Shadowcortax
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Shadowcortax
-
-
10 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I personally hope they're new characters. I do like old characters reappearing sometimes, but AoS needs to forge its own identity alongside expanding WHFB's post end times story. Nagash, Neferata, Arkhan, and Manfred are all old world - which is fine - but the other death mortarch characters being new could help AoS story in the long run
So far we have 3 old, 2 new, and 4 unknown.
We know nagash is actively looking for individuals to become Mortarchs. Some new people could be nice, but so could some old people with new models and backstory as to what they have been doing all this time.
-
42 minutes ago, EMMachine said:
Looking at the Carrion King also known as (Sumeros Summerking, the Blood-Rose Prince and Ushoran the Handsome), he already was a Vampire in the Age of Myth. The Ghouls we know as flesh-eater Courts and there delusion came after he was imprisioned by Nagash.
I read that he was handsome when he first showed up in the age of myth, but then the whole curse thing happened. He then made the Flesh eater courts, who he spread his delusions to. Eventually nagash got annoyed, caught him and locked him up in a special cage. When Sigmar tore through Shyish smashing everything in his way, when he threw his huge hissy fit. He smashed the cage and Ushoran got free.
-
3 hours ago, Sttufe said:
Not to be insulting or anything but remember EVERYTHING is a matter of perspective. People can be hypocritical, and I am desperately trying to find the most thoughtful and polite way to phrase, but you are doing exactly what you said you didn't like people doing. i.e. complaining about GW, nerfs, whatever. Everybody does it, I certainly do it a lot, and more importantly it means you are invested in the game, which is a good thing, so just remember that something that may seem annoying, rude, or caustic, may not be intended as so, and might be influenced by your perspective. Not trying to call you out or anything, just keep perspective in mind
I'm not gonna lie, as a relatively young-ish member of this community, I have also found other various communities which are quite toxic, and if anything this hobby, even the competitive side, is the healthiest community i have ever seen, both in a broad snese of wargaming and Warhammer, as well as more narrow like TGA. I like participating in these communities because its so different than others I am used to, who will not help, hinder, and insult you at every opportunity, which leads me to the end of this long and winding road, remember to get some thick skin when you on the internet or just interacting with people. A lot of the time they don't mean what they said, I oftentimes sound caustic and long winded, but usually I am not trying to be. So just try to ignore some of their negative qualities and focus on the positives. Speaking from a younger standpoint, I never got into the hobby a few years ago since most people in my local area and playing were years older than me, and I remember it was intimidating, and honestly a lot of the time I was very isolated from the rest, so if that is happening to you (I am not saying it is) than just try to stay in it, it can be intimidating, but after a while you can manage to catch up and participate in their jokes and clique. This ends my rant, in summary remember to have thick skin on and off the internet, as well as not to be intimidated by age or just being a different type of people (idk how best to say it).
Thanks. I wasn't complaining just pointing out the "nerfs" I was talking about in an earlier post on this thread weren't a stat adjustment or something like arkhan's hand of dust no longer going off on 1's. It is more flavor and abilities being completely changed or removed and when I try to look up why, most of what I find is long threads bashing the army and people who play it, and any time someone speaks up for the army or players quite a few people jump down their throat.
Am I disappointed that GW changed those characters and abilities before I had a chance to try them out? Yes.
Is that what this thread is about or what I was referencing? No.
I was merely pointing out which "nerfs" I came across threads of, that the behaviour this thread is discussing happened on so that other could look it up if they wanted.
(Not upset, just felt like I needed to clarify)
-
8 hours ago, JPjr said:
Personally I'd prefer them to be, mostly, new characters.
They didn't get too much of the spotlight in the Soul Wars novel but in the brief time they had I liked how Josh characterised Crelis Arul as the Zombie/Deadwalker Queen and Grand Prince Yaros as a Deathrattle King, and both of those are factions that could be expanded one day with related Mortarchs.
Considering this from the Grand Alliance: Death battletome.
At the top of the hierarchy of death are the Deathlords, the MortarchsNagash is the supreme lord of the undead and claims service from all dwell in the Realm of Shyish and jealously claims dominion over all spirits of the dead. At the top of the hierarchy of death are the Deathlords, the Mortarchs whose lives and memories stretch back to the World-that-was. Guarding them like royal bodyguards are the Morghasts, powerful winged undead creations of bone and shadow that fight with ghostly blades, the Morghast Harbingers, and spectral glaives, the Morghast Archai.
and the fact that both of them are listed as Deathlords. I think they might be, which would still leave 2.
-
3 hours ago, mojojojo101 said:
I think its more interesting to think of this from how / what Nagash and the wider game needs from Mortarchs rather than any particular character.
Firstly I imagine with Nagash demanding that all souls belong to him and that being the core of his conflict with Sigmar I can imagine he isn't really a big fan of the IDK using stealing souls and using them to keep themselves alive. As such a Mortarch of the Deep / Abyss would be fitting (yay vampirates!!!).
I could also see Nagash wanting to bring the FEC in house as it were by appointing them a proper leader. Could line up with a refresh and expansion of the FEC line as well.
Considering that FEC were made by Ushoran, and that he was originally supposed to be a Mortarch in Shyish before his cousin Neferata cursed him which broke his mind. I think they might make him one at some point.
-
Hey just wondering if anyone has any theories about the other 4 mortarch of nagash?
He has always had 9.
9 advisors, 9 dark lords, 9 Mortarchs (end times)
He currently has;
Arkhan the Black: Mortarch of Sacrement
Mannfred Von Carstein: Mortarch of Night
Neferata: Mortarch of Blood
Lady Olynder: Mortarch of Grief
Orpheon Katakros: Mortarch of the Necropolis
That's 5, Mortarchs usually are a total of 9 so where is the other 4? I think Vlad and Krell are good solid choices, maybe/hopefully ushoran, abhorash, U'soran/Melkhior, drachenfels.
-
14 hours ago, EMMachine said:
If your army would be Grand Alliance Death (not Legions of Nagash), your Battleline Options would everything that has the Role "Battleline" without being "Battleline if", so:
- Crypt Ghouls
- Dire Wolves
- Skeleton Warriors
- Zombies
- Chainrasp Horde
- Kavalos Deathriders
- Mortek Guard
The mainproblem should be that the Death Allegiance Abilites should be quite weak.
You only have Deathless Minions as Battletrait, 6 Command Traits and 6 Artefacts. So no special Lores for example.
And Command Points should be a problem as well. It is stated in the Ossiarch Bonereapers FAQ that they use command Points for the Abilities if they don't use the Ossiarch Bonereapers Allegiance:
The problem is, that command Points are far more restricted.
So they would use command points and not replace it with the RDP for the army?
The trade off being the same as running a OBR list, have RDP but no CP, so they could use the command abilities on warscroll but not the generic or scenario or realm of battle specific ones?
-
2 minutes ago, Overread said:
@Shadowcortax I think we can all sympathise with seeing something cool and wanting to do it and then not getting too. That said I think its important to separate yourself a little from the rules. Many of us have seen games change edition to edition; cool things vanish and cool things appear and shift and change all the time. You can also find other cool things within the army to do and often as not a nerf isn't a "nerf" its just a slight adjustment. The ability is still strong its just not "broken" as much as it was before.
The main "nerf" I was talking about was nagash and arkhan losing the ability to know the spells of every death wizard on the field (made sense to me lore wise that they would) and neferata not being able turn heroes she kills into vampires (once again made sense to me lore wise that she could). I don't remember the others right now.
-
2 hours ago, tripchimeras said:
I think at the end of the day the hobby is about a lot of different things, and there are different people involved in the hobby for varying reasons. This can cause vastly different expectations between types of hobbyists and end in misunderstanding and conflict. I think most often this is why things like what the OP described happen. Gamers who have unwritten rules strangers couldn't possibly know; stuff like that. I do think there are elements here like any community that are toxic and negative, and purely bad. But generally speaking most of this stuff is just someone having a bad day, or the result of people not communicating expectations to one another. Its a social hobby and ultimately it is all about establishing clear expectations, cultivating a group of like minded players, and trying to be understanding and recognize where people are coming from. There is no one right way to enjoy the AoS hobby. I think where we all can get into trouble is where you assume the way you enjoy AoS is the RIGHT way to enjoy it. That is when you see some of the behavior being described in this thread.
There is nothing wrong with power gaming or competitive AoS despite the obvious flaws with AoS as a competitive game. There is also nothing wrong with thinking GW can make their game better and encouraging to do so. What gets the power gaming community into trouble is when expectations are not clearly defined and when people lose perspective. As someone who kinda falls into this category myself, I think it is very easy to get into the weeds when discussing the game, especially on the internet with strangers. When someone asks a question or relates an experience, it is only natural that a competitive gamer is instinctualy going to approach that topic from a competitive perspective. We are usually coming from a good place of helping someone get better at the game, but it is very easy for comments like this to come off as either A. Condescending or B. Discouraging. Not everyone is trying to be competitive, and not everyone is meta chasing. Very important to be clear about your intent and what you mean. I know I struggle with that sometimes.
This extends to everyone though. If you are a casual gamer who just wants to push models around. Establish that upfront. Both online when discussing the game and in person before playing a stranger. As a competitive gamer I can tell you right now I get nothing out of bringing my best comp list to a game against a thematic khorne demon army and ending the game t1. I learned nothing and feel bad, and your day has been made a little worse. If you say upfront you just like to play casual and have fun, I know to bring a different list, maybe play a bit looser, make some thematic and "epic" choices to encourage fun encounters that might not be the best decision. We will both have more fun. And there is never anything wrong with telling someone "Oh I really don't want to play ObR right now. Haven't figured them out yet and not ready for a rematch." No reasonable person will ever be mad about that.
All of this pertains to online forums just as much as in person games. If your perspective is coming from a place of modest competition, where you are mostly casual and just want to pick up a tip or two, if you lead with that, 90% of responses (especially on this forum) are going to respect that and try to engage with you from that level. That being said, this is the internet. There are toxic people, and even for the rest of us we all have bad days, and the internet can be a far too attractive place to vent our frustrations. Best we can do is try to be understanding and move on; easier said then done I know.
I like to play for fun, casual, and lore. My most recent game (3rd or 4th honestly) was a Coalition of Death 4 player game 2500 pts a player. I played OBR with a SE teammate vs. Pestilens skaven and BoK/Archaon. I took out the skaven player bottom of turn 2 and the Khorne player turn 3. Not sure if it was overkill or if I did something wrong? They said they had fun, but it left me wondering feeling guilty and second guessing myself. It was my first game with OBR and I like them for the lore and look so....
To be fair most of the damage to the Khorne player was from my teammate (who was fielding that one super fire dwarf?) I just helped with clean up.
-
3 hours ago, Popisdead said:
There are a few things I feel going on
1. the hobby has a portion strictly dedicated to arguing about it. rules, balance, dice rolls, whatever
2. The Internet
3. power/WAAC/whatever you call them gamers. They hit a army thread hard, then get really caustic about other options for the army and then push away people who generally like the model range. They speak down to people trying different or new things. I've watched it in BoC, Slaanesh, CoS, Sylvaneth (all the armies I play). Then they abandon the threads for whatever else will go 5-0 leaving a small trail of waste. They are good for the threads and bad for "community relations" if that makes sense. Cause they can find unique combos and rules people can often miss that more causal players can learn from.
#3 is partially what I'm talking about. I read some abilities in my battletomes that make sense from a lore point of view and I would love to play them or try them out. But then I saw some threads bashing a specific list combo that abused them and took advantage of loopholes. 1 of the people in my group insists we have to play with the most current errata/rules, and because tournament players were a bit overzealous in taking advantage of a certain combo, GW hit most things in that list with a huge nerf bat and now they say I'm not allowed to use those abilities or warscroll because they are FAQed out.
So what do I do about this?
Last time I asked someone this they said, " oh well, get over it or don't play. Current up to date rules are the only thing your allowed to use.". Which kinda came off as dismissive and cold.
-
Wondering how to run a Grand Alliance of Death Army with FEC, LoN, NH, and OBR.
Is there anything out there that has rules for that? I'm mainly asking because most death factions have their own mechanics and rules that they need to be able to run, and those are highly dependent on their allegiance abilities. Like OBR relentless discipline points. So I'm trying to figure out how to run an army made up of all death. I mean they have similar mechanics for the most part but just called different abilities. Also what would be used for battleline? Just the LoN battleline? Or battle line from any of them?
If anyone has any suggestions or can direct me where to find rules for this it would be much appreciated.
-
14 minutes ago, Euphanism said:
Welcome to Bone Town! Wait no, scratch that.
That looks like a pretty fun, melee heavy list. The only thing I might leave out is the Mortisan Trident battalion, it isn't bad or anything, but you'll probably run out of spells that you can cast, especially with Arkhan already on the table. Plus it means you can's spread out your heroes too much to support other areas of the board, which limits your ability to hold an objective. Though since you seem to be playing open play with 2320 points up there, if it makes sense for the game go for it!
You'll almost always want your general to be a non-named character, so that you can get that sweet command trait on them. The Legion you pick will determine the first artifact and command trait, but there really aren't any poor choices besides Ivory Host (I want to love them but they make it so hard). I'd recommend Mortis Praetorians if you're looking for a solid defensive play, or Null Myriad if you know you're going up against a magic heavy army like Tzeentch/Hallowheart/Seraphon. With all that resurrection power you've got, Crematorians might be a fun game as well, but you'll need to protect your lone Harvester for it to really do some damage.
It's a 2500 pts coalition of Death 4 player game
I also added
Soulscream bridge
Quicksilver swords
Suffocating gravetide
-
1 minute ago, MitGas said:
Just my theory: it's not about being hostile to you (or any other poster) personally I believe, it's about sending a message to GW so to speak. Many things that get criticized get spat on because they are objectively bad; hence people repeat their dissatisfaction so that someone from GW stumbles upon it and will share the "feedback".
If a whole faction is seriously lagging behind after a recent update, people are especially frustrated. Those poor Slaves to
DarknessWeakness*.*© JackStreicher
I understand that's what some people are doing but others are actually actively saying that "you should stop playing this faction because it's unfair" or "this faction shouldn't be in the game" and as a death player it's really depressing to try finding a answer to a question I have about my rules and the only threads I find about it are that everyone seems to hate death armies more than anything but maybe slaneesh summoning.
-
5 minutes ago, Kramer said:
I think in general the armies like Seraphon now, Slaanesh before, that seem to be overpowered and ‘sure fire’ armies do draw more competitive people. There are plenty of tournament players that chase the white whale if balance shifts and they will jump to those army threads. Now without any judgement, from that mindset it’s somewhat understandable if things get emotional. You choose your army to give yourself the best chance to win, now the balance shifts again and all effort and money is ‘wasted’. so I just try to ignore those comments most of the time.
but while writing this I’m kinda switching my opinion
I played hockey at a high enough level where everything was about winning. To win we focussed on the proces but winning was the goal. Every game, competition games, friendlies and during practice.
emotion do run high. Frustration happens. But within sports you have two things that doesn’t happen in tabletop. 1. Is during games you have referees. If I’m unsportsmanlike, I’m sent off.
2. My team would, i later for younger players, check me if I crossed a line. And if I wouldn’t have learned I would’ve been dropped. But not only they checked me if became too emotional. But they would also help me learn to deal with being competitive, physical, dealing with winning and losing etc.and the big lesson there was always 100% accountability. Something that was close to smacked into me by older players, but still serves me well in daily life. It’s why you hear managers talk about the process after a loss. You can control the proces and take accountability. You can’t control the ref, opponent etc but they do influence if you win or not.
thats how you build a culture where people are sportsmanlike and helped/coached/checked if they are not. Maybe a store manager could kinda act like a referee but that’s a hard spot to be in as a store manager I imagine.
so maybe on forums and in games we should coach and help our opponents a bit more to make sure it’s a sportsmanlike culture.That's the kinda thing I'm talking/asking about. But most of the time I've seen someone try to do that in the treads and forum that need it most people respond 1 of 4 ways:
Ignore them and keep driving their point.
Say something like "you don't know what you're talking about".
Immediately verbally abuse/assault them.
Accept the advice either willingly or grudgingly, but this happen so very little it's disappointing.
-
2 minutes ago, Overread said:
Try not to take things too personally when people talk about armies needing a nerf etc... Sometimes hostility isn't intended its simply a rather passionate/short clipped expression.
Also don't forget that people pressuring GW for change doesn't mean GW will agree or even listen to that change. GW in general isn't reading forums and reacting instantly to user feedback. The whole cycle repeats, but that is more because GW aren't great at balancing their own game. It's an issue they've had for years and relates to their attitude and style of writing game rules. Even the language they use in battletomes could be improved to help be clearer in what they are conveying. Another trick is them creating an all encompassing core rule; then making an army that breaks that rule one way then another army that breaks it another way - so when the two meet up you're left rather unsure which one takes precedence over the other. They have improved over the years, but GW are not top in the balancing department.
Again don't take things too much to heart, enjoy the game and play and don't worry if someone wants something nerfed or boosted or whatever. By and large most forum chatter is just geeks chatting, it has no impact on GW. (if it did you'd bet I'd be running 20 threads campaigning for more dragons!)
You can never go wrong with more DRAGONS😁
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
The usual „this army is too strong cry“ I guess. It might be warranted for some of them though ^^. Yet as long as you play the army as you want without abusing the most broken builds I don‘t think anyone will cry about the army
Mostly yes, but I noticed a trend of a lot of people complaining about certain things because they didn't want to play against it, even though the solution was easy-ish they just wanted it nerfed. And then the things got over nerfed and when the next big army came out the people who played the nerfed armies complained about not being able to compete because their armies were nerfed and not up to snuff unless they play a very very specific list, so their army now sorta sucks and the people who wanted it nerfed basically say "get good" because they are playing the new army.
Hence causing an endless cycle of people pressuring GW to need certain armies, GW over doing it and then releasing another army or book that brings another army up to the level of the previous one so it can compete, but the nerfed one isn't at that standard anymore, and so now there is a new round of people want an army nerfed, so it all begins again.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:
Interesting. I don‘t get that feeling though. Most comments on this forum are positive and they rarely devolve into the nerf debate (they usually are „pls buff my army“ debates like S2D) or they‘re purely competetive 🤔
I also never got a bad reply if I needed help with an army build .
In what Threads of the forum do you linger, if I may ask?
Edit: And that is coming from me, a salty Lord of Saltiness 😅
I don't remember the exact name but there were 5 different threads where people were bashing respectively each: OBR, NH, LoN, HoS, and Seraphon.
-
1
-
-
First game playing bonereapers any advice?
My list is
Arkhan the black
Vokmortain, master of the tithe
Soulreaper
Soulmason
Boneshaper
Harvester
1 unit of 3 stalkers
3 units of 20 mortek guard
1 mortek shield corps
1 mortisan trident
Any advice about who to be my general or what artifacts, command traits, spells and legion I should do?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:
@Shadowcortax the hobby is what you get out of it. If you only play with negative players, you'll have a negative experience.
Look for local players in your area, local clubs or events, and expand your pool of opponents.
Also, there is often negative players who have no idea how egregious they are being, because this hobby is full of shy people who won't ever confront bad behaviour. If you explain to this negative players that they create a negative play experience, being constructive as you do so, you'll often see radical change to their behaviour because no one has ever called them out on it before.
It's also important to not mistake passion for negativity. Often when something horrendous happens in a game, and I get tabled on turn 1 or something, it's a difficult and frustrating situation to manage, knowing that your choices lead to a complete and utter failure of a game. It takes a few minutes to process before you can return to normal. I'm not saying that this justifies bad behaviour, but sometimes a little empathy to how your opponent may be feeling during the game, as no one likes taking their toys off the table 😂.
But this is all the physical gaming stuff. As for the Internet, it's the Internet, people moan and vent. You don't have to engage with it. I'm part of fifty million hobby related facesmack groups, but they aren't the be all and end all of the hobby, they're just a forum, and like any Internet forum you often have to wade through the 💩 to find the 🌟
Thanks. I have spoken to the person about their behavior. They say they are just joking afterwards, but their tone at the time is not joking it's very aggressive, and they are a very large and intimidating person.
-
9 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:
I have to say, I experienced it a bit in the same way. It feels like for a part of the community everything that isn’t Khorne vs Khorne (without prayers) is a NPE and shouldn’t be in the game. There is probably not much you can do about this, besides avoiding them if you can play with other people. They might also avoid you if they think your faction is OP or just genuinely not fun to play against. Which also can be true sometimes, because things can be OP or not fun. But if it gets personal like in the example you gave, that person anyway has some issues.
If you stay a bit longer and venture into other parts of the community, you can easily experience the supportive side of it. If you talk about the hobby for example, or you venture into the lore part or things like that.
And here on TGA I think all in all it’s pretty good. Usually if you ask list building questions etc., in the faction specific threads people will reply with good information.
Thanks. The specific player I mentioned plays: Stormcast Eternals, Fyreslayers, and Cities of Sigmar in Age of Sigmar and Grey Knights, Ultramarines, and Tau in 40k, they hate the monolith (I play necrons) because they played against it in 5th edition and still are of the opinion that it is undefeatable, they also played against death during end times and hold a grudge against nagash, which is one reason (other than price) I haven't gotten him yet (they said they would smash him). Yes I realize that I should probably avoid this person but they are one of the only 5 people in my play group, and they don't act like that with any other army so most of the rest of group don't believe it. Although they do say all chaos should die but that's more their opinion on lore. They brought a thunderbird cannon to my first 40k game and used it against me. So not that great of an experience.
-
13 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:
Ok, now that you say it I remember last time I was in a miniature shop I heard a conversation between the shop owner and a customer. The owner asked if he would be interested in playing. And the customer said he wouldn’t play because he hated losing so much and he would be afraid of losing control over himself if he lost. A normal middle-aged man. I find this attitude self-crippling.
In RPGS, there is also this kind of gamers who are only interested in being the strongest. Maybe that’s comparable.
Seems there is a streak in nerdism using fantasy games mainly for self-empowering. I don’t know how many they are and honestly I find it sad. But for the sake of enjoyable playing experiences I’d advise to stay away from them.
Thanks for the advice, I'll try to. I'm just worried that I won't be able to tell which is which before starting a game with them.
Also there is still the other problem of people discriminating against certain armies, like "if you play that army you're a *blank*". Any advise for that? I don't really like talking to some one and I mention I play OBR, NH, and LoN and being promptly assailed with nasty comments about why those armies are bad, OP and need to be nerfed or I'm bad player for playing them. It really gets depressing.
I also come across a similar problem in 40k.
-
Just now, Beastmaster said:
It’s the Internet. 😎
Even then it shouldn't be about trying to get GW to nerf every army you play against that is even the smallest bit frustrating or that you haven't been able to beat in your first few game against them. Also it's more about why are so many people in the community bitter and hostile? The community is advertised as welcoming and supportive, but if say a new player picks up and plays NH, OBR, or HOS then they get bullied or discriminated against for their choice. I personally had someone threaten to burn my book and smash my models when I beat them (I got lucky and managed to kill their general, but that was mainly good rolls on my part and bad on theirs, but they didn't see it that way, they just saw it as my faction was too OP and needed to be nerfed).
-
3
-
-
I'm fairly new to aos, only really played a few games with friends. But why whenever I try to look up the answer to a question I have in the forums, most of what I see is just people ranting about, "this faction needs to be nerfed", "this army should never have been made", "ability is too overpowered", "that character needs to be nerfed". And then a few threads later I see, "why did they need this", "my army can't beat that army because I got nerfed", "if this is how GW is gonna do things then I'm out". And most of the time the reason that I see people complaining is because they are having a bit of trouble winning against a certain army, but the reason they are having trouble is because their army got nerfed, so now they want to nerf another army. I was told when I started this hobby that the community was supportive, but more than half of what I see and find is people complaining, and when someone offers advice most people either ignore it or respond with something like "well have YOU ever face them", or "you have no idea what you're talking about". And then there are the things I see and here about people being bullied away from certain armies because the community decided that if you play that armies your either a noob or a 'meta-chaser' or a bad person in general.
Why? What happened? And why do I feel like everyone has it out for the death faction, and by extension me a death player?
-
4
-
-
Working on putting some rules together.
I'll post them here when I'm done for some feedback and opinions
-
1
-
Souls Wars by Josh Reynolds
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Shadowcortax
Hi, sorry if this is long or feels ranty.
I like the lore of aos and whfb, I have all but FEC of the death battletomes. But I'm confused about some things I've read in this thread.
1. Nagash lore. As I remember/understand it, when Sigmar freed Nagash and asked him to join up , Nagash reluctantly agreed on the basis of not wanting to owe anybody. And when he "betrayed" Sigmar it was more of, after all the others deserted Nagash found out his palace/city was under attack so he left to go save it. Sigmar felt Nagash had deserted him. So after he lost the battle from being too stubborn to retreat when he should have, he attacked Shyish. He carved a path through anything in his way in his rage, katakros was defeated and imprisoned, Ushoran (who was caged because he had gone insane and delusional from Neferata's curse) was freed, an exhausted (from defending his palace/city from chaos forces) Nagash was beaten down and nearly crippled, the souls of countless heroes (which were used by Nagash to defend the realm and it's people) were stolen/pilfered by Sigmar, then Sigmar departed for Azyr (where he would lock the gates and pout for years before using the stolen hero souls to make stormcast) leaving a swath of destruction in his wake (he smashed everything on his way in, villages, cities, people, everything that he viewed as nagash's that was in reach), as soon as Sigmar had left Archaon showed up and went to "kill" Nagash. Nagash forged the realmstone chains that keep Slaneesh imprisioned. The great black pyramid was supposed to act as a homing beacon, pulling all those souls who are "supposed" to be dead, to Shyish. Then the skaven mucked it up. Tyrion, Teclis, Malerion, and Morathi all started stealing aelven souls before they could reach Shyish. Not to mention chaos and what they took. Nagash got fed up with it all and kinda went, "fine be that way, I'll get back what is mine another way". Nagash is, while not exactly a overly benevolent ruler, he is at least a protective one of those that worship and venerate him. Nagash doesn't want to kill everything, he just wants to make it so that death is inevitable, after all he views all those who live in Shyish and all the dead as his subjects.
Nighthaunt. They usually don't indiscriminately attack innocents, they just sweep through a town and take those who should have died or those that linger afterwards too long. They will however attack armed people and those that fight back against them.
Sigmar. Acts like a child sometimes, with no thought to the consequences. Like when he rampaged through Shyish (leaving a clear and under defended path for Archaon and Chaos), when he had his Stormcast Eternals break through the barrier around the Everqueen's safe haven to "help" (leading Nurgle forces straight to them), or when he brought the core of the world-that-was around with him everywhere (while it unknowingly had Chaos tainting it which led them right to the Mortal Realms). He and his forces cause damage with no regard for anyone around them or the damage they cause.
Pharus Thaum. When transformed by Nagash his appearance was very different: His armour bore the heraldry of a long-vanished city-state of Realm of Shyish whilst a stylised hourglass occupied the centre of his chest-plate. Crossed scythes were engraved into the backs of his gauntlets, and heavy chains draped his shoulders and torso like a sash. His helmet was shaped as a skull, surmounted by large curving antlers of bone, the cheek-guards swept back into bat-wing shapes. Thick robes, stained with grave matter, cloaked his limbs and lower body but when his concentration failed both seemed no more substantial than smoke.
Makes it sound like he still looks vaguelylike a Stormcast Eternal but made from death and spirit.
Chaos gods. I thought they represented:
Khorne - wrath/anger
Tzeech - indecision
Nurgle - fear of death/dying
Slaneesh - excess/overindulgence