TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Ben]

Hi Guys,

GW have announced that they are working on a new generals handbook 

Quote

In the months since the release of the General's Handbook, the game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar has gone from strength to strength. Covering three ways to play - open play, narrative play and matched play - this book is the trusty companion for thousands of Warhammer Age of Sigmar gamers the world over.

But these new rules were always intended to evolve as time went on, so now, we're looking to the people who use them most for help (that's you, the players).

What would you change about, or add to, the General's Handbook?

Let us know in the comments below, whether it be the narrative Battleplans, the points for Warscrolls or Battalions, Path to Glory campaign rules, the Three Rules of One, or anything else, and we'll send all your ideas on to the team writing the new book.

 

I propose that we collate a list of recommendations from this community and I will abuse my good fortune of having friends that work in Games Workshop to pass on our list to.  

With a bit of luck we can come up with some cool ideas and structured suggestions!

Let me know what your feedback is and can I get a volunteer to collate/manage the feedback 

Thanks
Ben 

[hobgoblinclub]

Excellent plan!

I think measuring to bases goes without saying (assuming they have the miniature range rebased). 

I'd love to see detailed rules for running campaigns on a hex grid map. I'm trying to write some at the moment but I'll happy get beaten to the punch. 

Expanding Path to Glory to include more factions or at least introduce generic tables for all of the alliances. 

Other than that, first GHB was pretty darn cool.

Edit: rat ogors as Moulder battleline, please! If Skryre get stormfiends, Moulder could surely have rat ogors. It'd make the faction much more playable without having to release anything. 

[PJetski]

Not sure why my previous post broke the forum formatting so badly, please delete it

1. Allegiance and spell lore for pre-GHB armies (Seraphon, Fyreslayers, Ironjawz, etc.)

2. Command Traits can be given to any model with a Command Ability, rather than just the general

3. Only scenery generated as per the AOS Rules can grant a Cover bonus - scenery generated by player abilities (such as Balewind Vortex and Sylvaneth Wildwood) does not grant cover

4. Ardboyz should be Destruction battleline rather than Ironjawz battleline

5. The following units should cost less: Hellpit Abomination (240), Megaboss on Maw-Krusha (420), Gore-Gruntas (160), Ripperdactyl Riders (120), Engine of the Gods (200),  Nagash (800), Skink Handlers (20)

6. The following units should cost more: Stormfiends (360), Necropolis Knights (180), Savage Orruk Arrowboyz (120)

7. Reduce the cost of Seraphon battalions by 40-50%, they are too expensive for what they do

8. Thundertusk shooting attack should not be 6 mortal wounds on a 2+ with a 28" threat range. It's not necessarily imbalanced but it's definitely not fun to play against.

[hobgoblinclub]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Not sure why my previous post broke the forum formatting so badly, please delete it.

Sorted that for you. 

[ElectricPaladin]

Here's the feedback I posted on Facebook:

Quote

Path to Glory charts for all armies.

Allegiance benefits for all armies.

Broaden Batteline choices for some armies. Army lists in Matched Play get a bit samey for armies that only have one Battleline option.

How about another option for a generic Command Ability so high Bravery armies can use generic generals?

Clarification of how points interact with special summoning (e.g. making a vampire, chaos spawn, the ogroid thaumaturge's spell, pink to blue to brimstone horrors, etc).

Points for more battalions.

Consider reshuffling and consolidating some factions? The Nighthaunts, for example, don't really make sense right now. Lots of folks who buy the Malignants box are frustrated to learn that the mortis engine isn't a Nighthaunt.

Mordheim-style rules would be great!

More terrain rules! Rules for battles in different Realms, battles in unusual places (on board ships, in swamps, in zones mortalis style indoor locations) would be awesome!

More generic (i.e. not army specific) battleplans.
 

 

[Arkiham]

Hmm, could we use this one as a good proposal thread? so keep it locked and add collated ideas or something ,  as there is two threads about this and I can see both become a real mess or ideas, counter ideas, complaints, general chit chat etc. 

Remove the suggestions which have been altered or something already via the faq etc.

Basically. keep this one as nice as possible so people can see ideas being put forward, and discuss it and etc on the other one.

Just an idea 

 

[amysrevenge]

A bit of flexibility for things like Gargants, Troggoths, and Chaos Monsters to be used without breaking allegiance purity would be nice.

(If the new mechanism left the door open for things like Forgeworld beasties as well, that would be nice.)

[Marc Wilson]

Six more battle plans for matched play, to increase the official pool, some with victory conditions which require more diverse forces. By the time these changes are enacted we will surely be getting slightly tired of the current 6.

Single or very few drop formations should be slightly penalised under these victory conditions. Not majorly. Just enough to make people think twice. Only Three Places of Power (and maybe Escaltion) really effects list building to any great extent.

 

[Lysandestolpe]

Please make the Aleguzzler Gargant playable into any destruction faction without costing allegiance benefits. He is not that great but too cool not to use.

[chord]

Better Narrative battleplans in the GHBv2,  add in some more battalions from the realmgate wars for points,

[amysrevenge]

Another thing that would be nice would be more multiplayer battleplans.  We have been playing WAY more multiplayer games than any of us would have predicted at the club.

[nuttyknatty]

Great shout @amysrevenge. It would be nice to see T&T expanded with cards (similar to the WFB version).

[Hotdropmartin]

Battleine combine! keep battleline restrictions but allow you to combine them into 1-2 units eg, pay points for 3 units of 10 skeletons but can combine them into one unit of 30 but still meet the requirement?

Maybe introduce x amount of units that dont break allegiance in matched play

I think grand alliance spell lists might be a cool addition.

I would really like to see a character creation system done for narrative play using a set number of 'hero' points to spend on stats, abilities , keywords etc.

Im still very undecided on the initiative system from my games. it has won and lost me games equally so i suppose that is balanced

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Hotdropmartin

[PJetski]

Just now, Hotdropmartin said:

I think grand alliance spell lists might be a cool addition.

I quite like this idea

[GutrotSpume]

Get rid of Battleline. 

 

When AOS first dropped it was great to have the freedom to take anything you wanted and let to some crazy lists. Battleline ruined that IMO and only stifles people's creativity. 

 

From a balance point of view the missions do a good job of ensuring you need a semi balanced list to compete anyway.

[James McPherson]

Better clarification for the rules around using multiple versions of the same arcane items ie Crown of Conquest. At WHW and in the GHB its fine to take multiples, and I designed my army around this, and the book alludes to it as well, but in a vague way and am finding a lot of the independent tournaments here in NZ don't allow it.

 

[Rogue Explorator]

Turn the point lists into an online living document. Don't just add points for new releases, but regularly review all point costs. This doesn't just allow the fixing of overcosted and undercosted units, but also keeps the meta fluid, though, without doubt, at the cost of great Nerdrage.

 

Either make allegiance spells independent of actual allegiance or add allegiance spells to the Grand Alliance allegiances, otherwhise breaking allegiance with a wizard heavy army becomes way too punishing.

 

Keep a strong line between Matched Play and Narrative Play. Give good support to Narrative Play.

 

Measure from Base as Standart, at least for Matched Play. Ideally for the entire game. A lot of players and organizers are already doing this. Arguments for this are plenty, but my particular issue is that I hate the idea of one minis base plased on anothers and sviveling minis around to see if they fit through when moving.

[Strength_Hammer]

I would love to see an official Measure from bases statement first and foremost.  While the community as a whole has adapted to make this be the norm I think an official stamp on it would be nice.

I also feel that the split up of older Armies (specifically the Aelfs) was very drastic and perhaps adding in race specific Army Battleline, Allegiances,  magic item would go a long way to keep the armies diversified until newer versions of the armies come out.

[Requizen]

A big thing I'd like to see for a V2 is rules for a smaller competitive game mode. My FLGS has been having a lot of fun with Kill Team over regular 40k lately, and there isn't really rules for anything similar in AoS other than houseruling. Something like Mordheim: AoS edition. I'd love to have a game where you can show up with only like 10-15 models and play a game. 

One of my favorite parts of TGH is that they have sections for different game modes, adding another like this would be awesome of them to do.

[Louzi]

1. First: the GH is overall great!

2. I wish there would be more battalions with points.

3. In my opinion the line of sight is a big issue in competetive play and it would be cool, if they could find a solution for it.

4. Battleline! Those damn battlelines are good for some factions, but rly bad for others and destroying lists, e.g. the Stormcast have rly good options, but fyreslayers have to stick with Vulkite Berserkers or make a useless model (Runemaster) their general.

5. Allegiance abilities: Not balanced. While Death and Chaos are ok, Destruction is too powerful and Order just useless.

[Lysandestolpe]

1 hour ago, amysrevenge said:

Another thing that would be nice would be more multiplayer battleplans.  We have been playing WAY more multiplayer games than any of us would have predicted at the club.

Yes! Even ways to play free for all in that sense.

[Sutek]

The only rule change I would suggest is that a fleeing unit cannot claim an objective that turn.  It just seems wrong to me.  I also think artifacts should be unique in the army.

Some clarifications on existing rules would be nice along with new scenarios.

[amysrevenge]

7 minutes ago, Sutek said:

The only rule change I would suggest is that a fleeing unit cannot claim an objective that turn.  It just seems wrong to me.

Well if you think of it, instead of using the old-edition terminology of "fleeing", as the current "retreat", and consider that tactical withdrawal is a real tactic, it's less wrong maybe.

[Hobbit]

This may be controversial, but as someone who doesn't like AoS but sees the GH as a step in the right direction and with some more developement could become a game I could play here is what I would like to see in no particular order:

1) More custamization, mostly of characters. More magic items and full spell lores for each faction as per the Sylvaneth book.

2) Modify the rule of one with regards to spells. Multiple instances of the same spells don't stack, but the same spell can be cast more than once.  This may not be necessary if everyone has multiple spells than can cast. Would like to see wizards play a larger role/ multiple wizards be a viable strategy.

3) Measuring from base to base. Would also like to see some base standardization, or atleast what is "'officially recamended"'.

4) Battleline units may not be necessary with the rules structure and points as they are, other games manage it.

5) Clarification of unit options. Explicitly state what each unit comes with and how many of each option it can take/ which are mutually exclusive. I find that this isn't alway clear.

6) Points to be included in the warscroll, this can then be updated on the fly to balance things if necessary. Navigating between the scrolls and the GH, while not much of an inconvinience is still a bit of a pain. I beleive that the GH has enough additional content to not invalidate it.

7) More rules/ restrictions governing movement. Difficult terrain/ pathfinder etc.

That's it off the top of my head. These may be seen as too many core changes but the GH amends the core rules for matched play so I dont see this being a problem.

 

Thanks.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Hobbit

[bottle]

I think the matched play from the GHB is great. Aside from general points adjustments I would like to see the following changes:

1. Change scenario 1. I think it is too hard to get a major victory on.

2. When summoning units, allow the unit to go up to the max pitched battle size, but you have to pay the full points. I think it's the tiny push summoning needs to make players see the worth in it and being able to summon loads of zombies at once would be cool.