Jump to content

FEEDBACK for General's Handbook 2.0 (Destruction)


Anaticula

Recommended Posts

This topic has been passed on to GW and was confirmed to be passed on to the creative team. 

 

In this topic we want to collect feedback for GW for the new GENERAL'S HANDBOOK. GW has shown us that they listen to players, and they may truly want to improve the game. We should take the chance and collect feedback as the Destruction alliance player base and send it to them. This can only work if as many as possible of you are ready to participate, even if you do not have anything new to add. GW should be able to go to this thread and see that or opinions are kind of representative for the community.

I think that most ideas should pertain to point cost, warscrolls will not change in the GH.

I will try to edit this thread regularly.

 

SUGGESTED CHANGES

General Destruction problem: No cheap battleline!

 

Ironjawz:

Ardboyz: cost adjustment, battleline for all

Weirdnob: cost adjustment (way too expensive for what he does!)

Maw Krusha: cost adjustment, maybe 480 pts

Godrakk: cost adjustment

 

Troggoths and Gargants should get some kind of "joker" keyword so that they can be used with any destruction allegiance without breaking it

 

Greenskinz:

Orruks: cost adjustment, maybe down to 80 pts.

Rogue Idol: could be a bit more expensive

Shaman: cost adjustment, cheaper

Boar Chariot is weak and overpriced

 

Moonclan:

Faction battalion!

Squigs as battleline for pure Moonclan

 

Spiderfang Grots

Arachnarok: different point values for different versions of the model (with or without shaman etc.)

 

All Grots should have a smaller minimum choice (maybe 15?)

 

Ogors etc.:

Mournfang Pack - too expensive

Thundertusks and Stonehorns seem to be way too cheap


 

 

 

CHANGES UP FOR DISCUSSION (not final)

 

 

Kunnin Rukk - cost higher? lower? can it be fixed with just point adjustment? 

Models like Gore Gruntas - should they have 3" melee range?

 

 

Screenshot_2017-03-01-17-30-37-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a topic for general feedback on what we would like to see in GH2 (Generals Handbook 2) but to my knowledge nothing set aside for alliance specific stuff. It could be useful to make sure stuff doesn't get lost within the weight of posts. Ironjawz for instance could do with being recosted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely ironjawz need work points wise. Gordrakk is useless right now. Otherwise I would see kunnin ruk get a tweak, and the beastclaws big beasts maybe? To stop mixed destruction being quite so strong? I'd love to see the arachnarok get a slight buff to compete otherwise.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see ardboyz become battleline potentially. Would be nice for Ironjawz to have a generic battleline.

I would like to see lesser used units be brought down in price and the OP stuff raised so the destruction variety can go up rather than just being auto pick in tournaments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems that there is an interest in this project. Maybe I can collect the feedback in my initial post via edit and an administrator could pin the topic. 

My 2 cents:

Weirdnob needs lower point cost. He doesn't do anything for his points.

Maw Krusha should be at 480. Too expensive.

Orruks down two 80 (from 100)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rant incoming.

Bonesplitterz either need another Sylvaneth level rework or some serious number adjustments. The monster slayer gimmick feels tacked on and useless. Savage orcs may have gained a wound, but splitting Big Stabbas into a separate unit and basic troops losing their -1 rend did them no favors. They could also use a centerpiece model (Wyverns from the Fyreslayers codex, anyone?), but this isn't the place to complain about that.

Savage Boarboys don't do anything tangibly useful other than be fast blocks of wounds. When Ironjawz players complain about Goregruntas being useless and overpriced, Maniak Boarboys certainly feel too expensive for what they do.

Prophets have a great ability, but nobody powerful enough to make it worth using it on. Big Bosses just make the game drag on even more since their only good target is a 40 man Kunnin' Rukk enabled archer squad. Most of the spells don't pay off enough to warrant casting them and the artifacts and traits are depressing compared to the generic ones.

The entire army runs away if sneezed at, but is slow and can't do any damage in return. Outside of the Kunnin' Rukk, it's probably the worst "glass cannon" army I've seen in any wargame.

I'm not even sure if a blanket point cost reduction could save the army from just being lolkunninrukk spam, especially since their battletome is so meh compared to say, Sylvaneth. Even Grots do hordes better. And let's face it, there's no way Kunnin' Rukk is staying the same price in GH2.0.

/endrant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arachnarok seemed pointed fairly appropriately when I used the shaman on top, it's not the most fighty of monsters but it does a bit of everything.  I've not used the flinger but on paper it's not on par with the shaman version so not worth as many points, it's a real shame the flinger doesn't have a de-buffing ability like back in 8th edition. 

For Iornjaws, I'm wondering if making Ardboyz battleline would be a simple but appropriate improvement for the Iornjaws because it would allow you to build more competitive and flexible lists by adding in a few other destruction units, e.g. spear chukkas, wolf riders etc. without having to take non Iornjaws battleline units.  Ok you loose allegiance so then maybe Iornjaws need some amazing formations/abilities/artefacts when they get added to tempt you back to pure Iornjaws.

The main thing I'd like to see is an Orruk of some variety on the cover of Generals Handbook 2 simply because we iz da best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be a naysayer, because I think a thread for legitimate feedback is important, but this will quickly turn into "my army needs to be more powerful/have cheaper point values because it doesn't always smash face."

Take for example the above post on Bonesplitterz - the army with the cheapest-per-wound battleline in the game that has rolls and a save on par with more expensive battleline units, and among the cheesiest battalions anywhere. Anecdotally, I've heard significantly more complaints for how overpowered and undercosted this faction is than the other way around.

Another example: Ironjaws are meant to be slow, but dangerous when they get in your face. I'd like Ardboyz to be battleline, too, but should they be? Probably not, because it would open up Ironjaws to rounding out the flaws of their faction without repercussions - the old "having cake, eating cake." Also, I could be wrong, but a constant attribute of all alliance-wide battleline units is that they scale with unit size? 

Factions have flaws - that's why there are different factions. If every faction did everything, then where's the fun in it? Yes, there is a lot that needs to be reworked in Destruction, for sure - I am simply making a plea for posters that, if this actually will be sent to GW, they consider it more objectively, rather than what would make their preferred faction or unit win more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Kunnin' Rukk changed to a completely different effect, double shooting is too oppressive on a competitive meta. It also forces list building for competitive play within Destruction, which leads to a boring meta. Arrow Boys are fine as is without the double shot and should be 120pts per 10 in my opinion. Since it's unlikely they will augment the rules in the GHB, it needs to be significantly more expensive along with an Arrow Boys price increase, this comes from a Kunnin' Rukk player.

Ironjawz need some points fixing as others have said, overall they mostly need new options. I think Huskard on Thundertusk is a bit undercosted but I'd rather just see the Gun or Heal nerfed instead if I was wish-listing. Savage Orruks feel right to me for the rest of the options, haven't played with too much beyond those Factions so I will defer feedback until I've put in the table time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think one of the biggest things, across all factions (not just Destruction), is making the allegiance actually matter beyond what counts as a battleline unit. If we take Bonesplitterz as an example, their allegiance trait is the 6+ save against all wounds from the Waaagh paint (please correct me if I'm wrong), plus the command traits, artifacts, and spells. Compare that to base Destruction, with the 1d6 "not movement" move, command traits and artifacts. Are the bonuses you get for being restricted in your unit choices by being a Bonesplitterz player an improvement, or at least a tough decision, over going general Destruction? If no, then the allegiance needs to be worked on.

On a Destruction specific note though, the artifacts need to be reworked. When there is one clear winner, Battle Brew (as tournament lists will attest to), and one clear runner up (Talisman of Protection), then everything else is on the same plane, you have a problem. I'm looking through the eyes of an Ironjawz player, so I'm not too familiar with Ogors or goblins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some kind of free agent keyword that applies to Gargants and Troggoth so we can get these nastys onto the boards more often. Or is the general consensus that you have  go full destruction alliance in order to obtain these beasts and thats just the price you should have to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Furious said:

Not to be a naysayer, because I think a thread for legitimate feedback is important, but this will quickly turn into "my army needs to be more powerful/have cheaper point values because it doesn't always smash face."

Take for example the above post on Bonesplitterz - the army with the cheapest-per-wound battleline in the game that has rolls and a save on par with more expensive battleline units, and among the cheesiest battalions anywhere. Anecdotally, I've heard significantly more complaints for how overpowered and undercosted this faction is than the other way around.

Another example: Ironjaws are meant to be slow, but dangerous when they get in your face. I'd like Ardboyz to be battleline, too, but should they be? Probably not, because it would open up Ironjaws to rounding out the flaws of their faction without repercussions - the old "having cake, eating cake." Also, I could be wrong, but a constant attribute of all alliance-wide battleline units is that they scale with unit size? 

Factions have flaws - that's why there are different factions. If every faction did everything, then where's the fun in it? Yes, there is a lot that needs to be reworked in Destruction, for sure - I am simply making a plea for posters that, if this actually will be sent to GW, they consider it more objectively, rather than what would make their preferred faction or unit win more.

Agreed, and all of this of course needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

I think the way AoS is headed at the moment, where taking troops from all of your alliance to be competitive, Ironjawz need a battleline unit that can work as a generic battleline. Brutes and the pig guys would be overkill in my mind leaving ardboyz. I may not be right, but in a place of discussion for changes this is where I would like to talk about it.

I agree on the Kunnin Rukk. I think a lot of it will come down to, what gets pinned on the post. If the consensus of the majority is that Ardboyz should not be battleline then it shouldn't be pinned in the original post. 

People disagreeing with what is said here is just as important as people proposing things, otherwise as you implied, it will become a circle jerk of people wanting their own army boosted. Though I would like to think most of us are above that haha :)

 

Anyway, well said @Furious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tuluth said:

Honestly, I think one of the biggest things, across all factions (not just Destruction), is making the allegiance actually matter beyond what counts as a battleline unit. If we take Bonesplitterz as an example, their allegiance trait is the 6+ save against all wounds from the Waaagh paint (please correct me if I'm wrong), plus the command traits, artifacts, and spells. Compare that to base Destruction, with the 1d6 "not movement" move, command traits and artifacts. Are the bonuses you get for being restricted in your unit choices by being a Bonesplitterz player an improvement, or at least a tough decision, over going general Destruction? If no, then the allegiance needs to be worked on.

On a Destruction specific note though, the artifacts need to be reworked. When there is one clear winner, Battle Brew (as tournament lists will attest to), and one clear runner up (Talisman of Protection), then everything else is on the same plane, you have a problem. I'm looking through the eyes of an Ironjawz player, so I'm not too familiar with Ogors or goblins. 

Very much agree. There should be benefits to wanting to stick within a faction or at least options that lead people to choose it. Hoever this may take years for us to reach as there is so much for GW to work on at the moment. I do think we will see a shift in peoples attitudes towards taking pure forces for competitive games as well as narrative a way down the line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The keywords up in the initial post are of course to show what is discussed. In the end, it should represent some kind of consensus. In the end we are just giving input, and they will do whatever they want anyway.

On some points:

Arachnarok: I think it's fine the way it is.

Troggoth and Gargant: YES, great idea.

Kunnin Rukk: I am not sure if what needs to be done can be done in the GH. The rule needs improvement. Of course, one might make it more expensive so that people don't use it anymore. But that is not what we really want.

General problem with destruction: For competitive lists, the alliance needs its synergies. One does not run mono-something very well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it seems the discussion here as come to a halt. I edited the first post and wrote down changes that seem to be agreed upon by everyone (if not, yell!), whereas there are some things that seem to be unclear.

 

I would really like if people, as many as possible, post in here quickly if they agree with the suggested changes. Many words are not necessary! I would then approach GW and send this to them. The more people agree with our suggestions the more likely it is that GW takes it seriously.

So please post your comment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should include all Forgeworld stuff. I know they do their own point values, but having them printed would be nice.

Moonclan might make use of some faction battleline, like Squigs or Squig hoppers, or under the condition that the general is the Warboss on Squig.

And, despite my earlier post, I have to advocate for a re-haul of Greenskinz points. The Warbosses are mostly fine, Boar riders and chariots are fine, the Rogue Idol... should probably be a bit more expensive, but the Orruks and the shaman suffer - they're horde-y troops, and especially when compared to the Savage Orruks, with their extra wound and same point cost, they seem unworthy of their rate. Same goes for the 140 point shaman with it's mediocre unique spell.

Additionally, the Alliance needs a cheaper battleline. Every other alliance can take a 60 point battleline unit, I think, and Destruction's cheapest unit is 100pts. That's a minimum of 300pts in a 2k game vs 180pts. If you just want to pay the tax and get it out of the way, that's considerably more. Grots in units of 10 would help that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I'd like to see across the whole game but things like the gruntas gore hackas should be 3" range. SE get a 3" on their polearm style weapons, as should all.

With the increase of models and base sizes, this should be the norm.

Or would this be game breaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I think the Ironguts  just a little bit cheaper, i.e. 200 pts and not 220 per 3. A unit of 3 is easily reduced or taken down, before it even reaches anything to fight. Units of 6 or 9 are usable, and may sustain the loss of a couple of models before reaching enemy. However, at 440 and 660 respectively, they may not easily fit even in 2000pts lists, considering the minimum battleline requirements. With 400pts per 6, or 600pts per 9  they may find a proper niche.

- Accordingly, as stated elsewhere, the Mournfang Pack may be also reduced few points.

- I also agree on that:

5 hours ago, Furious said:

Additionally, the Alliance needs a cheaper battleline. Every other alliance can take a 60 point battleline unit, I think, and Destruction's cheapest unit is 100pts. That's a minimum of 300pts in a 2k game vs 180pts. If you just want to pay the tax and get it out of the way, that's considerably more. Grots in units of 10 would help that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...