we don't have. I once play this against Sylvaneth, they set woods on the objective, sat a tree lord in the woods, I couldn't do anything to it, as I had no -2 rend in the list at the time, was a very quick game. I would say this is a bad mission for us. 

10 - Battle For The Pass (GHB18): Basically this is Border War but with different deployment. Having multiple objectives that anyone can hold, lots of room to underworlds (18" from table edge to objective ?) makes it easy to split your opponent's focus. I would say this is a good mission for us. 

11 - Starstrike (GHB18): A tweaked version of Gifts From The Heavens. Due to the random nature of where the objectives could land, our fast moving units helps a lot with this mission. It's one of those missions that can decided in turn 3 when the objectives land on the board, as they can all be 100% in your favour. I tend to gamble when playing this mission and aim to control an entire side of the board. If the objectives land centrally they aren't too far away, if they land next to me I've won, if they land furthest away from me, I've lost. I would say this is a neurtal mission for us.

12 - Scorched Earth (GHB18): This mission relies on spreading our and that isn't good for us, as the objectives can be burnt on player turn, it means having limited spread out spooks are a very soft target to attack. I tend to burn one of the far objectives with a tiny chaff unit to limit the amount objectives that I have to defend. If my opponent doesn't do the same, then I underworlds units onto the weakest held objective. Bubble wrap your own as much as possible. And this is an auto win game for lizards players, due to their teleporting shenanigans, yes Stormcast also teleport/deepstrike but they have smaller unit sizes to claim objectives. Taking a dreadblade as a general can make this an auto win mission for us as well. I would say this is a good mission for us (unless playing lizards).

13 - Total Commitment (GHB18): Having no reserves for this mission makes this bad for us. Using a dreadblade general can overcome that but overall having one of the main faction mechanics disabled isn't helpful. Other than that it's a straight up smash and grab, with greater rewards for grabbing. Using dummy units to split focus can help to secure victory though. I would say this is a bad mission for us. 

14 - Focal Points (GHB18): This mission is great for us. More objectives, means even more split focus from your opponent. Underworlding chaff units as dummy attacks and misleading your opponent is very easy for us on this mission. It can get easy to get a guaranteed victory by end of turn 3 on the mission, depending on your opponent that is. I would say this is a good mission for us. 

15 - Better Part Of Valour (GHB18): This mission is a bit silly in my opinion. The points available for holding objectives means games can end with both players having 30+ victory points. It's another smash, grab and hold type mission. Having the spread out our forces isn't great though and this mission will massively depend on your opponent, if you have power of numbers great, but if they can move fast and hit hard, that's not so great. I would say this is a neutral mission for us. 

16 - Shifting Objectives (GHB18): I really like this mission due to the random aspect of it. Due to the deployment type, and the fact that everything is focused in a very narrow corridor, I wouldn't say it's a great mission for us as a faction. Sure we can blob in the objectives, but it also means the opponent only has a single area to focus down on. I would say this is a bad mission for us. 

17 - Arcane Places Of Power (GHB18): Just like Three Places Of Power and Duality Of Death, this mission is won by large monsters, which we don't have. If the black coach had the hero keyword than maybe we would be able to stand a chance, but this is another mission that is weighed heavily against us as a faction. I would say this is a bad mission for us. 

18 - The Relocation Orb (GHB18): Due to wizards or heroes counting as 20 models, this mission again favours large behemoths. The skewed nature of the 2nd player getting more points, means that the game can be over by end of turn 3. I love the random aspect of the orb moving around the board, but again it's a single focus point for your opponent. I would say this is a bad mission for us. 

Wowser, that took longer than I thought to write out ?. @Future as you mentioned that you are relatively new to the game, I've tried to keep it all fairly basic, as there is a lot of ground to cover. Certain factions benefit certain missions more than others, so who you are facing has a massive outcome on whether the mission will be in your favour or not. We have some interesting tactical shenanigans that we can pull to do really well on a fair few missions, but generally when there is a single point of focus, we struggle as most of the time our opponents can either out magic us, out shoot us, out melee us or out last us. We do really well when there are multiple points of focus, as we are a hit and run ambush army, so being able to split your opponent's force is key to victory for us as a faction. 

Coincidentally, adding up all the good, neutral and bad missions, it's an even 6/6/6 split ?. The BRB missions are generally better for us and the last 6 in the GHB18 are generally bad for us. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Tropical Ghost General

[Tropical Ghost General]

So while bored at work the other day I calculated that I have over 6k of ghosts ?. I said to myself that I wouldn't get any more. I have everything except the harridans and didn't like how they looked. Then I had an idea for a kitbash and brought some harridans ?. 

The kitbash was done using the standard heads from grimghasts, as I've left mine faceless to be more spooky. I cut off the hair and face from the harridans and stuck on the grim heads. I need to do a fair bit of green stuff work to them still, but thought that I'd share the initial workings. 

[adreal]

Looks good, the blind look works for them

[Tropical Ghost General]

Yeah, the flowers in the hair is what was putting me off tbh with the original sculpts. Now they're blind, they're like something out of silent hill or some tacky, yet scary J-horror.