Sception

A courtier box (dual kit either horror or flayer, maybe with a ghoul courtier on the sprue for kicks) could have come in at the same or even more points, and sold multiples of the same box to FEC players instead of just an obligatory single purchase, and would have been something the line actually already needed instead of just a tacked on extra. I would have preferred it at least - though I don't exactly hate the throne, so I can certainly understanding some players feeling otherwise.

Given that FEC was a 4 kit range, one of those kits being an ancient resin model, I think "too many different units to buy" is so far from being a problem that it's not even worth entertaining as a legitimate concern. This is a faction so lacking in its model range that the devs had to make up support characters out of nothing by telling players to just painta unit champ differently and throw the rest of a box of perfectly good models in the garbage. Not to mention how the total lack of named heroes leaves the faction sorely lacking in personality and with almost no presence in the overall game narrative since they don't have any important figures to carry the torch. I'm not saying the FEC range needed a ton of new models, but they did need more than we're seeing here. Again, a good battletome could salvage my feelings about the faction, but even then the model range is just painfully anemic.

Frankly, I had expected more out of this release. Plastic varghulf, maybe some named characters, at the very least discrete models for the courtiers, so you don't have to throw away leftover figures after you make a couple. The FEC line isn't like the Skaven line, it wasn't a whole army in the old days, and it really doesn't stand as a full faction range now. I'm sure the book eill have some interesting new tricks and tools in it, but I'm having a hard time working much excitement up for this. Endless spell and terrain kits that look hastily slapped together and rather lacking in ghoulish theme doesn't help. The fence spell doesn't even look like a spell effect. I kind of like the chalice at least. So yeah, for the moment I'm pretty disappointed and underwhelmed, though info from the book may yet turn that feeling around.

Oh, yeah, definitely lackluster rules didnt help the tk player base at all. I mean, even there the results were never bad on purpose, tomb kings rules through the years clearly got a lot of loving attention in the form of unique gimmickry, from units of charriots to the unique, scroll based spell system in their early books. Rules that different are a lot of effort, tk rules never felt lazy. But rules that different in a wargame like this can often be broken, either too good or not good enough when run up ahains other armies. I mean, reference another underplayed fantasy army, the wood elves, particularly in 5e and 6e when they were running full skirmish armies in a rank and file game. If you knew what you were foing with wood elves a lot of 'normal' factions had very little they could respond with as your freely moving units danced out of charge arcs or drew enemy blocks into woods where they would be stuck for turns on end. Of course, that didnt help wood elf sales, so while interesting-but-painfully-subpar rules didnt help, I'm not sure they're the main thing to blame for tomb kings never quite catching on. The simple fact is, there were a ton of warhammer armies already before the vc/tk split, and im just not sure the player base was ever going to support two undead armies, and if only one was going to survive, well, tomb kings had skeletons and mummies, and vamp vounts had vampires and necromancers and zombies and ghosts and ghouls and dragons and, oh, skeletons too, plus the bloodline system to personalize your army. And while the egyptian aesthetic was super compelling... so was the gothic victorian aesthetic of the vamp counts army. Even if vamp counts didnt have consistently better rules, if only one undead army was going to catch on in whfb, i still wouldn't have given tomb kings good odds, much as i have a soft spot for them.

That's not fair. The initial tomb kings line got tons of love and attention. The chariots were great, and the ssc and casket in particular are still andolutely spectacular models, and the 8e push was super respectable as well, with tons of super impressive plastic models, in particular the sphynx and tomb guard, that again clearly had a huge investment of effort, love, and money sunk into them. Their rules were sadly always lackluster, but never to the point of being bad on purpose, just standard gw less than filly competant rules design. At no point in all of that was the faction deliberately sabotaged. Even when AoS was first released, at which point they had to have already known they were dropping the line, they still got fun & functional rules compared to other compendium lists. Arguable the most functional that tomb kings ryles had ever been, and under the 2016 generals handbook snakes were easily the strongest death army, and one of the strongest armies in the game, and that was /after/ the tk line had already been discontinued. It wasnt until gh17 that tomb kings got a treatment that could reasonably be called 'bad on purpose'.

Sadly, while the tomb kings were initially rather fun and impressive in the early days of age of sigmar, and particularly under the initial general's handbook, the army has been absolutley brutalized by subsequent rules & points updates, and that's before you consider how they've been left behind by modern battle tome design regardless. Sadly, I just don't see them as at all playable these days in anything but the most forgiving of casual environments. There are one or two units that I'd still take if they were available to a legions army, but as it is? I'm sorry I can't be more positive about them. My own tomb kings sure would like to be able to play too. There was a pretty ok homebrew battletome for them, but even that is kind of clunky and outdated at this point, and if you applied the most recent official points values and rules updates to it, I don't think it would be very playable, either.

Nighthaunt units, at least those that the legions share, are arguably better in a legions of nagash army, due to the legions' superior recursion mechanics, spellcasting, and character support. But you lose out on a lot of those benefits if you're playing a ghosts-only army, and allowing yourself only a single non-nighthaunt hero with the amulet. You can make it work, grimghasts in particular are nasty with gravesite recursion, but i do think a pure nighthaunt army works better with the actual nighthaunt allegiance. Though even then, one or two non-ethereal allied vampires or necromancers are still recommended.

I'd be honestly surprised if we didn't see a plastic varghulf, a terrain set, and some endless spells, and would be only slightly less surprised if we saw anything more than that in terms of new models. That said, I have my fingers desperately crossed for separate courtier models. Regardless of what might be, this new hero who's already been confirmed looks simply fantastic. I don't know if I'll be able to find a skaven player to split a box with, but if I don't I'll be trolling ebay for him.

Banishment (even post nerf) and that +1 damage buff would still be too good and need separate nerfs, but otherwise realm spells should be selected like faction spells (and instead of faction spells, a wizard should be able to choose one or the other, not both, just like realm artifacts are chosen instead of and not in addition to faction artefacts). And they should be based on your realm of origin, not the realm you're fighting in, both to add extra character to your army and so that you can choose them as part of list construction before selecting the realm for the game, and so that you can convert models to represent the specific spells they know if you wish to do so. Maybe give them a slight bonus if playing in the matching realm, like +1 to cast or something. Or at least the realm spell lores in malign sorcery should work like that. The one or two mostly minor spells that are part of the realm rules themselves can be left as is. I like the idea of wizards being able to pull some spells from the essence of whatever plane they're on, but every wizard knowing like 8 additional spells is just way too much. Even apart from balance issues for nagash, it causes a lot of slowdown in games with players who havent memorized all those spells, which maybe you could expect of tournament players, but given that the spells are part of a separately packaged supplement box its not fair to expect your opponent has ever even read the realm spell rules before in casual games.

Before the new forest rules, the flying vamp was the obvious best vamp to the point that using either of the others was just dumb. Now it's only /arguably/ still the best vamp, since it's still the fastest, and can move over models, and is still small and easier to hide behind LOS blocking terrain. That there is /even one/ thing that the on foot or mounted vamps can do better doesn't strike me as a problem.

unfortunately, tomb kings have no legal allies, nor are they legal allies for anyone else, so the SSC is an option only in generic death allegiance armies.

The larger base doesn't help that much, as its mostly just longer, and has to move length-wise. As for the Reaper, though, it's worse for the same reason most predatory spells are worse than the pendulum. GW were leery of the new mechanic and didnt want to accidentally break the game with it so they deliberately lowballed their power relative to their points cost. While the reaper compares poorly to the pendulum, and maybe the geminids (though I'm not so sure of that post nerf), it doesn't compare especially poorly for its price to the swords, or the skull, or the gravetide, or the jaws, or the sun. Honestly, most predatory offensive spells are similarly lackluster. Pendulum only escaped this because they also and underestimated just how much of a drawback the chance of your opponent sending your own spell back at you was, which meant they didn't account for how how good it is for the pendulum that they can't do that. Even if they've since realized the issue, it would have been too late to fix it for the nighthaunt spells. All that can be hoped is that they, along with most other predatory spells, see a significant points drop in next year's GH.

You cast it in the second turn of the battle round, and stop it one inch in front of a target unit for d6 mortals. Since you went second in that battle round. A new battle round starts before your opponent has had any chance to move their unit or dispel the pendulum. If your opponent goes first again then you get to move the pendulum, either leaving it where it is or moving it over the unit, either way dealing another d6 mortals. But if you get the double turn, the enemy gets to move the pendulum. For other predatory spells this could be very bad, but with the pendulum they can't change its direction to point it back at you. They can either move it no inches, in which case it again stops within an inch of their unit, or they can move it over the unit. Either way, that's another d6 mortals.

A big problem with predatory damage spells is the fact that you can pay for them only for your opponent to end up pointing them back at you. That doesn't happen with the pendulum. Further, because it can't be redirected, if you cast the pendulum in the second player turn of a battle round and end its movement less than an inch in front of an enemy unit, that unit will take 2d6 mortals, 1d6 from when you cast it, and another d6 regardless of which player gets to move it in the next battle round.

Not being able to change direction is the pendulums greatest strength though...

Right now the only generally available GoS is the one in the starter box with the nightmare lanturn. The anniversary model, "Darrakar, guardian of souls", which can be built either with a nightmare lanturn or with the alternative "mortality glass" option, and includes the rules for both, is available to purchase ($35 in the US) from first party "games workshop" or "warhammer" stores, but only this year, and only on the anniversary of the store's opening. Contact your nearest GW store and ask when their anniversary is. Otherwise you might be able to find them on ebay or other secondary markets, at prices usually ranging anywhere between the original retail price and approximately 3x that amount.

I'm not sure the lanturn vs glass choice is so cut and dry. The charge reduction won't affect enemy deep strikers (as they'll be more than 9" away), and the movement boost cant be used on your own deep striking units, as they come down after the hero phase. And +1 to wound is also pretty huge (though the "units wholly within" wording can be a hassle), as is bringing back d6 chainrasps (or, better, grimghasts). The healing spell in particular might make the lanturn better support for the chainrasps in the chainguard formation. Sure, the formatiin bonus works with either spell, but 2d6 healing does a lot for the tar pit / attrition role that chainrasps serve. And only a GoS with the lanturn has access to the specific magic lanturn artefacts. Both the wychlight and the beacon are pretty good. ... Which is not to say that the mortality glass is a bad call at all. Both its ability and its spell are fantastic. And most nighthaunt players will already have a GoS with Nightmare Lanturn from the starter box, so the mortality glass is almost certainly the best option to pick when assembling the birthday model. I just dont think there's necessarily an automatic best choice between the two when choosing your army.

This may be technically accuratr, but I don't think it's practically viable. If the rules are available in a language, they have to be playable by players who only speak that language. It is on GW to ensure that all the different versions of they're rules say the same thing, not on the players to double check the technical implications of gramatical quirks in a language that they might not speak in the first place.

That makes more sense, though it would still make most sense to me that, since spellportal lets you measure range & line of sight from the further portal, that that would be the model that you 'measure around'. Again, though, spellportal is already pretty questionable in all but a very few cases now. It still seems unwarranted to look for readings to constrict its value even further.

And other spells are "within 9" of the caster" or "within 18" of the caster" or what have you. Soul harvest has the exact same "of the caster" wording for range as every other spell, it just hits "each enemy unit" within the listed range instead of "one enemy unit". If soul harvest doesn't work through the portals because its spell text spevifies that range is measured from the caster, than there are no spells that can be cast through the portal. There is no reason why it wouldn't work through the portals like anything else, and the portals themselves are of such limited edge case utility post nerf that I'm not sure why your club would feel the need to neef them further by removing one of the very few spell interactions they're still almost worth running for. Now, limiting arkhan's CA so it doesn't stack with itself? That's a homebrew nerf I could get behind. Honestly, I think AoS 2e matched play could use a new official "rule of one" for command abilities in general.

Yeah, I meant radius, not diameter. It is a sick combo, but very expensive between to portals, command points, and requiring 2 successful castings. Though even if the combo fails, the extra spell range can still be useful for other spells you try that turn.

Hand of dust and soul harvest mainly, the latter mostly only with arkhan. Even if his CA ability is errata'd not to stack with itself, a 9" diameter d3 mortals grenade that can be lobbed 18" is enough to justify the 60 points. Also can be good with spectral grasp. I probably wouldn't take the soellportals outside of nagash lists, but they're not unysable with arkhan. Probably shouldnt still be 60 points, though.

nerf to spellportal is that it can only be used for one spell per phase, and that other endless spells cannot be cast through it. Only real 'crazy combo' for sacrament that I see is using arkhan's command ability multiple times in a single hero phase for a massive range improvement, followed by the deathmage spell soul harvest to deal d3 mortals to every unit in that range, possibly through a spellportal to measure the range from 18" up. against many opponents won't matter that much, d3 isn't a particularly large number of wounds, and the multipel CP cost means you probably are only pulling it off once per game, but against some armies with many tiny units it can be pretty devastating. otherwise, it's not so much combos as just some very good units (eg, skeletons, grimghasts) with good recursion mechanics (gravesights, deathly invocation, endless legions), and multiple casting & dispel buffs, helping us resist enemy spells and force through our own, in an edition where magic seems to be, if not dominating, at least a fair bit more significant than before.

I have not had any luck with zombies, not since they lost their mob up rule. They're too expensive (40 points more than skittles for a max unit), they hit like pillows, and they either crumble to battleshock or devour your CP on inspiring presence. They're more speed bump than tar pit. Maybe if we had strong offensive magic to kill things while they were busy fighting zombies, but our best spells are debuffs to help our killier units win fights. The units themselves still have to be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. So... max skeletons or min dire wolves for core. Maybe (maybe) chainrasps, if you're already taking guardians and/or torments to buff grimghasts. At least, if you're trying to win. If you're looking to throw a few games as penance for some terrible game crime, then zombies are fine.

Wasn't a sacrament list, was a 3k grand host list for a 2v2 narrative big game. First cohort (2 archai, 2x40 skittles, 30 gg) plus arkhan, vamp lord, 2xnecro, spellportals, 2 extra CP, alongside 2.5k of beastclaw raiders agains 5.5k of skanev defending a dreadhold. The skaven invested heavily in weapon teams, there were over 20 morters. I actually rolled pretty poorly on the nuke, dropping only about a quarter of said teams, but that was apparently enough to suck all the fun out of the game for them. I feel bad about it, though I honestly don't thonk the one time nuke had that big of an effect on the game. Honestly, the beastclaws did more damage, trampling everything outside of the dreadhold, including verminking, but it was nagash who drew all the hate, leading to the skaven players quitting after turn one, both clearly mad at me, and one swearing to never play against nagash again. Which, i mean, the nuke they were so mad about was all arkhan, even if nagash cast the spell, but i suppose it's better they blame nagash since i use him a lot less than arkhan. At least they didn't swear to never play against me again. The AoS player pool around me is shallow enough already.