AoS 3 - Nighthaunt Discussion

[Rors]

He's not the 1st but in terms of AoS he's condensed a lot of different tournaments (in collaboration with another Rob and Ziggy) and has the most data on AoS. He's also an exGW employee. https://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-stats-centre-state-of-the-meta/

There's similar stuff with 40k.

The recent changes made by GW used his stats, they creditted his sight temporarily before going back to pretending he doesn't exist.

His data is also now used by other well known voices in the community such as Vince V.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Rors

[Boggler]

I think the stuff that THW is doing for AoS is very bad.

Having a platform that points out the magnitude of imbalance in a game system is also very bad. It drives negativity when people should just be playing whatever they want/thinks it looks cool.

This game is a hobby. Tournament players are in the minority. It's so easy to netlist a top tier army to 5-0 and it takes a highly skilled player to do the same with the bottom factions. Having access to stats makes the top competitive players all jump on the new hotness wagon whenever it comes. Highly skilled players are rare.

Order can basically take any ally from whoever they want. Will Death get a similar treatment?

Edit: The problem with the reveals so far is that I don't think that the Scriptor or Crossbows will be playable even in a casual game.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Boggler

[Nightseer2012]

2 hours ago, Boggler said:

Order can basically take any ally from whoever they want. Will Death get a similar treatment?

So my observation is related.  A theme I notice for 3.0 is that most units are "meh" on their warscroll, and their allegiances are what bring them to a good level.  Even IF the NH book makes the Crossboos decent through allegiance abilities, their warscroll is still not that great. 

It discourages allying different factions quite heavily, which is something I love to do.  It is actually why my Death armies grew the way they have.  I was able to grow my collection in any way I wanted, and I knew they could work together at least decently.  It is actually something I would love to go back to, I actually have a Path to Glory coming up where I am taking Soulblight simply because they have a territory they can take that lets them share the Soulblight Keyword with Nighthaunt and Flesh Eater allies.

[Boggler]

3 minutes ago, Nightseer2012 said:

I actually have a Path to Glory coming up where I am taking Soulblight simply because they have a territory they can take that lets them share the Soulblight Keyword with Nighthaunt and Flesh Eater allies.

That sounds really fun. I wish my local had more interest in stuff like this!

For those same reasons my NH army includes and or has added 20 Dire Wolves, Arkhan now Mortarch of Proxies, Necromancer. I played Legion of Sacrament quite a bit...

[Elmir]

2 hours ago, Nightseer2012 said:

So my observation is related.  A theme I notice for 3.0 is that most units are "meh" on their warscroll, and their allegiances are what bring them to a good level.  Even IF the NH book makes the Crossboos decent through allegiance abilities, their warscroll is still not that great. 

It discourages allying different factions quite heavily, which is something I love to do.  It is actually why my Death armies grew the way they have.  I was able to grow my collection in any way I wanted, and I knew they could work together at least decently.  It is actually something I would love to go back to, I actually have a Path to Glory coming up where I am taking Soulblight simply because they have a territory they can take that lets them share the Soulblight Keyword with Nighthaunt and Flesh Eater allies.

Amazing allegiance abilities might elevate a terrible warscroll to... average at best. 

As somebody with a large death factions in general, this is not good for me personally... but I would rather not be living in 40k 8th edition "soup-nonsense". 

That being said... With those warscrolls, those allegiance abilities better be straight up amazing! Or this faction is condemned to another 4 years of bottom of the barrel armies (barring a brief exploit with Nagash and a ton of Grimghast reapers in 2018). 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Elmir

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, Nightseer2012 said:

So my observation is related.  A theme I notice for 3.0 is that most units are "meh" on their warscroll, and their allegiances are what bring them to a good level.  Even IF the NH book makes the Crossboos decent through allegiance abilities, their warscroll is still not that great. 

It discourages allying different factions quite heavily, which is something I love to do.  It is actually why my Death armies grew the way they have.  I was able to grow my collection in any way I wanted, and I knew they could work together at least decently.  It is actually something I would love to go back to, I actually have a Path to Glory coming up where I am taking Soulblight simply because they have a territory they can take that lets them share the Soulblight Keyword with Nighthaunt and Flesh Eater allies.

Everyone loves allies when they are an optional thing, but when the best way to play your faction becomes allying units from other factions it's kinda not as fun. See Cities and Stormcast right now. Or the opposite case: When the models of your own faction are best used ina completely different army, like with Legion of Grief for a while. I base feel like Nighthaunt are still hurt today by changes that were made to get Nighthaunt models under control in Legions of Nagash when that was the way to run the army competitvely.

That said, I don't see much of a reason why Nighthaunt should not be able to ally with Soulblight and FEC in the next tome. It seems like that's the way things are headed in Death: Everyone is friends except OBR.

31 minutes ago, Elmir said:

That being said... With those warscrolls, those allegiance abilities better be straight up amazing! Or this faction is condemned to another 4 years of bottom of the barrel armies (barring a brief exploit with Nagash and a ton of Grimghast reapers in 2018). 

So far there are only really two dud warcrolls, which are sadly the two new ones: The Craventhrone Guard and Scriptor. The former don't have a well-defined role, the latter just seems a bit too swingy to be really good.

Everything else, I think, could easily be good with the right allegiance abilities or point drops. Plus, nothing is even known about the majority of the warscrolls in the army. Maybe Grimghasts are super good now, who knows?

[relic456]

1 hour ago, Elmir said:

That being said... With those warscrolls, those allegiance abilities better be straight up amazing! Or this faction is condemned to another 4 years of bottom of the barrel armies (barring a brief exploit with Nagash and a ton of Grimghast reapers in 2018). 

Yeah this is mostly my issue so far. The allegiance abilities have to be pretty insane to make something like the crossboos playable at a competitive level. I really doubt that'll be the case but would happily be proven wrong.

Hype = hope = disappointment, and it really is the hope that kills you. I guess at the end of the day we're the army of grief and despair, so it's just thematic for GW to torture us!

Edited April 6, 2022 by relic456

[Elmir]

51 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

So far there are only really two dud warcrolls, which are sadly the two new ones: The Craventhrone Guard and Scriptor. The former don't have a well-defined role, the latter just seems a bit too swingy to be really good.

Everything else, I think, could easily be good with the right allegiance abilities or point drops. Plus, nothing is even known about the majority of the warscrolls in the army. Maybe Grimghasts are super good now, who knows?

I would disagree with that... The Bladegheist revenants are now effectively filling a similar role as the dreadscythe harridans, only with a worse warscroll compared to the one very recently updated. That makes them a dud as well (so far of course).  

And yeah, we'll have to wait and see what those allegiance abilities are of course. The only thing to go on for now, are the updated or new warscrolls. And barring the myrmourn banshees, they don't paint a pretty pictures sadly. The Bladegheist have been straight up nerfed in their warscroll... no doubt about that right there... And they are "in competition" with other similar infantry from an internal balance point. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

45 minutes ago, Elmir said:

I would disagree with that... The Bladegheist revenants are now effectively filling a similar role as the dreadscythe harridans, only with a worse warscroll compared to the one very recently updated. That makes them a dud as well (so far of course).  

And yeah, we'll have to wait and see what those allegiance abilities are of course. The only thing to go on for now, are the updated or new warscrolls. And barring the myrmourn banshees, they don't paint a pretty pictures sadly. The Bladegheist have been straight up nerfed in their warscroll... no doubt about that right there... And they are "in competition" with other similar infantry from an internal balance point. 

I give you that Bladegheists are currently probably not viable (and I even said as much in my hot takes a few posts above), but they do have retreat and charge which is a powerhouse ability. In my opinion, they are only a point drop away from bein viable as a harrassment unit taken in 10s, and if they get a bonus to damage on the charge from an allegiance ability they might easily become good.

[Nightseer2012]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Everyone loves allies when they are an optional thing, but when the best way to play your faction becomes allying units from other factions it's kinda not as fun. See Cities and Stormcast right now. Or the opposite case: When the models of your own faction are best used ina completely different army, like with Legion of Grief for a while.

I agree, but I guess my feelings lean more toward that this is part of any game that leans so heavily into asymmetrical warfare.  I feel I would be more ok with this thought process if the warscroll was better and the allegiance abilities were light buffs for flavor, but that doesn't seem to be the theme of 3.0 right now.  If you "need" an allegiance ability to take a warscroll, than imo you have already failed step 1 of good unit design.  On the other end of the spectrum, you are right, we don't want a situation where NH absolutely HAS to take two units of Blood Knights as allies to be competitive or something like that.

[lare2]

21 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

they are only a point drop away from bein viable

Just to focus on this one point (not criticising or anything), point drops have been few and far between in 3rd. As a general rule, points are going up to ensure army size is overall smaller. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, lare2 said:

Just to focus on this one point (not criticising or anything), point drops have been few and far between in 3rd. As a general rule, points are going up to ensure army size is overall smaller. 

Maybe I am misremembering, but didn't the points of some of the Kruleboyz units go down from Dominion to their Battletome?

[EnixLHQ]

I don't think it's fair to say that a design philosophy you don't agree with is a design failure.

The books released in 3.0 so far have been very internally-balanced, and competitive against each other. The designers have said, on record, that the aim of 3.0 and its battletomes is to streamline the game and make every army feel unique.

Reducing the power of individual warscrolls accomplishes both of that. With reduced rules on the card you will refer to the units less and the allegiance abilities more to know what your options are during a game. Units will still have individual flavor and will fill optional roles in your army instead of being a "must pick" in every list. Tools in the toolbox, not oops all nailguns and hammers.

Having the power in allegiance abilities both enhances the flavor of each army (I like X army because it does X thing), but also means that subfactions are better enabled to change game play options. Because, face it, between Emerald Host and Reikenor's Condemned you were still trying to shove as many Bladegheists as possible. Now, we'll likely choose a subfaction based on the goals you want to accomplish.

Allying in units will be less of a thing. Again, by design. They don't want a super-unit to appear in every list. They created a whole new mechanic, mercenaries, to keep some options available, but to also keep a cap on runaway synergies.

The designs GW have come up with for 3.0 is a departure and that's scary and new, but the net result has been leaps and bounds better. Give them a chance.

[lare2]

19 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Maybe I am misremembering, but didn't the points of some of the Kruleboyz units go down from Dominion to their Battletome?

After a quick Google, it does look like they dropped for Kruleboyz. 

Thinking more about it though, I do feel NH points were inflated too much as a reaction to their use in LoN. They were never readdressed really after that. Perhaps we'll see a fair readjustment of NH. On the whole though, models are more expensive. 

[Lupercal]

45 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

I don't think it's fair to say that a design philosophy you don't agree with is a design failure.

The books released in 3.0 so far have been very internally-balanced, and competitive against each other. The designers have said, on record, that the aim of 3.0 and its battletomes is to streamline the game and make every army feel unique.

Reducing the power of individual warscrolls accomplishes both of that. With reduced rules on the card you will refer to the units less and the allegiance abilities more to know what your options are during a game. Units will still have individual flavor and will fill optional roles in your army instead of being a "must pick" in every list. Tools in the toolbox, not oops all nailguns and hammers.

Having the power in allegiance abilities both enhances the flavor of each army (I like X army because it does X thing), but also means that subfactions are better enabled to change game play options. Because, face it, between Emerald Host and Reikenor's Condemned you were still trying to shove as many Bladegheists as possible. Now, we'll likely choose a subfaction based on the goals you want to accomplish.

Allying in units will be less of a thing. Again, by design. They don't want a super-unit to appear in every list. They created a whole new mechanic, mercenaries, to keep some options available, but to also keep a cap on runaway synergies.

The designs GW have come up with for 3.0 is a departure and that's scary and new, but the net result has been leaps and bounds better. Give them a chance.

“They don’t want a super unit in every list”? The Errata allowing Nagash into NH lists (and Kragnos into Destruction lists) very loudly indicates otherwise. Ditto their design on units like SCE dragons and Fulminators. I don’t begrudge some of you the unbridled positivity and hopium, but it sure does seem like that’s being accompanied by a distorted account of how GW has managed the game thus far this edition.

[lare2]

I feel they've handled this edition pretty well, when it comes to the actual game. Everything else though has been atrocious, for whatever reason (e.g., the plague), from communication, price increases, release times, etc. Been playing since release and the actual game, it's the best it's ever been. This is all subjective though, of course. 

[Lupercal]

41 minutes ago, lare2 said:

I feel they've handled this edition pretty well, when it comes to the actual game. Everything else though has been atrocious, for whatever reason (e.g., the plague), from communication, price increases, release times, etc. Been playing since release and the actual game, it's the best it's ever been. This is all subjective though, of course. 

The last few pages, it’s been mentioned quite a few times that the battletomes released for AoS3 have all been good. I’ve heard plenty of complaining from SCE and Orruk players (quality hyper focused on a handful of warscrolls, other warscrolls, allegiances, battalions clearly left undercooked) and more recently Fyreslayers players who rebounded from “this is a tyre fire” at the Fury release to “this is very underwhelming” with the book dropped. That’s why I’m struggling to wrap my brain around the unbridled optimism. I don’t begrudge people their positivity, but it rankles to see those same folks chide the more cynical types using examples that feel at best “somewhat inaccurate”. 

As for me, I had arranged to split an on-release box with a mate the minute the WarCom article announcing it went live, hoping it meant an end to the unfortunate “mandatory Nagash” era. Until the Goonhammer article went out the other day, when I informed my mate I would regrettably be backing out of our arrangement until the battletome drops and we have a better idea what GW is actually doing with the faction. 

[EnixLHQ]

1 hour ago, Lupercal said:

“They don’t want a super unit in every list”? The Errata allowing Nagash into NH lists (and Kragnos into Destruction lists) very loudly indicates otherwise. Ditto their design on units like SCE dragons and Fulminators. I don’t begrudge some of you the unbridled positivity and hopium, but it sure does seem like that’s being accompanied by a distorted account of how GW has managed the game thus far this edition.

No it didn't. It was a correction already afforded to other god-tier units. Nighthaunt relying on Nagash overnight isn't an indication that GW wants power units, it's a symptom of the current NH rules suffering. I mean, it couldn't be more indicative of the years long problem we've had.

This isn't hopium. It's the benefit of the doubt. The fact that it can't be seen that way speaks loads about how negative people are taking things. Way too far. Swing the pendulum back to the middle.

5 minutes ago, Lupercal said:

The last few pages, it’s been mentioned quite a few times that the battletomes released for AoS3 have all been good. I’ve heard plenty of complaining from SCE and Orruk players (quality hyper focused on a handful of warscrolls, other warscrolls, allegiances, battalions clearly left undercooked) and more recently Fyreslayers players who rebounded from “this is a tyre fire” at the Fury release to “this is very underwhelming” with the book dropped. That’s why I’m struggling to wrap my brain around the unbridled optimism. I don’t begrudge people their positivity, but it rankles to see those same folks chide the more cynical types using examples that feel at best “somewhat inaccurate”. 

As for me, I had arranged to split an on-release box with a mate the minute the WarCom article announcing it went live, hoping it meant an end to the unfortunate “mandatory Nagash” era. Until the Goonhammer article went out the other day, when I informed my mate I would regrettably be backing out of our arrangement until the battletome drops and we have a better idea what GW is actually doing with the faction. 

This entire post can be defeated with a couple more google searches and a browse through Better Coast Parings, with the exception of you somehow thinking a single box set was going to change NH before the book release.

At this point people be wanting to be mad, and ain't no one going to tell them otherwise.

[lare2]

36 minutes ago, Lupercal said:

The last few pages, it’s been mentioned quite a few times that the battletomes released for AoS3 have all been good. I’ve heard plenty of complaining from SCE and Orruk players (quality hyper focused on a handful of warscrolls, other warscrolls, allegiances, battalions clearly left undercooked) and more recently Fyreslayers players who rebounded from “this is a tyre fire” at the Fury release to “this is very underwhelming” with the book dropped. That’s why I’m struggling to wrap my brain around the unbridled optimism. I don’t begrudge people their positivity, but it rankles to see those same folks chide the more cynical types using examples that feel at best “somewhat inaccurate”. 

That's kinda why I said my opinion is subjective, as are the opinions of those you reference. Personally I feel all the books you mention are good and I don't feel I'm living in hope for the NH release - my anticipation comes from my love of the army and my opinion that GW are handling the new books well. 

[dmorley21]

20 minutes ago, Lupercal said:

The last few pages, it’s been mentioned quite a few times that the battletomes released for AoS3 have all been good. I’ve heard plenty of complaining from SCE and Orruk players (quality hyper focused on a handful of warscrolls, other warscrolls, allegiances, battalions clearly left undercooked) and more recently Fyreslayers players who rebounded from “this is a tyre fire” at the Fury release to “this is very underwhelming” with the book dropped. That’s why I’m struggling to wrap my brain around the unbridled optimism. I don’t begrudge people their positivity, but it rankles to see those same folks chide the more cynical types using examples that feel at best “somewhat inaccurate”. 

As for me, I had arranged to split an on-release box with a mate the minute the WarCom article announcing it went live, hoping it meant an end to the unfortunate “mandatory Nagash” era. Until the Goonhammer article went out the other day, when I informed my mate I would regrettably be backing out of our arrangement until the battletome drops and we have a better idea what GW is actually doing with the faction. 

The Bonesplitterz subfaction got hit hard and players of that army are fair to be upset... otherwise I disagree with you. 

SCE has some overpowered warscrolls: Stromdrake Guard, Fulminators, and Longstrikes. The latter being overpowered mainly due to faction rule and Fulminators have counterplay. They have a ton of warscrolls, so of course there's some duds (Vanquishers, step right up), but overall, it's a really deep book. Recently I've seen Annihilator, Vindictor, and Chariot lists do really well. 

Ironjawz are in a good place. So is Big Waagh. Kruleboyz aren't but most people who play them say they just need a points adjustment and Hobgrots to be battleline - they like the army mechanics. 

People were down on Nurgle, but it's been a really solid book that has done well since it came out. 

Idoneth has not lost a step besides eel spam lists, and Fyreslayers have been doing better than people expected at tournaments. Anecdotally, my buddy has been doing really well with them in more casual play. 

Also, there's been some recent results from Nighthaunt doing well without Nagash or the Mega-Gargant. Tom Lyons just went 3-1-1 at Adepticon while somebody else (I need to find her name/Twitter username) just won a GT going 4-1 with Nighthaunt. 

[Boggler]

I enjoyed 2nd Ed more. My 9 year old son was starting to understand the way things work. 3.0 has too many extra unnecessary things like Command Abilities. This makes the game too hard for him from a competitive standpoint. He loves the ghosts.

Nighthaunt should have been able to take Nagash from the beginning. Not having his old warscroll really sucked since other factions could take their OP God model and this was the way...

I'm not saying if you can't beat em, join em but it really is a years long problem for Nighthaunt.

I remember a few years ago now buying Arkhan to ally in for some magic and healing. I worked hard to get that model done for a tourney and he got shot off the table by longstrikes T1 of my first game. Lol!

After that I switched to LoN Sacrament and had fun but mixed results.

3.0 seemed to be about ally'ing in a gargant. Now Nagash. I already got my Blood Knights ready to ally for later as well.

Anyways. The thing that was most worth quoting was a few pages ago. Elarr mentioned owing it to ourselves to write to GW if this book turns out to be a dud. That's the truth right there.

3.0 came out and Seraphon get 5-6 CP Per turn. How can they not know this would be a problem?

They had the data didn't they?

[Boggler]

It's a tough one. If you have an old book and an underperforming faction. Do you release a new book for that faction or do you take away all the OP stuff everyone else has and or rewrite the OP books?

DoK is getting a new book too. It'll probably go unchanged. Keep their cool stuff and even add more.

[EnixLHQ]

8 minutes ago, Boggler said:

Anyways. The thing that was most worth quoting was a few pages ago. Elarr mentioned owing it to ourselves to write to GW if this book turns out to be a dud. That's the truth right there.

That was me. I said that. I then edited that post when I realized the sheer negativity being generated here and don't want to be attached to any sort of bandwagoning associated with it.

[EnixLHQ]

[Boggler]

17 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

That was me. I said that. I then edited that post when I realized the sheer negativity being generated here and don't want to be attached to any sort of bandwagoning associated with it.

Ya. I don't know why I typed Elarr...

I don't find the people here negative. I find them to be smart enough to tell the difference between something that'll work and something that won't.

We all know the new book won't do much to refresh the state of the game or alter the meta. To do this GW will have to swing the nerf bat pretty hard in the direction of a few offending warscrolls. We all know which ones are the problem. We all know which existing interactions need to be changed. And, we all know how much change Nighthaunt need from the bottom up to be playable.

Sure. Maybe all the 3.0 books are done OK. They took some already OK tomes and updated them. Yay? But, none of them had as bad a starting place as Nighthaunt. None of them.