https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/06/new-year-new-armies-reveals-new-years-open-day/

So death will be getting a major book.

This is a really good thing but at the same time I was kind of hoping for separate battletomes for the different factions. This is essentially Grand Alliance death 2.0 which also makes sense because death is still one faction.

Still, some death love is way overdue

Battletome: Legions of Nagash is designed to make sure that Death players have just as many options as their counterparts. Inside, you’ll find the warscrolls for every single Death model (so far…) alongside four new Allegiances within Death – the Grand Host of Nagash, Legion of Shadows, Legion of Sacrament and Legion of Blood. You’ll also find rules for the Soulblight vampires, if you’re looking to field one of Death’s most elite armies. If you would rather have an army formed from multiple facets of Nagash’s legions, there are also rules for those who pledge themselves more generally to the powers of Death.

I feel like this is a really smart way to do it. If it's done like the Stormcast book, then you'll be able to field each part separately with no overlap required.

Yeah. Death needs more sinergy intra-faction (Necromances and Zombies in different sub-factions? WTF), but if they give their own proper sub-faction their own things, thats good!

Now... will this superseed the Ghouls Battletome? You know, the Crypt Horrours and all of that.

Shure, i`ll buy the book, but if the horribly ways of subfactions rules in ghb 17 has been carried over to this new book, i see no reson for me to steer away from the death soup.

 Galas wrote:

Now... will this superseed the Ghouls Battletome? You know, the Crypt Horrours and all of that.

I'm wondering this too, i've had the impression that they're one of the more popular factions?

at any rate, i'm happy for more skeleton stuff, i hope. Zombies, vampires and ghouls i can take or leave, but skeleton armies are something i've always had a soft spot for. Probably a result of watching Jason and the Argonauts too much as a kid.

I think this is a vood direction for Death. They need some reorganizing of sub-factions and a whole heap of allegiance options should really help them out.

So it looks like Death will have:

-Generic Death (Nagash Battletome)
-Grand Host of Nagash (Nagash Battletome)
-Legion of Shadows (Nagash Battletome)
-Legion of Sacrament (Nagash Battletome)
-Legion of Blood (Nagash Battletome)
-Soulblight (Nagash Battletome)
-Nighthaunt (GHB2)
-Flesh Eater Courts (GHB2)

FEC aren't going to be part of this book, they said. it'll be the other Death factions.

Yeah, the Nagash book is the forces of Death that he controls. The honorable Courtiers are living creatures and aren't under his influence.

They can go with or against Nagash and even Vampires like Mannfred had to bargain with them rather than effortlessly command them as he does with undead.

I’m not too sure that FEC and Nighthaunt aren’t in this book. The announcement said that it includes warscrolls for every Death Unit so far. I’m excited.

Units yes, allegiance abilities it seems a no.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I’m not too sure that FEC and Nighthaunt aren’t in this book. The announcement said that it includes warscrolls for every Death Unit so far. I’m excited.

GW facebook specifically said FEC weren't. But I am certain Nighthaunt will be in it, and hopefully they'll finally give the mortis engine the nighthaunt keyword. I know a few people who were incredibly pissed off they didn't fix that.

Wayniac wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I’m not too sure that FEC and Nighthaunt aren’t in this book. The announcement said that it includes warscrolls for every Death Unit so far. I’m excited.

hopefully they'll finally give the mortis engine the nighthaunt keyword. I know a few people who were incredibly pissed off they didn't fix that.

that the mortis still after 3 years dont have a NH key word dont piss me off anywhere near as mutch as the trait nerfs NH got in ghb17.

I know one person who stopped playing AOS becuse GH17 "ruined" her Nighthaunts.

Wayniac wrote:
I know one person who stopped playing AOS becuse GH17 "ruined" her Nighthaunts.

yea, good old gw:
put a bandaid rule on the blackcoach cuz they where to dumb to see their own mistakes when they first made the rules for it, but in the same prossess remove/nerf all the utility tools they needed to actualy make the subfaction work..............
there is a reason to why i refuse to play with ghb17 if im playing my nighthaunts...

i can only hope they have seen the light if NH is part of this book, but i have my doubts.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

yea, good old gw:
put a bandaid rule on the blackcoach cuz they where to dumb to see their own mistakes when they first made the rules for it, but in the same prossess remove/nerf all the utility tools they needed to actualy make the subfaction work..............
there is a reason to why i refuse to play with ghb17 if im playing my nighthaunts...

i can only hope they have seen the light if NH is part of this book, but i have my doubts.

Am I missing something? Surely all the GHB '17 added was optional extra rules for Nighthaunts; you can still use the Death abilities which are mostly unchanged from '16, can't you?

Nighthaunt got a ton of stuff they didn't have before, the only nerf was to the 'death save' allegiance ability that was scaled back for all the death factions. Allies are also a thing now, though the lack of Deathmages being an option seems a massive oversight.

Thommy H wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

yea, good old gw:
put a bandaid rule on the blackcoach cuz they where to dumb to see their own mistakes when they first made the rules for it, but in the same prossess remove/nerf all the utility tools they needed to actualy make the subfaction work..............
there is a reason to why i refuse to play with ghb17 if im playing my nighthaunts...

i can only hope they have seen the light if NH is part of this book, but i have my doubts.

Am I missing something? Surely all the GHB '17 added was optional extra rules for Nighthaunts; you can still use the Death abilities which are mostly unchanged from '16, can't you?

it is a choise.
play NH and you get ALOT more utility from the heros and the coach becomes usefull but give up the generic death traits that are overall better then NH, or play generic death soup but you can no longer run a pure NH army.
(shure you can just add bare minimum unit size of skellys/zombies as battleline and fill in the rest with mainly NH and some standard necros, but it does ruin the image of a pure spirit army that way)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Nighthaunt got a ton of stuff they didn't have before, the only nerf was to the 'death save' allegiance ability that was scaled back for all the death factions. Allies are also a thing now, though the lack of Deathmages being an option seems a massive oversight.

if i faced a low model elite army i used ruler of the night(5+ wound save). if i faced a standard sized army i used supernatural horror as having battleshock doing the job for you helps when you dont have many models on the table.
the 5+ save might have been strong for the soup, but not for elite armys like NH, deathlords and soulblight.
and in ghb17, supernatural horror was not listed as a NH trait, it is a generic death trait....(from a fluff point of view, what on earth can be more scary for the living then fighting the spirits of the dead?)
the NH command traits has simply alot less utility and options in them.


and then you have the morngoul nerf, that i think only arrived as people where using 1-2 of them when you started to hit the 1250+ battles, but what other options do you have when the faction only have 2 units and 2 heros..........

btw this is how i experienced it as a casual NH player. i dont do turnys so i have no idea how it was there.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

Thommy H wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

yea, good old gw:
put a bandaid rule on the blackcoach cuz they where to dumb to see their own mistakes when they first made the rules for it, but in the same prossess remove/nerf all the utility tools they needed to actualy make the subfaction work..............
there is a reason to why i refuse to play with ghb17 if im playing my nighthaunts...

i can only hope they have seen the light if NH is part of this book, but i have my doubts.

Am I missing something? Surely all the GHB '17 added was optional extra rules for Nighthaunts; you can still use the Death abilities which are mostly unchanged from '16, can't you?

it is a choise.
play NH and you get ALOT more utility from the heros and the coach becomes usefull but give up the generic death traits that are overall better then NH, or play generic death soup but you can no longer run a pure NH army.
(shure you can just add bare minimum unit size of skellys/zombies as battleline and fill in the rest with mainly NH and some standard necros, but it does ruin the image of a pure spirit army that way)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Nighthaunt got a ton of stuff they didn't have before, the only nerf was to the 'death save' allegiance ability that was scaled back for all the death factions. Allies are also a thing now, though the lack of Deathmages being an option seems a massive oversight.

if i faced a low model elite army i used ruler of the night(5+ wound save). if i faced a standard sized army i used supernatural horror as having battleshock doing the job for you helps when you dont have many models on the table.
the 5+ save might have been strong for the soup, but not for elite armys like NH, deathlords and soulblight.
and in ghb17, supernatural horror was not listed as a NH trait, it is a generic death trait....(from a fluff point of view, what on earth can be more scary for the living then fighting the spirits of the dead?)
the NH command traits has simply alot less utility and options in them.


and then you have the morngoul nerf, that i think only arrived as people where using 1-2 of them when you started to hit the 1250+ battles, but what other options do you have when the faction only have 2 units and 2 heros..........

btw this is how i experienced it as a casual NH player. i dont do turnys so i have no idea how it was there.

You can still make a Nighthaunt army and use generic Death traits/artifacts (you just can't mix and match). That is how it worked before and is still very much an option.

Yeah, if you're playing a pitched battle, you can use the allegiance abilities for your Grand Alliance without losing the actual allegiance of your army (it's in the last paragraph of page 77 in the GHB '17). So your army could still be Nighthaunt to get Spirit Hosts and Hexwraiths as battleline, but you'd use the generic Death traits and artefacts. You still wouldn't have acess to the useful Nighthaunt traits, but you haven't lost anything from '16 (except for the general Deathless Minions nerf).

I decided for now to go with Maggotkin as I already have a Death army (Flesh-Eater Courts, weak as they might be for me) and I'm generally not a fan of hordes. Maggotkin for now will let me dabble in something more elite and meaty that I've wanted since at least October of 2016 (also way different playstyle), and I can always revisit another Death army afterwards depending on how this book is. Probably something based around Arkhan the Black since he's always interested me.

Thommy H wrote:
Yeah, if you're playing a pitched battle, you can use the allegiance abilities for your Grand Alliance without losing the actual allegiance of your army (it's in the last paragraph of page 77 in the GHB '17). So your army could still be Nighthaunt to get Spirit Hosts and Hexwraiths as battleline, but you'd use the generic Death traits and artefacts. You still wouldn't have acess to the useful Nighthaunt traits, but you haven't lost anything from '16 (except for the general Deathless Minions nerf).

fair enugh, i dident bother to read page 77 as i only read rules of 1 on p76 and head straight ot the points and traits for death. the rest of the content of the book was and is of no inntrest to me.

but that move in reality solves nothing, as all it would give me is a nerfed NH army.
if i play NH allegiance but using death general traits, i can no longer summon as necros dont have NH keyword, lv up the coach for the same reason, my wound save remains nerfed but i get back the double flee and the mournghoul is still nerfed.

all in all, NH still remain nerfed in gbh17 compared to 16, and none of their problems from 16 has been solved.

so yea, for NH i only play with 16 rules, for death soup i play with 17 rules.
hopefully this changes with this new book!

'Nerfed' being 'dealing with the same thing all Death factions have' while ignoring all of the new tools NH have to work with. Oh, and the mourngul isn't totally OP anymore. So sad.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
'Nerfed' being 'dealing with the same thing all Death factions have' while ignoring all of the new tools NH have to work with. Oh, and the mourngul isn't totally OP anymore. So sad.

Nighthaunt finished highest death at Blood and Glory. They're really powerful, just super swingy and a bit finicky.

fair enugh, i dident bother to read page 77 as i only read rules of 1 on p76 and head straight ot the points and traits for death. the rest of the content of the book was and is of no inntrest to me.

It is not a new rule. If you were indeed playing a Nighthaunt Allegiance in 2016, you would have been doing this exact thing.

but that move in reality solves nothing, as all it would give me is a nerfed NH army.
if i play NH allegiance but using death general traits, i can no longer summon as necros dont have NH keyword, lv up the coach for the same reason, my wound save remains nerfed but i get back the double flee and the mournghoul is still nerfed.

Allies did not exist at all in 2016. You have more list building options now than then. In 2016 you were limited to 100% Nighthaunt. Now 20% of your list can be non-nighthaunt units. You had zero options for mages before, now you have access to Soulblight and Deathlords mages (whether you go the Nighthaunt or Death traits and artifacts).

all in all, NH still remain nerfed in gbh17 compared to 16, and none of their problems from 16 has been solved.

Besides the Mourngul, things only improved for Nighthaunt (other than things that literally effect everything in Death).

so yea, for NH i only play with 16 rules, for death soup i play with 17 rules.
hopefully this changes with this new book!

So you continue to play without mages, complaining you don't have access to mages, when you could play the current rules and have mages.

So I went to my local game shop this past weekend to see if I could find a box of ghouls.... no such luck. The guy at the counter mentions they got a couple old units by mistake - a Vampire lord on horseback, and Krell - which is now a Wight King w/ Black Axe. I ask if they have warscrolls (the packaging wasn't even AOS, it was the old WH Fantasy) .... he shows them to me, and then tells me about the new Nagash tome coming.

Holy crap! Pretty excited to see what is coming for Death players. I went in on a FEC starter box, but I can stick with them on skirmish games. From what I have been reading, it looks like this update has been a LONG time coming for us.

Any new rumors on units or anything like that? It seems that the 5 of the 6 factions have been figured out - not counting "generic" as a faction. Would the Tomb Kings make a showing?

Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

pm713 wrote:
Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

Yup, they pretty much killed off the faction in the first end times book.

Death does need a reboot and I am glad to see they are getting it

the Undead book (pre vampire count / tomb king split) was my first fantasy army in the long ago. Tomb Kings were a primary army of mine (I stiill have my tournament TK army from the early 00s in my bags). I'm definitely watching to see what they do with the undead. This will likely be my 2019 campaign force.

pm713 wrote:
Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

One of the early audio dramas actually had chariot riding undead with "garb of a long forgotten nation".

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

One of the early audio dramas actually had chariot riding undead with "garb of a long forgotten nation".

Damn. Talk about salt in the wound. I have more chance of finally getting Rune Golems than Tomb Kings returning.

I am sure tomb kings will come back in a way, as soon as they figure out how to make them not look like undead egypt.

Yeah I think there will be a form of tomb kings return. They just won't be egyptian khemri guys.

pm713 wrote:
Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

Incorrect. Quite, quite incorrect.

After all, Neferata rules over New-Lahmia (I will not use the official spelling, because that spelling of the word 'new' is cretinous. So there. Nyeah). And that is very much in the Khemrian style she so covets.

heh I read that last night in the undying king. Nulamhia. I chuckled for a moment.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Tomb Kings almost certainly aren't coming back. Left in a world long abandoned....

Incorrect. Quite, quite incorrect.

After all, Neferata rules over New-Lahmia (I will not use the official spelling, because that spelling of the word 'new' is cretinous. So there. Nyeah). And that is very much in the Khemrian style she so covets.

Show me one thing that indicates Tomb Kings are coming back. Not a vampire. There are no Tomb King models left because they all got removed as did large parts of their entire motivation.

As an aside can anyone tell me where Settra ended up? Or was he one of the many characters treated abysmally in the Fail Times.

There have been many references in the fluff to an undead kingdom with the old Tomb Kings aesthetic., pm713.

 EnTyme wrote:
There have been many references in the fluff to an undead kingdom with the old Tomb Kings aesthetic., pm713.

And how many of them talk about Nehekhara? Or any Tomb King? Or the Mortuary Cult? Or the fall of mankinds first kingdom that rose and fell before Sigmar breathed?

And nothing really contradicts the giant sign that Tomb Kings are gone forever that was GW removing EVERYTHING. If they were getting anything they would have some models left but no. Nothing.

I think it would be wise to just wait and see. The stories that they've put up have had reference to an ancient undead kingdom. It won't be "tomb kings" but there's certainly chariot riding ancient dead, and in the undying king they released ancient kings that broke the laws of Nagash.

There's definitely a stage being set for something. Of course nothing will say they come from the world they blew up because that world is gone, but that doesn't mean Settra or an incarnation of him won't be returning.

Which is at best nothing and at absolute worst a mockery depending on how cynical you want to be really.

If you're expecting them to bring back a WHFB faction in its entirety in terms of names and aesthetics sure, but its been two and a half years now and for most of us that ship has sailed then.

A warspinx also appeared in an AoS book I believe. Not sure which one.

With the fact we have seen GW release new models over the past year, I don't think it's unreasonable to think we might have some sort of TK release. Maybe its a reboot of the TK that is minus that Egyptian twist. Hell it could be something totally unrelated to TK, but from everything I have seen we still have one faction unaccounted for.

Do we have any idea when this will be revealed? Are we talking months? years?

 auticus wrote:
If you're expecting them to bring back a WHFB faction in its entirety in terms of names and aesthetics sure, but its been two and a half years now and for most of us that ship has sailed then.

I expect nothing. GW will make their new factions that might be stupid rubbish or really cool. Cool stuff from before is gone.

AverageBoss wrote:
A warspinx also appeared in an AoS book I believe. Not sure which one.

I wouldn't take that to mean anything. In one of the AOS novels, a Tzeentch sorcerer uses Purple Sun:

A circle of blackness expanded from the sorcerer, slaying every thing that it touched. Chaos warrior and Stormcast Eternal collapsed as the fortress discharged curling arcs of night-purple doom.

But that spell isn't going to come back

AverageBoss wrote:
A warspinx also appeared in an AoS book I believe. Not sure which one.

It was a Necrosphinx sir! For shame...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

AverageBoss wrote:
A warspinx also appeared in an AoS book I believe. Not sure which one.

I wouldn't take that to mean anything. In one of the AOS novels, a Tzeentch sorcerer uses Purple Sun:

A circle of blackness expanded from the sorcerer, slaying every thing that it touched. Chaos warrior and Stormcast Eternal collapsed as the fortress discharged curling arcs of night-purple doom.

But that spell isn't going to come back

A spell really isn't analogous to a very distinct centerpiece model. And that's aside from how many old spells have come back.

 Karthicus wrote:
With the fact we have seen GW release new models over the past year, I don't think it's unreasonable to think we might have some sort of TK release. Maybe its a reboot of the TK that is minus that Egyptian twist. Hell it could be something totally unrelated to TK, but from everything I have seen we still have one faction unaccounted for.

I'm still hoping for some form of Nulahmian Soulblight elite army: vampires with Neferata/Arkhan/Tomb King-style armor, and huge, two-handed Khopesh for weapons.

It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

You really hate that name, don't you?

But some form of vampiric elite army is something I wouldn't mind, especially if they look Arkhan/Nagash/Neferata-y, rather than Mannfred-y.

Well, shortly after Norsca was introduced into Total War: Warhammer 1, people started asking about them in AoS, and we ended up with the Darkoath Warqueen, who really fits the old Norscan aesthetic. Next Tuesday, Tomb Kings are hitting TW: W 2, so if they're just as popular, maybe there's hope?

 Mangod wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

You really hate that name, don't you?

But some form of vampiric elite army is something I wouldn't mind, especially if they look Arkhan/Nagash/Neferata-y, rather than Mannfred-y.

I don't mind it, but I take perverse joy from pestering people who do. One of my guilty pleasures >.>

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

You really hate that name, don't you?

But some form of vampiric elite army is something I wouldn't mind, especially if they look Arkhan/Nagash/Neferata-y, rather than Mannfred-y.

I don't mind it, but I take perverse joy from pestering people who do. One of my guilty pleasures >.>

Well the name of Mannfred's new place is Carstinia, he is trying to make a new sylvania.

I personally love the fact that they are returning necropolis cities... Nulahmia is a bit of a silly name, but it's not the end of the world. If Neferata was trying to remake Lahmia, I would have just called it that... Lahmia

Although that might have upset some of the neckbeards who are still hanging on to the old world harder than Sigmar was when it was being catapulted through the void...

 shinros wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

You really hate that name, don't you?

But some form of vampiric elite army is something I wouldn't mind, especially if they look Arkhan/Nagash/Neferata-y, rather than Mannfred-y.

I don't mind it, but I take perverse joy from pestering people who do. One of my guilty pleasures >.>

Well the name of Mannfred's new place is Carstinia, he is trying to make a new sylvania.

I still don't get why Mannfred isn't dead or in a cage considering all his backstabbing.

It amuses Nagash. After all, no matter what Mannfred does, he's no threat to Nagash.

And it keeps the rest of his underlings on their toes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It amuses Nagash. After all, no matter what Mannfred does, he's no threat to Nagash.

And it keeps the rest of his underlings on their toes.

Pretty much, As phil kelly said Neferata and Mannfred have their own ideas about things but when Nagash asks them to jump they respond with "how high?"

Also Mannfred acts like a rival to Arkhan, Mannfred's presence actually gets Arkhan to do stuff according to Josh Reynolds. Think of it from Arkhan's perspective you are the most loyal yet your master is turning to Mannfred for the odd jobs which would be infuriating to someone like Arkhan. Also Mannfred is Nagash's champion, Nagash essentially uses Mannfred to go all dracula on people or places he doesn't like.

Honestly I think all those jobs could be done by someone less backstabby but it's not a very interesting story to go "Mannfred is dead forever and does nothing ever". Especially if you like him.


I shouldn't criticise that too much anyway, my writing is hardly free of illogical things.

Difference being, Arkhan knows Mannfred is capable of actually getting them done, thus is a threat to his own position...

Mannfred is not the only skilled necromancer I'm sure.

pm713 wrote:
Mannfred is not the only skilled necromancer I'm sure.

Top 4, the others being Neferata, Arkhan and that Nagash guy everyone keeps talking about.

pm713 wrote:
Mannfred is not the only skilled necromancer I'm sure.

Erm do remember vlad during the end times states that manny is the best von carstein. Along with Arkhan in that same conversation stating that manny is nagash's best servant after reflecting.

The problem is during that time nagash did not realise it neither did mannfred. hence vlad and arkhan agreed that nagash is going to make a big mistake handing him over.

Also mannfred is one of the best necromantic practioners. He even penned liber necris. Even Arkhan is impressed with his prowess and he has lived far longer than he has.

Okay so you can't make a better necromancer as Arkhan rival but why not someone more martial? If you're good at the actual fighting and commanding an army that would make you a good rival for Arkhan no?

I am seeing the value of Mannfred being around though.

pm713 wrote:

 shinros wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be cool to see Nulahmian 2 wound soulblight infantry from Nulahmia, the freshly turned vampires of Nulahmia, basic infantry for the Nulahmian faction which hails from Nulahmia.

Nuuuuuuuuulahmia.

You really hate that name, don't you?

But some form of vampiric elite army is something I wouldn't mind, especially if they look Arkhan/Nagash/Neferata-y, rather than Mannfred-y.

I don't mind it, but I take perverse joy from pestering people who do. One of my guilty pleasures >.>

Well the name of Mannfred's new place is Carstinia, he is trying to make a new sylvania.

in a cage .

He was actually in a cage. See prisoner of the black sun.

I would but it's an audio book that GW haven't made into a book (as far as I know) so that and lots books is stuff I won't actually get.

pm713 wrote:
I would but it's an audio book that GW haven't made into a book (as far as I know) so that and lots books is stuff I won't actually get.

Mortarch of Night collects them in print form.

 Eldarain wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I would but it's an audio book that GW haven't made into a book (as far as I know) so that and lots books is stuff I won't actually get.

Mortarch of Night collects them in print form.

So it does. Thanks for pointing that out.

 shinros wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Mannfred is not the only skilled necromancer I'm sure.

Erm do remember vlad during the end times states that manny is the best von carstein. Along with Arkhan in that same conversation stating that manny is nagash's best servant after reflecting.

The problem is during that time nagash did not realise it neither did mannfred. hence vlad and arkhan agreed that nagash is going to make a big mistake handing him over.

That's not what I recall at all. Arkhan and Vlad were discussing the similarities between Nagash and Manny, talking about their towering egos and how neither could conceive of defeat, and that was why Vlad new Manfred would fall for Nagash's trap. Handing Manny over was the right decision and we'd still have the Old World if Be'Lakor didn't step in.

Similarly Manny was never the best Von Carstein. The moment Vlad was resurrected he slapped the snot out Manfred and only spared him due to Nagash's say so. Manfred was a better Necromancer than Vlad, but Vlad was a far better swordsman, statesmen and was more well-liked by Nagash than Manfred. Not sure how the AoS lore looks currently, but that's how things left off from the End Times Archaeon book.

Wasn't Be'Lakors activity stopped by Gotrek? Or am I mixing up my things again?

I'd like more Vlad he was always my favourite. I based my Vampire characters on him a little.

My local club want to wtart some AoS. So i found the only models I own and started painting. Tomb kings. I wish they had some news in this book.

The worwt part about tomb kings getting the scrapp is that so many of their models where so cool. The las kits where awsome.

Stalker, anake riders, war kitty and the necrosphinx. All of them deserves medal. The tomb guards, new priest and necrotect where all descent as well. But the TK where undead in style. Gold! Gold everywhere! Never mind that 5+ save, the gold is worth it. I mean the king model in the kitty is like a skinny Mr. T. i love them.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 shinros wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Mannfred is not the only skilled necromancer I'm sure.

Erm do remember vlad during the end times states that manny is the best von carstein. Along with Arkhan in that same conversation stating that manny is nagash's best servant after reflecting.

The problem is during that time nagash did not realise it neither did mannfred. hence vlad and arkhan agreed that nagash is going to make a big mistake handing him over.

That's not what I recall at all. Arkhan and Vlad were discussing the similarities between Nagash and Manny, talking about their towering egos and how neither could conceive of defeat, and that was why Vlad new Manfred would fall for Nagash's trap. Handing Manny over was the right decision and we'd still have the Old World if Be'Lakor didn't step in.

Similarly Manny was never the best Von Carstein. The moment Vlad was resurrected he slapped the snot out Manfred and only spared him due to Nagash's say so. Manfred was a better Necromancer than Vlad, but Vlad was a far better swordsman, statesmen and was more well-liked by Nagash than Manfred. Not sure how the AoS lore looks currently, but that's how things left off from the End Times Archaeon book.

Ah I misremembered looking up the quote again. But Vlad does state this at the end of the chapter.

And he is the author of too much of the tragedy, too much of the grief which afflicts them. Though I am loath to admit it, Mannfred shook the pillars of heaven and earth.

Hence he was the perfect scapegoat now in AOS if you were a god reshaping your servants again and you need a champion to bring fear, despair and agony when you send him out who do you pick? He underestimated the vampire before which caused the end of the old world. One thing I am interested in is that Josh Reynolds has said mannfred's trait in AOS he easily making bonds with people(so he can manipulate them later) which I kinda fun amusing to be honest.

Hopefully when Legion of Nagash comes out it might actually properly state why he did it. We know what Nagash uses Mannfred for in AOS but not why he chose him.

Anyone know if there’s any benefit at all (other than Allies) to getting the LoN book for Flesheaters?

Thanks.

Only the super friends inner circle has seen the book so most if not all of us cannot comment. I'd wait until this next weekend when the rest of us can look at it to ask that question.

From what I've gathered from the super friends review, FEC is not really a part of this at all.

Well that does make sense. The Flesh Eater Courts are their own independent groups whose 'true' leader Nagash wants captured alive (undead?).

Fleash eaters are not part of the new tome.

But there is one thing i wonder about for matched, if you choose to make an army that belongs to 1 of the new legions, what happends to the original subfactions and their battlelines?

aka if i want to field an army that belongs to legions of sacrament and brings nighthaunts, skellys and necros, can my spirits still be battle line?

No they cannot. They are still only batteline if you are using nighthaunt alligence.

ic.

so does any1 have any logical toughts to why the mortis still dont have the nighthaunt keyword?

cuz heres the thing:
mortis does not have NH keyword. all NH units plus the mortis have maligants keyword but that is not a subfaction...
so you still cant used the full content of the get started maligant box in match play.....
makes me wonder why they even bothered to make the box.

They hadn't come up with allegiances, battle traits, etc. when they released that box. It was before they'd decided how all the factions would work.

Deathmages should just be an ally for Nighthaunts, without that the allegiance is kinda left for dead.

Anyways, just finished going through the battletome. Overall I find it kind of... dry. There is a bunch of options there in the form of command traits and artifacts but many are just similar iterations of the same thing with minor changes while the new allegiances are the same thing. The Legion allegiance abilities are all just minor deviations from the Grand Host one, and really feel like they should have been meta-battalions rather than a faux-allegiance of their own. To me they seem an excuse to make a bunch of ultimately lackluster command trait & artifact options to make it look like Death has the same depth as other grand alliances. That said there are some cool picks in there and the spell lores look pretty cool. I just wish GW had gone for less content but made sure the content there was good.

A sidenote is that this battletome continues the low-battalion trend we've seen since Kharadron Overlords. Personally I liked things more back when there was a ton of different battalion options. I'm getting the sense that GW recognizes it doesn't know how to price battalions and it cutting back on them to compensate.

On the warscroll front the battletome does much better. Replacing summon spells with a keyword and deathly vigor is cleaner and more in line with how undead have traditionally played in Fantasy. The new special character option is solid, the new undead banners work give Death an easy way to reduce enemy bravery for screaming purposes, and Nighthaunts got a bit of a boost which more than compensates for the slight nerf to ethereal. The one change that has me scratching my head is the gaping maw on the terrorgheist, the way the new rule works is notably better but I feel the buff was uneeded and having it work in a weird alternate way rather than just mortal wounds comes across as different just to be different. I already anticipate having to explain that one a dozen times over. Also barring an FAQ FEC must now ally in unridden Terrorgheists (and Zombie Dragons), and have different rules for their ridden terrorgheist's maw and the new version of the unridden one.

Points wise I didn't notice any significant point changes but I didn't compare directly with the GHB. Balance suffers due to over-simplicity (Vampire on Zombie Dragon equipment 'options') and due to the massive unit discount, but neither of those are new.

It's a good addition and even though the content lacks depth/flavor it is still a major boost to what Death has to work with, and GW went out of their way to make sure that no part of the Alliance has been left out (since FEC already have their own battletome).

The TGs maw is written that way so that things that protect against MWs specifically (like Chaos Runeshields) don't work.

Not as good as Skarbrands Onslaught attack, but better than regular MWs.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Deathmages should just be an ally for Nighthaunts, without that the allegiance is kinda left for dead.

Anyways, just finished going through the battletome. Overall I find it kind of... dry. There is a bunch of options there in the form of command traits and artifacts but many are just similar iterations of the same thing with minor changes while the new allegiances are the same thing. The Legion allegiance abilities are all just minor deviations from the Grand Host one, and really feel like they should have been meta-battalions rather than a faux-allegiance of their own. To me they seem an excuse to make a bunch of ultimately lackluster command trait & artifact options to make it look like Death has the same depth as other grand alliances. That said there are some cool picks in there and the spell lores look pretty cool. I just wish GW had gone for less content but made sure the content there was good.

A sidenote is that this battletome continues the low-battalion trend we've seen since Kharadron Overlords. Personally I liked things more back when there was a ton of different battalion options. I'm getting the sense that GW recognizes it doesn't know how to price battalions and it cutting back on them to compensate.

On the warscroll front the battletome does much better. Replacing summon spells with a keyword and deathly vigor is cleaner and more in line with how undead have traditionally played in Fantasy. The new special character option is solid, the new undead banners work give Death an easy way to reduce enemy bravery for screaming purposes, and Nighthaunts got a bit of a boost which more than compensates for the slight nerf to ethereal. The one change that has me scratching my head is the gaping maw on the terrorgheist, the way the new rule works is notably better but I feel the buff was uneeded and having it work in a weird alternate way rather than just mortal wounds comes across as different just to be different. I already anticipate having to explain that one a dozen times over. Also barring an FAQ FEC must now ally in unridden Terrorgheists (and Zombie Dragons), and have different rules for their ridden terrorgheist's maw and the new version of the unridden one.

Points wise I didn't notice any significant point changes but I didn't compare directly with the GHB. Balance suffers due to over-simplicity (Vampire on Zombie Dragon equipment 'options') and due to the massive unit discount, but neither of those are new.

It's a good addition and even though the content lacks depth/flavor it is still a major boost to what Death has to work with, and GW went out of their way to make sure that no part of the Alliance has been left out (since FEC already have their own battletome).

What did you think of the lore?

I liked it. Wasn't anything shocking or amazing but it added more depth to what we already had, which is really really important in the long run and I'm glad to see GW do that. There's one tidbit in there that has no explanation, something that's unresolved and presumably is a hint of events/armies to come. This I also liked for the same reason. I dislike when new armies pop up with no previous hints that they existed, it's OK once in a while if things are explained well (Kharadron Overlords) but I feel it's much better execution to ad hints & snippets leading up to it. Like the Daughters of Khaine revamp, or the past Sylvaneth revamp.

I loved the art.

The two page spread that details the beef between Sigmar and Nagash is probably my favorite. It may well be reused art, as it looks familiar, but it fits so well in the context of the story. Its got Simar on one end, standing at ease and staring stoicly at his foe, hands on his hammer, painted in golden hues. On the other side is Nagash, returning a stare at Sigmar with his hand resting on the pommel of his sword, painted in dark tones.

Got the tome and its pretty good.

Some interesting fluff - especially about Shyish - although I wish they had made it a bit more nuanced like their own novels - ie there are different aspects to Nagash that are worshipped, more on how the living interact with the dead. Its a shame they are so paranoid about not referencing the novels which make the various races much more three dimensional

Sad there are very few new units: The Bloodseeker Palanquin and a Blood Knight Lord

We have Vampire Lords but no generic vampires apart from Blood Knights and Handmaidens stuck on a throne - but the fluff including in LON is full of the lesser vampires be nice to be able to have them in the game as NinthMusketeer suggested. Same with mortal followers,

The art is good but lots re-used.

Mannfred grew less and less interesting as the End Times progressed so I was disappointed he is back and still a dick, lots of more interesting vampires to bring back in my view.

I am hoping Mortarch of Blood is good and Neferata is not short changed again, as the last major novel I read had the author Werner thinking female vampires (maybe women in general) were all soft and weak which is sooooo not true

Dance of the Skulls gave me some hope, .

What's the go with the three mortach's? Do they have separate battalion abilities or anything like that? what exactly makes them different, the units they can take?

Quick question! to get the updated warscrolls on the app do i have to redownload just them, or the entire app?

 Madmatt wrote:
What's the go with the three mortach's? Do they have separate battalion abilities or anything like that? what exactly makes them different, the units they can take?

Yeah, they each have their own unique battalion, and their allegiance abilities, relics, command traits, etc. are different if you take the Legion of Sacrament, Blood or Night. All of them can take any unit in the book in their armies, though if you have a Mortarch, you have to include the appropriate one as the general (so you couldn't have Arkhan leading a Legion of Blood army, for example).

Quick question! to get the updated warscrolls on the app do i have to redownload just them, or the entire app?

Delete and re-download them individually.

Any chance someone could share the allegiance abilities?
Who's the best do you reckon? I've always been a von carstein fan but the more i look the more i'm starting to like Neferata and her game style.

Wait, so is summoning gone now? Like you can't save reinforcement points to summon a new unit (like a banshee) during the game?

The Ethereal nerf is odd to me. I don't know that the old method was really all that powerful. The only model that it was really broken on is the Mourngul, and it actually has a different rule that did effectively the same thing, so this change won't affect it. Seriously, a 2+ Mourngul is just annoying to deal with.

 EnTyme wrote:
The Ethereal nerf is odd to me. I don't know that the old method was really all that powerful. The only model that it was really broken on is the Mourngul, and it actually has a different rule that did effectively the same thing, so this change won't affect it. Seriously, a 2+ Mourngul is just annoying to deal with.

Cover.

Oh, I know what the change affects, I'm just not sure it was really necessary. What problem is this fixing?

 EnTyme wrote:
The Ethereal nerf is odd to me. I don't know that the old method was really all that powerful. The only model that it was really broken on is the Mourngul, and it actually has a different rule that did effectively the same thing, so this change won't affect it. Seriously, a 2+ Mourngul is just annoying to deal with.

I think the nerf was so they could apply buffs elsewhere. See, they made it so ethereal was less able to be broken and always preformed as expected and in return now everything in nighthaunt mortal wounds on 6s. I’d wager the mortal wounds is well worth the nerf.

Also hex wraiths seem good now.

Spirit Hosts and Hexwraiths might lose Mystic Shield and Cover combo, but they gain Summonable healing abilities (almost none before) and Hexwraiths got better potential to inflict Mortal Wounds.
Looks like Grand Host of Nagash is best Allegiance for them (healing on 5+ in hero phase).

So Im not fully nuanced in the ways of AoS yet so I'm probably missing something. But is it just me or does it seem like Neferata has less abilities than her fellow Mortarchs?

 EnTyme wrote:
Oh, I know what the change affects, I'm just not sure it was really necessary. What problem is this fixing?

It was very very easy to get 3+ ignore all rend on the majority of a Nighthaunt army. If objectives are near/in area terrain it became painfully difficult to move them. But basically; it wasn't very fun. Now they have a bit more offensive power across the board (which they needed) but aren't as tanky/don't need to camp cover to get the most out of the army.

Okay. Never really had to fight against Nighthaunts, but I could see that being a problem.

Everybody keeps saying nighthaunt got less tanky over the Ethereal change... But at the same time, they gained a lot of extra staying power by actually being able to be resurrected/healed through the summonable keyword.

If anything, I reckon their defensive value has gotten a tad better over it. Their offensive abilities definitely got increased. Overall, I think nighthaunt is one of the big winners in this book.

Running pure nighthaunt is probably ill advisable at this stage because none of their heroes have deathly invocation.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
So Im not fully nuanced in the ways of AoS yet so I'm probably missing something. But is it just me or does it seem like Neferata has less abilities than her fellow Mortarchs?

She does have the least amount of abilities on her Warscroll but she has the most attacks, easier to hit and wound, and the dagger of jet which if it wounds and doesn't kill a model in the combat phase than on a 6+ the model is dead. Now all the legions have some good differences but as I am a neferata fan I went with the legion of blood and the command ability to bring a summonable unit that was destroyed back on at a gravesite if the general is within 9" of it is nice for my 40 unit skeletons. The legion also adds one to attacks for vampire lords and blood knights.

 BWheasler wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
So Im not fully nuanced in the ways of AoS yet so I'm probably missing something. But is it just me or does it seem like Neferata has less abilities than her fellow Mortarchs?

She does have the least amount of abilities on her Warscroll but she has the most attacks, easier to hit and wound, and the dagger of jet which if it wounds and doesn't kill a model in the combat phase than on a 6+ the model is dead. Now all the legions have some good differences but as I am a neferata fan I went with the legion of blood and the command ability to bring a summonable unit that was destroyed back on at a gravesite if the general is within 9" of it is nice for my 40 unit skeletons. The legion also adds one to attacks for vampire lords and blood knights.

Ok, cool. I'm in a toss up if I want to start with her or Mannfred, because both Legions have some neat stuff, but I think ultimately I will start with Nefrata. Buffs to the Vamps seem good and I want to work a few of them in with my Skeletons.

Well mannfreds legion has the same command ability but instead of an extra attack he can set up 3 units in ambush to come in from a table edge and his deathrattle units get +1 save if they are in your territory. I think they are all good so it's all personal preference.

Since I have two Mortarchs to build, I'll probably end up building both Mannfred and Neferata and swap them out occasionally.

Eventually add Arkhan, because well why not right?

 Elmir wrote:
Everybody keeps saying nighthaunt got less tanky over the Ethereal change... But at the same time, they gained a lot of extra staying power by actually being able to be resurrected/healed through the summonable keyword.

If anything, I reckon their defensive value has gotten a tad better over it. Their offensive abilities definitely got increased. Overall, I think nighthaunt is one of the big winners in this book.

Running pure nighthaunt is probably ill advisable at this stage because none of their heroes have deathly invocation.

Nighthaunts got rounded out and made more functional in a very good way. Like you said their defensive capabilities didn't necessarily have a net loss but work better now since there is much more of a tactical aspect to it. Overall they are a weaker allegiance but they are so specialized I find it OK; it reserves the army for players who really want the style of pure-Nighthaunts rather than players just looking to make a powerful army. I think they are strong enough now to compete on equal footing for casual play, which is where they should be.

 Elmir wrote:
Everybody keeps saying nighthaunt got less tanky over the Ethereal change... But at the same time, they gained a lot of extra staying power by actually being able to be resurrected/healed through the summonable keyword.

If anything, I reckon their defensive value has gotten a tad better over it. Their offensive abilities definitely got increased. Overall, I think nighthaunt is one of the big winners in this book.

Running pure nighthaunt is probably ill advisable at this stage because none of their heroes have deathly invocation.

we have been lacking proper heros since the beginning. only in the past 8 months has the coach become usefull but still it needs a command ability to be 100% up and running as a hero.
and the banshee+cairn are just placeholder heros as i see it.

what i dont understand is why did they not include the NH subfaction traits from GHB17 in this book..

we have been lacking proper heros since the beginning. only in the past 8 months has the coach become usefull but still it needs a command ability to be 100% up and running as a hero.
and the banshee+cairn are just placeholder heros as i see it.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG%20Knight%20of%20Shrouds.pdf

Knight of Shrouds?

what i dont understand is why did they not include the NH subfaction traits from GHB17 in this book..

They are still usable..no?

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

we have been lacking proper heros since the beginning. only in the past 8 months has the coach become usefull but still it needs a command ability to be 100% up and running as a hero.
and the banshee+cairn are just placeholder heros as i see it.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG%20Knight%20of%20Shrouds.pdf

Knight of Shrouds?

what i dont understand is why did they not include the NH subfaction traits from GHB17 in this book..

They are still usable..no?

spectral overseer should imo have been given to the cairn and banshee and then something better to be given to the knight. (my idea: all NH fully witin 6" of the knight gains an additional rend modifyer to a maximum of -2. then ofc increase hes point cost to balance it)

The GHB17 NH trait is still valid yes, but if it can be combined whit any of the 4 new legions, i have no idea about.

I'm not convinced by arguments that Nighthaunt have improved. The changes to Ethereal and extra mortal wounds kinda balance each other out, so I'm not worried about that. What I'm talking about is they have been shut out of summoning, and the Lore of the Dead.

Nighthaunt Wizards (rare though they are), do not get extra spells from the new Lores, but more significantly, they dont get access to Gravesites, and their heroes dont have the Invocation. So Nighthaunt allegiance armies have no summoning and no regeneration. Allied heroes will grant the Invocation, but still no summoning, and allied wizards dont get extra powers.

Looking through the book, it also seems that Soulblight gets the new Spell Lores, but doesnt have summoning, and Death and FEC get neither. FEC units are in their book at all, so they actually cant even join the new allegiances.

This may not turn out to be a big deal, since Nighthaun dont typically have Wizards, and have their own quasi-summon, but it seems they become weaker in comparison to the new allegiances.

What this suggests to me, I that leaving out Nighthaunt implies they will have their own Tome at some point. Rumours were that we would see 2 new Death Tomes, and many people thought the second could be something like Deathcast, or Death Elves, but that second book could just be Nighthaunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

The GHB17 NH trait is still valid yes, but if it can be combined whit any of the 4 new legions, i have no idea about.

My understanding (book in hand) is that they cannot be combined. Nighthaunt allegiance is totally separate from this book. My question is, how does the Nighthaunt Command Trait "Cloaked in Shadow" (+1 to save rolls for general) work with the new Ethereal Rule?

it dosent anymore.
it is a posetive modifyer and the new ethereal spesificly says negative and posetive modifyers.

that is why the new ethereal rule is a nerf.
the price for beeing imune to rend is apparently no save lower then 4+

Colonel Cabbage wrote:
I'm not convinced by arguments that Nighthaunt have improved. The changes to Ethereal and extra mortal wounds kinda balance each other out, so I'm not worried about that. What I'm talking about is they have been shut out of summoning, and the Lore of the Dead.

Nighthaunt Wizards (rare though they are), do not get extra spells from the new Lores, but more significantly, they dont get access to Gravesites, and their heroes dont have the Invocation. So Nighthaunt allegiance armies have no summoning and no regeneration. Allied heroes will grant the Invocation, but still no summoning, and allied wizards dont get extra powers.

Looking through the book, it also seems that Soulblight gets the new Spell Lores, but doesnt have summoning, and Death and FEC get neither. FEC units are in their book at all, so they actually cant even join the new allegiances.

This may not turn out to be a big deal, since Nighthaun dont typically have Wizards, and have their own quasi-summon, but it seems they become weaker in comparison to the new allegiances.

What this suggests to me, I that leaving out Nighthaunt implies they will have their own Tome at some point. Rumours were that we would see 2 new Death Tomes, and many people thought the second could be something like Deathcast, or Death Elves, but that second book could just be Nighthaunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

The GHB17 NH trait is still valid yes, but if it can be combined whit any of the 4 new legions, i have no idea about.

My understanding (book in hand) is that they cannot be combined. Nighthaunt allegiance is totally separate from this book. My question is, how does the Nighthaunt Command Trait "Cloaked in Shadow" (+1 to save rolls for general) work with the new Ethereal Rule?

Just play a nighthaunt army using the rules for the legions. Sure ya might need to throw in some skeletons, but I’d that really such a big draw back?

The loss of summoning spells doesn't affect Nighthaunt at all...

Also, Knight of Shrouds command ability is way better than an extra point of rend would be. +1 to hit on models that do mortal wounds on 6+ is huge. That alone is a massive boost to Nighthaunt armies.

 Jaxler wrote:

Colonel Cabbage wrote:
I'm not convinced by arguments that Nighthaunt have improved. The changes to Ethereal and extra mortal wounds kinda balance each other out, so I'm not worried about that. What I'm talking about is they have been shut out of summoning, and the Lore of the Dead.

Nighthaunt Wizards (rare though they are), do not get extra spells from the new Lores, but more significantly, they dont get access to Gravesites, and their heroes dont have the Invocation. So Nighthaunt allegiance armies have no summoning and no regeneration. Allied heroes will grant the Invocation, but still no summoning, and allied wizards dont get extra powers.

Looking through the book, it also seems that Soulblight gets the new Spell Lores, but doesnt have summoning, and Death and FEC get neither. FEC units are in their book at all, so they actually cant even join the new allegiances.

This may not turn out to be a big deal, since Nighthaun dont typically have Wizards, and have their own quasi-summon, but it seems they become weaker in comparison to the new allegiances.

What this suggests to me, I that leaving out Nighthaunt implies they will have their own Tome at some point. Rumours were that we would see 2 new Death Tomes, and many people thought the second could be something like Deathcast, or Death Elves, but that second book could just be Nighthaunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

The GHB17 NH trait is still valid yes, but if it can be combined whit any of the 4 new legions, i have no idea about.

My understanding (book in hand) is that they cannot be combined. Nighthaunt allegiance is totally separate from this book. My question is, how does the Nighthaunt Command Trait "Cloaked in Shadow" (+1 to save rolls for general) work with the new Ethereal Rule?

Just play a nighthaunt army using the rules for the legions. Sure ya might need to throw in some skeletons, but I’d that really such a big draw back?

all depends on how fluffy you want it.
if you want to include the black coach you need to toss in skellys and deathmages instead of banshee/cairns.

you can ofc ignore the coach and bring 20 skellys but once you go down that path of opening up the army for use with legions then there are better units to bring then ghosts and then suddenly your no longer playing NH.

I would like to see a return of some kind for tomb kings

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

Colonel Cabbage wrote:
I'm not convinced by arguments that Nighthaunt have improved. The changes to Ethereal and extra mortal wounds kinda balance each other out, so I'm not worried about that. What I'm talking about is they have been shut out of summoning, and the Lore of the Dead.

Nighthaunt Wizards (rare though they are), do not get extra spells from the new Lores, but more significantly, they dont get access to Gravesites, and their heroes dont have the Invocation. So Nighthaunt allegiance armies have no summoning and no regeneration. Allied heroes will grant the Invocation, but still no summoning, and allied wizards dont get extra powers.

Looking through the book, it also seems that Soulblight gets the new Spell Lores, but doesnt have summoning, and Death and FEC get neither. FEC units are in their book at all, so they actually cant even join the new allegiances.

This may not turn out to be a big deal, since Nighthaun dont typically have Wizards, and have their own quasi-summon, but it seems they become weaker in comparison to the new allegiances.

What this suggests to me, I that leaving out Nighthaunt implies they will have their own Tome at some point. Rumours were that we would see 2 new Death Tomes, and many people thought the second could be something like Deathcast, or Death Elves, but that second book could just be Nighthaunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

The GHB17 NH trait is still valid yes, but if it can be combined whit any of the 4 new legions, i have no idea about.

My understanding (book in hand) is that they cannot be combined. Nighthaunt allegiance is totally separate from this book. My question is, how does the Nighthaunt Command Trait "Cloaked in Shadow" (+1 to save rolls for general) work with the new Ethereal Rule?

Just play a nighthaunt army using the rules for the legions. Sure ya might need to throw in some skeletons, but I’d that really such a big draw back?

all depends on how fluffy you want it.
if you want to include the black coach you need to toss in skellys and deathmages instead of banshee/cairns.

you can ofc ignore the coach and bring 20 skellys but once you go down that path of opening up the army for use with legions then there are better units to bring then ghosts and then suddenly your no longer playing NH.

What are you talking about? Spirit hoasts and hex wraiths are some of the best units in the book now. Also just run a Mortis engine over the black coach. It looks more fitting and will do more.

heh starting to see facebook posts complaining that skeletons are way undercost and running people through the wringer.

This is my shocked face you don't say they are undercost?

I hear there is something on tga complaining about nagash armies and skeletons as well.

Context for those that haven't followed the forums here for a while: when the devs introduced the concept of cheaper max size units, I was strongly against it because skeletons were already undercost for what they could do in hordes due to their bonuses they get when fielded in large numbers, and by further discounting them they were, in my opinion, playing with greek-fire in terms of breaking game balance.

It was pooh pooh'd because skeletons weren't suddenly winning tournaments (I think thats a flawed analysis anyway as tournaments are a tiny sample of games but thats another topic) - but I also think we didn't see death armies in tournaments anyway because they lacked a modern book and no one was going to play a force without up to date book.

Now they have an up to date book and death armies are appearing. And we are discovering skeletons can be pretty lethal taken at max size and getting that sizeable bonus for not just free, but actually negative points (since its a discount).

This is my 2019 campaign force. I have a sizeable tomb king collection. I will be running several maxed out skeleton squads. Right now... they are a terror. Lets see what happens next year.

I'm sure the doubters will be back to admit you were right, and will reconsider dismissing your concerns out of hand next time.

Not.

You know what happens when the wise man comes down to the cave to tell them about the Sun and the Shadows. They kill him.

Or ban him from their forum

ban him THEN kill him? but thats ok, he already serves Nagash the traitor anyhow....villain!

Truth. He is a servant of the dead.

If GW ever does skeleton pirates I’ll throw all my money at them and pick up 4K points that day.

I don't think skeletons should be more than 80 though for 10. It's only in the massive regiments that they get very points efficient.

removing the massive regiment discount might be enough to balance them a bit more. Then again, it's not the first unit in the game at all that turns out a bit too efficient in higher numbers... And so far, GW seems to like to sell large hordes.

Also, skeletons haven't changed a lot except for the all round ressurection/summonable changes. They were pretty solid before true. Main difference is that people were kind of used to death being slightly more of a push-over.

 Elmir wrote:
I don't think skeletons should be more than 80 though for 10. It's only in the massive regiments that they get very points efficient.

removing the massive regiment discount might be enough to balance them a bit more. Then again, it's not the first unit in the game at all that turns out a bit too efficient in higher numbers... And so far, GW seems to like to sell large hordes.

Also, skeletons haven't changed a lot except for the all round ressurection/summonable changes. They were pretty solid before true. Main difference is that people were kind of used to death being slightly more of a push-over.

Mathematically speaking skeletons should have a higher price for the first 10 due to the command group, the lowest price for the second 10, a higher price for the third 10, and the highest price for the last 10. This is due to their bonus scaling with unit size. Something like:

80 for a 10-man
140 for a 20-man
220 for a 30-man
320 for a 40-man

Those values are a much better representation of a given size's performance on the tabletop. And this is objective--math backs it up, playtesting backs it up. But note that were the massive unit discount removed these values would be very close to what 80 per 10 would be. This is why even using GW's system values can be vary close to what they should be for basic infantry (things get more complicated when it comes to units with options like multiple weapon choices or very powerful command groups) and are decent in the 'good enough' sense. This is even more true for units that have no or only small bonuses based on size.

However, we also see how the massive unit discount is the worst possible way to balance the various sizes; it is downright silly from a balance perspective and a half hour of high-school math and/or playtesting will clearly show that. The sheer stupidity is what I find so dam frustrating, far more than the imbalance itself. The only place where the discount is appropriate is for melee units that do not have size scaling AND without means to utilize a significant portion of the unit at larger sizes. So a unit like plague monks doesn't need a discount despite a lack of scaling bonuses--the nature of the unit means it's very easy to take advantage of the large size. Something like say, basic ogors do deserve one since a large unit is simply going to have half of the models stranded outside combat most of the time. Unfortunately the number of units for which the massive discount is appropriate is a mere fraction of the units that actually have it.

I would think the best way to balance that kind of an effeciency curve would be to change the min/max unit sizes then. Make them 20-40 or so.

Added costs for the first 10 has never been a thing in AoS though. Just adding them as a unit bonus is just fine for me.

And I do like the fact that horde units have made a come-back since GHB17(not just for death btw). Might just be me, but I like the fact that basic troops are more prevalent now and that AoS isn't just a "bring the largest monster" game.

Well, there is somewhat of a "cost" to having, say, 1 unit of 40 instead of 2 units of 10. The cost is that it only gives you one battleline unit, so you have to buy another and have fewer points left for other stuff. I'm not saying that entirely makes up for it, especially now with the discount for taking 40. Basically it just means you'll always try to take 40, or just take 10. But it's also somewhat psychological, since you'll feel like you aren't getting your points worth with a unit of 30 and will want to drop something else if necessary to get that last 10 because they are such a good deal.

When I break my roster out on the spreadsheet, there is never a reason to not take the max because the numbers tell me that the skeletons are operating as near elites for their cost.

They aren't unbeatable and invincible by any stretch but they make the decision for me by making them so cheap for what they do compared to other similarly costed models.

Their performance with the size bonuses on top of what else I can do to them with casters makes them a unit that casuals don't like playing against, and thats' my primary concern.

At the tournament level all bets are off but thats why my primary goal is better balance across the game because it benefits everyone and why I was annoyed when they did the regimental costing the way they did.

Yes it is good to see basic troopers used ... I prefer armies and not elite gak every game... but at the same time more prefer that things be pointed the way they are supposed to be pointed. The only thing that stops the skeletons from being as busted as skyfires and all of the other bent models in the game is that they don't have any ranged or mortal wound attacks.

If you want to make skeletons get bonus attacks or better wounding chances or whatever the larger the unit size, I'm all for it... but don't make them not pay anything for that bonus and in addition give them a further discount on top of that.

 Elmir wrote:
Added costs for the first 10 has never been a thing in AoS though. Just adding them as a unit bonus is just fine for me.

And I do like the fact that horde units have made a come-back since GHB17(not just for death btw). Might just be me, but I like the fact that basic troops are more prevalent now and that AoS isn't just a "bring the largest monster" game.

I like that it isn't 'spam the biggest stuff you can' but am dissatisfied that it was replaced with 'spam the biggest units you can'. The saving grace here is that the latter is physically & financially harder to do.

Yeah. Thats why its not as widespread. I read a lot of grumbling that people WANT to do it but don't want to fork over the dough or spend time painting that many models.

But then complaining about needing a lot of models has been a thing since 6th edition came out and got rid of 5th edition hero-hammer when armies were literally 10-20 models total.

At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

 Galas wrote:
At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

40k tends to get more expensive point wise once you get into elite units because there are powerful special weapons that cost a lot of points to add in. Even more basic stuff like combi-weapons or plasma guns really add up quickly. Also factor in that 40k armies tend toward the more elite end (and thus lower model count) anyways due to the sheer popularity of MEQ armies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galas wrote:
At the end of the day I can't but find strange how much expensive point wise is everything in AoS compared with W40K.

Zombies that cost 6ppm when you have models much more powerfull rules wise costing 4-6ppm in Warhammer. Things like Nagash, Archaon, etc... costing 600-800 points when Magnus or Mortarion are in the 500 point range.

But when you see the tables, I don't see AoS armies being much smaller than W40K ones.

And thats what is strange to me. One of the biggest problems of W40k is how in the cheap units theres so very little design space with point costs. But AoS has much bigger space. And they just don't look like they want to use it.

40k tends to get more expensive point wise once you get into elite units because there are powerful special weapons that cost a lot of points to add in. Even more basic stuff like combi-weapons or plasma guns really add up quickly. Also factor in that 40k armies tend toward the more elite end (and thus lower model count) anyways due to the sheer popularity of MEQ armies.

Pretty much this. Don't look at a Space marine and a Sister of Slaughter being basically the same points, look at a lascannon being the same price as both of them put together.

Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

oz of the north wrote:
Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

Its short on fluff to be honest, and lacks alot of interesting options:

No Vampire handmaidens / courtiers on foot, no living troops, talks very briefly about interesting variant vampires but does not bother to expand upon them

Could have taken so much more from the novels

 Mr Morden wrote:

oz of the north wrote:
Is anyone else feeling kinda underwhelmed by this battletome. It did add fluff but death still seems like a push over faction at least competitively speaking.

Its short on fluff to be honest, and lacks alot of interesting options:

No Vampire handmaidens / courtiers on foot, no living troops, talks very briefly about interesting variant vampires but does not bother to expand upon them

Could have taken so much more from the novels

What kills me about this book is it feels very much like the best of a bad situation. A lot of our units seem over priced, or are just more expensive copies of other factions units.

I was underwhelmed. In particular I found the three legions to be glorified meta-battalions that primarily serve to make it seem like there's more content when much of them is copies of other artifacts/traits with slight changes. There's a bunch of allegiance content overall but it feels very shallow. I also dislike how the Grand Host/Legion allegiances are basically just Death allegiance +1, such that there really isn't a good reason to take Death allegiance at all anymore. Add it all up and what Death is effectively left with is a mere re-work of the generic allegiance rather than new ones. That is why the book feels so shallow, because it's stretching about 1.5 allegiances of new content across four versions of it while the old Death is made obsolete. Battalion options are seriously lacking as well (it seems like a trend with Nurgle too, I'm hoping it doesn't stick).

That said the new allegiance is still really cool and the switch from summoning spells to deathly invocation streamlines the alliance in a very good way. The Nighthaunt changes bring their allegiance up to decently playable (if still a bit sub par) and also make them less reliant on gimmicky play. No new kits but new warscrolls from existing ones are still a great way to expand options.