EnixLHQ

Fixed. Now reads: Cheap Hero Hunting: A unit of Bladegheists with either a Spirit Torment or a Chainghasts unit can be a cheap-ish set to drop from Underworlds and snipe an enemy backline. Though, at either 265 or 305 points, probably not considered cheap anymore.

I'd love a list. I probably won't be able to dig that deep myself, but I'd love the help for an allies section or anything else. Just tell me the ally, relative cost (vs a staple unit we have), their strengths and weaknesses, and how they'd work in an otherwise Nighthaunt list. I'll gather them and give credit.

I'll get on that fix later. What are some good allies and what roles would they play? Last I looked even though we can ally SB, most of their abilities are keyworded for their own faction only, did that change?

Updated for 3.0 Please give a gander and correct me where I've messed up or misled. Also, if you've got some lists that are rolling opponents, I want to see them. I'll feature them in the guide and give you credit.

What's the consensus on our updated endless spells?

Can someone tell me how the Spell Lore enhancement works? For example, I have Lady Olynder and a Guardian of Souls in a list. As a part of army building I get 1 free Spell Lore enhancement. This "unlocks" the ability to select Spell Lores for all the wizards I might have. So for Lady Olynder I give her Soul Cage. The Guardian of Souls gets Shademist. Bueno. But then I work in the Core Battalion Warlord or Command Entourage and select to use the Magnificent ability for 1 additional enhancement. I select Spell Lore again. Does this mean Lady Olynder can now know Soul Cage and Shademist, while the GoS knows Shademist and, I dunno, Ghost-mist?

NH is my only army, but I might be in the same boat, too. I likely won't be playing at all until then.

No, I just started with a reply to you and then continued on my wordy crazy train like a man on a street corner trying to convince everyone of a conspiracy. In all honesty you guys can ignore me. It's probably for the best, anyway. Because some of the counter-arguments are suggesting that and I'm entertaining them for the sake of trying to follow all the threads. Even if I don't agree, I won't dismiss anything without giving it a look. The end-all of the argument is: Is there a FAQ? If no, then what does your TO say? If there is no TO, then what does your opponent agree to? Are you happy playing a game with whatever that agreement is? If yes, then play. If no, then don't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

May I ask why you'd want to? Grand Alliance Death (and Destruction) tend to be very weak compared to Order and Chaos. This is even more so in that the new Soulblight Gravelords book changed all the power keywords to include the faction, and that'll be the norm going forward. Most of their abilities won't work.

I asked Ben and Sam over on Twitter how certain abilities factor into the weights their calculator use. He indicated they could release an article about it if there's enough interest. Head over to my thread here and chime in if you'd like to see something like that, and share it with anyone else who would, too.

In a rare discloser, GW goes into why everyone got a points increase (in general) and their vision of the new format. A couple of interesting bits to me. First: "[...] as battalions no longer have a points value, this increase will factor in those points that were used before on warscroll battalions." This suggests to me that 3.0 battletomes likely won't have warscroll battalions and the abilities they conveyed will be migrated up to allegiance abilities, subfaction abilities, or individual warscrolls. Second: "This points rise will help battles come to their conclusion in a timely manner by reducing the size of armies once more." This tells me that they want smaller, faster games. I see this as a win both for at-home play where a single game can take up a whole day's plans, as well as the devs getting more data from more games taking place in every aspect that they gather data. As always, they ask for feedback via AoSFAQ@gwplc.com.

We never got our bigger blobs fully into combat anyway, so using 1/3 or 1/4 of one now to shuffle in behind for coherency is not that much different.

I totally overlooked this! I assumed it was still "closest model." Confirmed it just now in 12.2. This actually a huge change for us. This allows us to keep formation and wrap around a target unit. It also allows, thanks to flying, small leaps over edges of enemy units or screens. More importantly, it allows you to shift to a side of a target unit either closer or further away from their bulk of counter-attacks or accompanying hero. These were all tactics I was playing with back before my friends and I understood the "closest model" rule and it was probably our most understated advantage that flying allows.

I'll definitely be updating the guide. I'm waiting to get the complete books in my hand first. I pre-ordered, so it'll be soon. As for endless spells, Chronomantic Cogs got an update that's still worth looking at. I've always been a fan of ones that thin out or interfere ranged units, so Purple Sun or Prismatic Palisade. But, with the new Endless Spell rules our own spells might be worth looking at again. The coherency rule is unfortunate, and a big change from what we're used to. But it's clear from the rule, unit sizes, reinforcement limits, and board size that the designers are moving away from giant hoard armies and dead first turns and are trying to make a smaller more dynamic game. The coherency rule helps facilitate that. If we could still string out our units as we please then the smaller unit sizes would mean nothing and every army would just bring a single maxed-reinforced unit and fight it out. Armies with a ranged option would dominate even more because their screen would still be a hoard and they'd be removing models that weren't in play anyway. This rule at least means we have to bunch up our larger units, which means our opponents do, too, which means the likelihood of erasing a unit in the first combat phase is less likely. This change is huge equalizer among the armies, which we really needed. It waits to be seen if a Cities all-ranged or a Lumineth all-magic army won't dominate, but that will be a problem everyone has to face, not just us. I don't like how cohesion works now, but I'm excited to try it out, along with everything else.

I'm a huge fan of the Black Coach. Definitely run that. Also consider going heavier on the Reapers and switching the Bladegheists for Harridans to make it work.

Wow, I hadn't thought of that. But, wouldn't just tucking the 6th one in the back accomplish the same thing? As well as give you an extra body to lose? Oh, wait, were you being sarcastic? 😬 I think this is either for armies that don't have a lot of small unit options like we do. Or for players who got a box set and just don't have a full unit's worth of models like any of us coming from a Soul Wars box. I can't find the question on FB anymore (thanks janky FB search and sort), but I think the question was more about what happens when you have more than one type of buff on a unit. Are you forced to take one over the other, or does issuing a CA somehow alter that. 1.6.2 says you get to choose the order, 1.5.4 says you can only re-roll once, and the sidebar says that even though you can add as many + and - to hit as you want, the net result will cap at +/- 1. So in this case the Reaper player gets the +1 and an option for RR1 or RRall. And yeah, RRall is better. It's going to be situational based on what you are trying to do. Damage-wise here's their breakdown: A Bladegheist standing still does the lowest damage in this comparison. A BG standing still with a ST buff does the next lowest. A BG who charged does more damage than the above. A Harridan without any support does the same damage. A Harridan with a ST does the next most damage. A BG who charged and has a ST near by does the most damage. This damage difference is negligible over each scenario, pretty much all under 1 damage until the Harridan with a ST where it goes over 1 (but still less than 2). Utility-wise BG's retreat and charge is very nice to quickly get over units you want to ignore and move on to units you actually want to target. In this way a screen or blocking enemy unit is a slingshot, you only have to move and make a charge roll for that closer unit than you do the one behind it, and then on your next movement do it again. But, you also run the risk of that fight not going well for you and not having much to charge that second unit with. You can also just retreat and charge into the same enemy unit over and over if you want, just in case you need them dead, but I wouldn't consider doing that without ST support. Harridans are almost the opposite kind of fighters. Damage-wise, every 5th model is going to get that 1 damage through more often, and allows them to stand and fight with the same efficiency as a BG unit that's mobile. Add to that the -1 to hit for all enemy models within 3" of a Harridan unit if their Bravery is less than 7, the Slasher Crone being able to issue CAs, and their 30 less points per unit, Harridans look like the best unit to use for dealing damage and staying one place to do it. That -1 to hit can be around another 10% less chance to be hit (with our saves/ethereal), so that unit will stick around 10% more of the time. This increases to 25% more if a hero is near by giving out our ward save.

I went down the Facebook rabbit hole. If their rants are to be believed then apparently every faction article released for this new ruleset has at least one mistake. The conspiracy is that it's because they are operating under different warscrolls than we currently have. If I were to take a guess, though, Occam's Razor would suggest the writers, players, and editors are just under a time crunch and aren't catching mistakes. But a point was made that I don't see the rules making a call on: Suppose your line of Reapers is accompanied by a Spirit Tournament and are facing a unit with 5+ models. You decide to use the CA All-out Attack. 1: Do you get to choose if the unit benefits from RRall or RR1, or are you forced to use one over the other based on some order of operations? And 2: Does adding +1 to hit change the above at all or have another hidden caveat?

Insult to injury or more to come? You decide, because the #NewAoS page hasn't updated for Nighthaunt yet.

It cites Be'lakor and the Harridan's warscroll change directly, but then includes the old rule for Murderous Bloodlust. Easy mistake? Maybe. But it also was the focus of that part of the article.

Here we go: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/20/the-soul-wars-are-over-but-the-nighthaunt-still-have-plenty-in-store-for-the-new-edition/ Nevermind. Nothing new and even a mistake. First the Metawatch article and now this. Feels bad to see official blurbs about our army given so little import.