EnixLHQ

I don't mean centerpieces as in "build your army around this," but as "look at this very ornate and intricate model. We have more of those than the average army. And I'd be worried if the future of NH was a shift away from that aesthetic and instead generically designed future heroes for the sake of eye-catching monsters. In other words, monsters are the thing right now. They won't be forever. And we might not even get a monster that really changes anything for us like it being a better draw than Mannfred or Nagash. I'd really hate for GW to shove big $ and big point value models at us and neglect the army that supports them.

What I'd like to see with a new battletome would be an update to the Hexwaiths models, first and foremost. Our entire line needs to be brought up to the same aesthetic standard. On the same note, this should be used as an opportunity to make the entire line available to purchase in various forms without having to get dual-army boxes or other sales gimmicks from 2.0 that don't exist or make sense anymore. If we do get a monster, I sincerely hope it's not another centerpiece model. We have so many; The Black Coach, Lady Olynder, Kurdoss, and Reikenor are all ornate eyecatchers. I wouldn't want something to compete with them, since we already have so few reasons to put them on the table. If it's an update to the Mourngul, both as a model aesthetic and new rules as a part of pulling it fully and officially into it main force, I'd be happy enough. With rules to bring it in line with other monsters in the game it would do wonders, and if it had to be beefed up or gothiced out visually to match, bring it on. If the reveal is a whole new monster, then I kind of hope it comes as a replacement for the Mourngul and it becomes legacy. I think that would be the only way it would fit with the army without pulling the strings on the dynamic of the rest of the models too much.

Don't pay comments like that any mind. People will always come in to state their opinion as fact, and drag up the RAW over RAI debate over and over again cherry picking the side that benefits them the most in the moment. It's a form of gatekeeping. Let's not be about that. Ever. When it comes to fuzzy rules and interactions there are pretty clear ways to resolve it: -If you are playing an organized event ask the Tournament Organizer for their ruling, preferably before the event. TO's have the ultimate say, or will delegate that final judgement, in a manner that will apply to everyone at the event. TO rulings supercede printed rules, even FAQs and battletome updates. -If you are playing competitively discuss the rule in question with your opponent before the match. Competitive players tend to use RAW, both positively and negatively, to the letter with FAQs being the sole source of rule changes. But, having an honest conversation about rules that might give you an unfair advantage is good sportsmanship. You might find your opponent is doing the same and you're actually matched. -If you're playing casually discuss the rules with your opponent. Casual players tend to play RAI, or with caveats or other rule changes for any number of reasons. Value your opponent's time and effort, and do so by discussing where they are in terms of gameplay and how they feel about the rules in question. Settle any disputes with discussion, or failing that, a die roll that determines it for that game. You make better friends and make for better games at this level by being willing to bend, fluff, or ignore some rules to make the experience a positive one for everyone. -And for anyone who wants to argue the merits to any of the options above, you can always write the FAQ team at AoSFAQ@gwplc.com.

This isn't exactly right. To clarify, coherency must always be observed and is checked at the end of every phase, and the consequence of being out of it is a loss of models at the end of the turn. For example, you can never deploy a unit out of coherency. You can't knowingly move a unit out of coherency. And you can't return models out of coherency. This means that if you can't deploy in the area you wanted because doing so would force a model to a bit too far from the rest of the team to be coherent, then you can't even choose to deploy there. By the same token, you can't elect to move the unit in such a way that it would be out of coherency at the end of the move. (Though it is not a rule, it's good sportsmanship for you and your opponent to inform each other whenever a move isn't coherent on accident.) The same applies when returning models with the added caveat that any models you return can only appear within 1" of a model from that target unit that was not returned earlier that phase, and you cannot use model return to breach the 3" enemy bubble unless the unit was already closer than 3". (This is where checking at the end of the phase is important. A unit that was in combat that loses all the models that were within 3" of the enemy and still had models outside that barrier is still considered in-combat for that phase, allowing models to be returned crossing that line. After the phase, though, it's no longer in combat if no model from that unit remains closer than 3".) So that rules out you doing anything that puts you out of coherency by your own volition. That leaves becoming incoherent by something happening to you. There's two scenarios for that; your turn and not your turn. If you are subjected to a unit losing coherency on your turn, then you have three options ahead of you. The first is your movement phase. If you still have a movement phase then you must use it to bring your unit back into coherency. You are still free to use that movement to do whatever else you wanted to do, but at the end of it you can't knowingly neglect bringing the unit into coherency. If you have already moved, then your next option is to charge. If you are in charge range, you can opt to attempt to do so (you can also opt not to and lose models at the end of the turn), and if your charge rolls is enough to make contact with the enemy you can consolidate as a part of the move. Finally, if you are subjected to model loss after the move and charge phases, then your last option is pile-in. Hopefully the unit that was rendered incoherent is in combat and you haven't activated it yet so you still have a pile-in move with which to consolidate. If it is not your turn then unless you have an army ability to make a move of some sort (like Spectral Summons), your only option is pile-in. This is the exact reason to ever take our artefact Slitter and when to use it. You save your attack until the enemy unit you wish to target with it has already had a combat action, and then you select this bearer and activate Slitter. If you render that enemy unit out of cohesion they won't have any moves left (other than some army abilities) that can bring them back into coherency by the end of the turn. It's only at the end of all of this that you finally check for model loss. Any unit, on both armies, with models out of coherency at the end of the turn (after battleshock) must remove models until all units are in coherency again. This applies to both armies at the same time, and any affects that trigger as a result of this happen at the same time with whoever's turn it just was resolving their effects first. The last point to make about all this is the model return of 1" part, because I know it will be asked about. If you have a unit of 10 models and lost all but 1 of them and you are able to use a ton of model return abilities on it, you likely won't get all 9 missing models back. You have to pin all the returning models to the 1 that remained, and depending on base size that might only be 3 or 4. Chainrasps can double-up in ranks around that 1 model since a 25mm base is less than 1", so you have a significant chance at returning most of the unit. Addendum: Forgot to address when a unit goes from 6+ models to 5 or fewer. Yes, a unit that drops below this threshold will have its coherency rules change to be looser. Technically, the the rule only changes at the end of any given phase that the unit dropped to 5 or fewer models, but I'm not aware of any nit-picky point where that will be called into question. After the phase changes, the new rule kicks in and the unit will be coherent by the new baseline.

To those of you that are new here, welcome! To those of you feeling like we got nerfed or passed over, it's very natural and you've come to the right place. Please look around. To those of you feeling like Games Workshop has completely abandoned Nighthaunt, the support group meets daily and we've got cookies.

You cannot. You need a faction general in order to have a complete army. Nagash counts as a general-in-addition and is not factioned. Nothing stops you from making a Cairn Wraith a general, though.

My opinion, but hey, I've been right before. Hexwaiths jumping to take a bullet for Nagash is both RAW and RAI. It's RAW because it's in writing. Hexwaiths, when included in the Emerald Host, get the ability to absorb damage that was directed at a general if they are within 3" of the general. It does not list being Nighthaunt as a requirement for the general. And, in fact, you don't even get the choice; if your general is about to take damage and a Hexwaith is near by, you must roll. Can't decide to just let a general take the wound. It's RAI because why wouldn't Nagash have the ability to command his ghostly undead to take damage for him? It's not only exactly in his personality to do such a thing, but the Nighthaunt are arguably the least autonomous faction under his control. It'd take Olynder defying him in what would probably be a short-lived rebellion to keep a Hexy from tossing his horse at that damage. And, if you want a more rules-lawyery reason why it's RAI, consider that Reikenor's Condemned has a provision for multiple generals, which brings us up to other tomes in terms of some new mechanics. Nagash is arguably the most well known alliance leader GW's got. Nagash was already allowed in Soulblight Gravelords in this exact way. And they took the time to update Nagash's warscroll and decrease some NH costs. None of this barred the interaction. Not to mention that a few other armies have a completely valid "immortal" hero they can field. Now, will this always be the case? That depends on tournament results. If an Emerald Host/Nagash list dominates, then no. It'll be nerfed or just flat removed. If it prolongs otherwise losing games, then it'll be rewritten. But if it doesn't impact results much at all, then it'll be left alone. Chances are having Hexwaiths absorb wounds for Nagash will just likely make us evaporate a pool of wounds that otherwise would do nothing all game, anyway. You'll have to spend your CP and a spell cast to keep him beefy, and I doubt he brings that much damage to the table (otherwise he'd be in every SG list), so you'll be propping up your only (or nearly only) effective unit on the board with extra points in horse bodies. Our history with NH is that we get nerfed for no reason in the summer, get buffs around the holidays that then get retconned to not exist by the spring, and then ignored until Halloween where everyone remembers we exist and start the cycle all over again. So, uh, instead of fighting over this why not just enjoy it while it lasts and have some fun?

He might be the hammer we were missing, but he'll also be the BIGGEST EFFING THING ON THE TABLE and will summarily be selected for hard deletion. Don't neglect your daggers. I'd argue that by including him, your standard rank-and-file death dealers will be all the more effective with less pressure on them.

I talk about my method here: Ward saves are not optional. Unfortunately, Reikenor does have to attempt to make a ward save if he damages himself with his corpse candle, and even more unfortunate, if he saves that damage the rest of the effect doesn't happen.

The Core Rule FAQs point out that older command abilities like Spectral Summons can ignore the rules for distance and command source thanks to how Spectral Summons is worded. Since the ability says that you must set up units near the general, the FAQ points out the you can assume the general is the one issuing the command. This allows all units to be selectable options for Spectral Summons, not just heroes, elite units, or units with a commander. Then, it states that if a distance is mentioned in a command ability (for purposes of being issued or received), you can use the original distance and not the new limited ones. Spectral Summons targets a unit anywhere on the board, and so that still stands as its distance. The only thing that changes is that you cannot select a unit that already received a command earlier that movement phase, nor that the teleported unit can receive another CA after the move.

At least they are interacting with you. I got totally ignored. But then again, a multi-paragraph, bullet-pointed checklist of broken bits and design suggestions maybe wasn't what they were looking for.

Can't really answer that. Not a lot of people are playing Nighthaunt to source great data, and those that do play them aren't reporting play style or tactics. The list I'm using is the one that Sotek created, and it has the 30/10 split. The reason for the full squad of Chainrasps is that your ability to bring them back is limited, and you may need a buffer of throwaway models to sustain you through the game. You're limited because your restore abilities will be used on more than just the Chainrasps, Spectral Lure is a sure target for unbinding, and you can only bring back models within an inch of a model that wasn't brought back that phase, so even with amazing luck and rolls you'll hit a hard limit each phase. Sometimes you just need to let a grip of 'rasps die so that your Reapers can stay maxed or a Spirit Host is brought back. Nothing stops you from trying a different spread. You might find it works better with less Chainrasps and more of something else. Something I want to point out, while the death star tactic is pretty cool and definitely serves to greatly enhance out throughput as an army, it's also not the only style being used at the tournament level. Sotek is using it, but other NH players are using monster lists or Mannfred lists. In terms of winning lists, all three styles seem to have about the same luck, sitting around 3/2, but the only 4-win list reported so far was a Mourngul/Big Drogg list mentioned a page back. No idea on how the list was played, but it maxed points in every game but the lost one. With Nighthaunt, your mileage will vary.

The answer to both your questions are more or less the same. The death star is meant to be both an indomitable force on the field, able to go toe-to-toe with other armies thanks to the buff overlap, and also be the giant piece of distraction that's required to soak up damage while time ticks by and points are gathered. It does this by having a lot of model return close by. But it's also dynamic and modular. Shiftable. Detachable. Death Comes Swiftly can be used just to make sure the Chainraps move at the same rate as the Reapers, using 2" of the 6" granted so that the entire bubble can move that much faster. It can also be used to make sure the 'rasps aren't the slowest thing when running the entire blob somewhere. But, more often, you will use it as a sort of shock force; if you see an opportunity to rush ahead with the 'rasps to grab an objective or engage in a fight without danger to the main blob being left behind, or at a determent from losing the buffs, then fire this off to engage. Personally, I use it after the game has gone on for a while and my death star has done its work of the enemy army. I'll use it to tar up enemy reinforcements or to split the blob apart. Meanwhile, the Bladegheists, Chainghasts, and Spirit Hosts should be being used to grab and secure objectives. One of the first things you should do is use the Spirit Hosts to grab an objective that's safe enough to let them sit when coming from the Underworlds. If not, back them up with a charging Bladegheist/Changhast combo. Otherwise, your Blades follow your death star around until the opportunity is right to detach them, usually when you're sure your opponent can't exploit your back side. The death star has three major weaknesses; ranged spam, mortal wound spam, and MSU spam. But that's pretty much true of any army. If pitted against an army with lots of ranged, engage fast and hard and deal with that as soon as possible. Mortal wound spam? Try to avoid until you can commit all your resources into attacking. MSU spam? On the fly maybe decide not to deploy as a death star and instead as traditional rank-and-file so you can cover more of the board, consolidating later. Unless you can erase every MSU within the round you engage as a death star.

I've since gone back to correct my statement about cohesion. You cannot knowingly make a move that ends out of cohesion, but cohesion itself is only checked at the end of a turn. Slitter or Reikenor's Corpse Candles on an enemy unit, for example, can break cohesion of the unit but it won't result in models being removed from that unit until after battleshock is done. This is why you want to target enemy units that already fought, so that they don't have a combat phase with which to consolidate. That notwithstanding, the key to the death star charge is to do it at an angle. More than that, it's also to not get in your own way. You know you have a lot of separate pieces that will be going in for the charge, so the first thing is always going to be trying to get as close as possible before even attempting charges. If you can, get your entire death star to have its Chainrasps right at the 3" line for a charge. This puts the Reapers at a 4 or 5, and a charging hero like Kurdoss at a 5 or 6. This is really important. Your chances of landing a charge roll fall off very sharply. At 3" it's a hefty 97%. At 5" it's over 80%. But by 7" it's roughly 60% and that's the last inch before luck will no longer favor you. From there on out you are below the 50/50. 8" is 40%, 9" 30%. Our almighty Wave of Terror is just over 16%. Don't bank on these. After that it's about getting out of the way. You will be tempted to charge with those Chainrasps and then wrap them around your target and choke the life out of them. But if you do that you will be moving models into the path of your next charge candidate, which will require extra distance to overcome. This is why it's important to come in at an angle, it's so that your Chainrasp block only tags the enemy with a corner and, if charge distance allows it, wraps around the outside edge leaving a clear path for your Reapers. And then the Reapers do the same thing, wrap around your Chainrasps so that Kurdoss or whomever has their own straight, or mostly straight, charge. If you can't come in at an angle, then you will have to get very very clever with your Chainrasp coherency to leave a gap somewhere in the path of your Reapers so that one of them can get within a half inch of the target unit. Don't bet on this one, either. If your enemy can spot remove and removes that linchpin 'rasp, then you'll have to consolidate or lose a huge portion of your unit. Not worth it to just get a few Reaper swings in. Imagine you are holding a sword and shield and getting ready for combat. When you are squared off against your opponent you can either shield-check them or shield-bash them. If you shield-check, you swing your shield to clip them in their shoulder, or knock a weapon out of the way, and then follow through with a jab or slash with your sword. If you shield-bash, though, you are throwing your whole weight into striking with your shield, and it will still be in the way if you try to follow up with a slash. You'd only shield-bash for the same reason you'd commit with only the Chainrasps full on; you either don't need to commit the extra effort to take the enemy down, or you are they aren't your target and the guy next to them is.

Lot to unpack here... I'll start of by saying I'm conceding the point about Arcane Tome, and doing so for a few reasons. One being that I looked into some top tournament lists where it's used and spell lores are being attached. This is true across most major events. So it won't matter if I'm right or wrong, it's been accepted to function the same as an allegiant artefact, and so unless a FAQ changes that my opinion doesn't matter. Still, it's not the artefact granting the spell lores, it's the allegiance enhancement step. Keywords still matter. If your battletome says you need a wizard keyword and another faction keyword, this only grants the first. Means nothing to us right now, but our future book might break down spells by additional keywords. When I said all enhancements are applied at the same time, I'm saying that the same section contains all the rules to apply these enhancements, section 27.3. We're not told anywhere in the book if army building follows the same phase rules as a game might, so there's nothing to say that the entirety of section 27.3 applies at once vs 27.3.1 having to apply before 27.3.2. We are told, however, that "Enhancements are picked after you have chosen the battalions for your army (see 26.0)," so that leads to the first interpretation, but we all know how RAW gets muddy and interpreted differently almost on a case by case basis. Either way, the extra Enhancements you get for battalions, like an additional artifact, are included. If what I said sounded like I didn't agree with this, that wasn't the intention. My intention was to highlight that spell lores are granted to the wizard keyword at this step. The last bit, though, about allies. We agree. Unless I missed something. I mentioned it in my examples because I've seen the argument be made "well, I added the ally to my list, it's in my army now, so it gets everything else my army does," and I wanted to get ahead of that. Keywords matter, but not as much as the line in the rules that just simply says allies get nothing. I'm not usually one to go back and edit posts after they sat for a while, but between tourneys allowing the lore and my admittedly poor writing in those posts, I'm going to edit them later. I don't want misinformation attributed to them. Thanks for the assist.

Proxy it! That's what I'm doing. Haven't had a chance to actually play with it yet, but I've got a buddy with a 3D printer willing to make a tower that replicates the base size and height of the model. If my next game isn't the culmination of the escalation league it will be a game where I feature Big Drogg. Question is: Big Drogg and what else?

CORRECTION: Consensus from tournament events is that Arcane Tome will allow Spell Lore selections for the hero its given to assuming all other keywords allow the Spell Lore to be chosen. This is not a concern for Nighthaunt, who only needs the faction keyword to select a Spell Lore in our current battletome.

Ah, my home state (Washington, that is). I wish I would have attended. I would never have thought these kinds of lists would emerge for us, but I'm betting they are just counters to similar lists from the other factions.

In other news: Look at image 3. A Nighthaunt army went 4-1! 3rd Place - Dirk Coe Nighthaunt: Reikenor's Condemned - Victorious Secret Wins: 4 RECORD: 55 / 55 / 5 / 55 / 55 Battle Points: 225 Here is the list: What do you guys think?

I know. Now I want one...

You might be more right than you think. What if this is a deployable Spectral Lure emitter? Our answer to gravesites?

@Btimmy Same to hear you didn't have fun with it. Same boat, different stream for me. I was losing steam and was actively refusing to play for a while. I rather not play at all if my favorite aesthetic isn't viable than force myself to play with a different army just to play the game. But AoS 3.0 revitalized things for me for a bit. Until my opponents figured their changes out and started whipping me again. Now it's the Death Star. It has been the new fun and actually gives me more options during a game than it looks like it should. But, it's a band-aid over a deeper problem and may dry up if it doesn't solve the other tactical challenges I need it to Hopefully we're up soon for our refresh.

I'd start with a guide, maybe even my own (link in my sig or throughout my post history) and start with the basics. We're pretty neat in that we can have a few basic heroes and troops that can combine in different ways. So, I spent some time doing some research on this and I came across something interesting. When the FAQ first hit, "bodyguard" was specifically a word used in the example cited in the document. But, if you go look now, that word and the whole paragraph surrounding it is gone. I can find plenty of reprints, but the official FAQ downloads themselves just don't have it anymore. Without that paragraph a bodyguard wound reallocation is just moving the wound. Deathless still applies to the allocation. So Hexwaiths get a ward. But, and this is always the case, the TO has the final say on what the rules are going to be. They can even decide what FAQs and revisions apply. If @dmorley21's TO is ruling that bodyguard abilities count as the one ward roll, then that's the unfortunate reality of the rule mess. Maybe a petition can fix it, but beyond that our opinion won't matter.

What do you want to do? Narrative? Casual? Competitive? Facing a certain meta?

I hope that's true, because that's huge. I can't find a citation either for or against this other than some commentary on fan sites, though. That fixes one of the three problems with Emerald Host, at least.