General's Handbook 2017 Announced

[Oppenheimer]

What this means is that Nighthaunt won't get an actual book or new models because they'll get this stop gap measure instead.

Night haunt doesn't have enough models to use by itself as anything but a one off. It needs an actual update with expanded range.

Also we probably still won't get new spells or artefacts just the alliegance ability. Our alliegance ability is already really good I can't see why I would replace it with anything else.

[Paul Buckler]

Just now, Oppenheimer said:

What this means is that Nighthaunt won't get an actual book or new models because they'll get this stop gap measure instead.

Night haunt doesn't have enough models to use by itself as anything but a one off. It needs an actual update with expanded range.

Also we probably still won't get new spells or artefacts just the alliegance ability. Our alliegance ability is already really good I can't see why I would replace it with anything else.

You made an assumption that the current ones won't change.

[Jamopower]

So it would be nicer to get nothing then? I don't see why getting allegiance abilities now, would make it impossible for GW to release a battletome later. In any case, it will take a considerable time for many of the factions, as they will be busy printing money in form of Codexes for some time, so missing out now, would mean missing out completely for a long period of time, even if after that there would be the shiny new Battletome.

[Naflem]

14 hours ago, Gauche said:

@TroutIt makes guns have no drawbacks. You can engage me, I shoot the unit that got there. There's nothing that can stop guns in the entire game, very few systems have that. This means guns contribute from Turn 1 and never stop whereas melee don't contribute until Turn 2-3, have shorter ranges, etc.

Shooting Combat doesn't even stop you from fighting, you can do both. The offensive output of shooting units is MUCH higher than combat units when you look at the whole game. When you combine that with how crazy Morale is in AoS compared to other games, armies get shot off the table. I play a super competitive list from time to time and I have tabled people on Turn 2 with ease.

AoS also has no penalties to shooting, just cover. So when you keep stacking all this shooting is the thing to do at the competitive level.

Although shooting may start working from round one (or not, depending on the range) and hand to hand combat may be more turn 2-3, hand to hand combat also triggers on both your and your opponents turn.  that could be considered a "penalty" of shooting compared to combat. 

[arka0415]

5 minutes ago, Naflem said:

Although shooting may start working from round one (or not, depending on the range) and hand to hand combat may be more turn 2-3, hand to hand combat also triggers on both your and your opponents turn.  that could be considered a "penalty" of shooting compared to combat. 

This is really important to remember. If a close-combat army gets into combat on turn three, they'll likely get 5-6 rounds of combat. A shooting player gets a maximum of 5 rounds of shooting. Given that a large number of melee armies can get charges on the first turn (second at the latest) many close-combat armies could get 8-10 rounds of combat compared to a shooting player's 5.

[lare2]

As someone who has a fair bit of Nighthaunt, I am super pumped for this!

[Gauche]

19 minutes ago, Naflem said:

Although shooting may start working from round one (or not, depending on the range) and hand to hand combat may be more turn 2-3, hand to hand combat also triggers on both your and your opponents turn.  that could be considered a "penalty" of shooting compared to combat. 

Absolutely a positive in melee's favor, however in my experience unless both armies are combat oriented and a bit grindier the combats tend to end faster and this doesn't come into play as much. As I said I can only speak from my game experience and knowledge of mechanics but I consider shooting to be stronger by a wide margin. This would seem to be backed up by most high end results. My hope is that we get a shake up, that's all. But I'm in a pretty small minority of the AoS community who only really care about competitive play and I know I'm not the primary audience of the game.

[Mengel Miniatures]

50 minutes ago, Oppenheimer said:

What this means is that Nighthaunt won't get an actual book or new models because they'll get this stop gap measure instead.

Night haunt doesn't have enough models to use by itself as anything but a one off. It needs an actual update with expanded range.

Also we probably still won't get new spells or artefacts just the alliegance ability. Our alliegance ability is already really good I can't see why I would replace it with anything else.

I'm super excited about the Nighthaunt stuff. We could very well be getting some artifacts (no spells though, we have no wizards!), there's just no way to know right now. It may mean we aren't getting a Battletome for a year or two, or it could mean they are testing out their rules ideas in the GHB for a Battletome later this year, who knows, it's all just speculation at this point. 

While I would love some more units for Nighthaunts, I think we have a good army as it is right now. We have about the same amount of unit selection as Ironjawz. 3 heroes and 3 units, one of which is an extremely hardcore monster. Ironjawz have 4 heroes and 3 units.

[Oppenheimer]

24 minutes ago, Mengel Miniatures said:

I'm super excited about the Nighthaunt stuff. We could very well be getting some artifacts (no spells though, we have no wizards!), there's just no way to know right now. It may mean we aren't getting a Battletome for a year or two, or it could mean they are testing out their rules ideas in the GHB for a Battletome later this year, who knows, it's all just speculation at this point. 

While I would love some more units for Nighthaunts, I think we have a good army as it is right now. We have about the same amount of unit selection as Ironjawz. 3 heroes and 3 units, one of which is an extremely hardcore monster. Ironjawz have 4 heroes and 3 units.

It's all preferences I guess. I don't consider any of the heroes to be any good because there are no wizards,  2 have less than 5 wounds, 1 has a useless stat line. I also don't play with forgeworld minis. So to be there isn't enough there.

I guess we'll see what happens when it comes out. But GW constantly disappoints me so my expectations are tiny.

[Marc Wilson]

Man... after accidentally buying a Bretonnian army I really hope the points stayed the same but the models for that price went up, i.e 10 knights for 'X' rather than 8. That would put them right, and compensate for no allegiance abilities.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

 In my experience, nearly my whole community largely despises it.

 And in mine ... not one person has complained about it a single time,  ever. 

Perhaps as leaders we influence those around us ... ?

[chord]

 

19 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

 And in mine ... not one person has complained about it a single time,  ever. 

Perhaps as leaders we influence those around us ... ?

This has been my experience as well,  the complaints are more about the units

[stato]

31 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

Man... after accidentally buying a Bretonnian army I really hope the points stayed the same but the models for that price went up, i.e 10 knights for 'X' rather than 8. That would put them right, and compensate for no allegiance abilities.

Its an interesting point no-one has really discussed yet, changes to min and max unit sizes.  I cant see it as a likely change though, too many units are sold in the multiples they can be run.

And compendium stuff probably wont get a lot of change anyway, if its included at all, could be they take the opportunity to ditch it and only carry forward AoS versions of legacy stuff, so Dispossessed, Free-People, Wanderers etc.

*though i hope they dont lose Brets or even change to 10 per unit, as ive just finished collecting mine so that would be a bunch of extra models id need to find   

[chord]

2 minutes ago, stato said:

Its an interesting point no-one has really discussed yet, changes to min and max unit sizes.  I cant see it as a likely change though, too many units are sold in the multiples they can be run.

And compendium stuff probably wont get a lot of change anyway, if its included at all, could be they take the opportunity to ditch it and only carry forward AoS versions of legacy stuff, so Dispossessed, Free-People, Wanderers etc.

*though i hope they dont lose Brets or even change to 10 per unit, as ive just finished collecting mine so that would be a bunch of extra models id need to find   

Agreed that would be a good way to adjust things without adjusting points (although points per model is being adjusted)

I like that idea

[xanderhansen]

 And in mine ... not one person has complained about it a single time,  ever. 
Perhaps as leaders we influence those around us ... ?

I totally agree with you, I have only heard a few ppl complain about it. And I would actually go so long as to say, that a turn based game is on the low scale of strategic gameplay. It's way to simple, you never have to think about what you do, just charge in, because you know it's your turn right after your opponent = simple.
When you're never sure witch turn it's gonna be next, you have to set yourself up for so many possibilities and that opens op for an advanced strategic game, where you have to prepare for so many more outcomes.
But that just my thinking.

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[Marc Wilson]

People should perhaps moderate their language and cut out hyperbole and over-exaggeration; 'hate this' 'despised that' - it's painful reading, best kept, in my view, to the wastelands of social media. To be honest, it makes reading comments quite unpleasant and tiresome.

Of course this doesn't work both ways  If you love something - fill yer boots!! I love that seraphon are getting allegience abilities... now if only kroak was a tiny bit cheaper...

[xanderhansen]

When you're never sure witch turn it's gonna be next, you have to set yourself up for so many possibilities and that opens op for an advanced strategic game, where you have to prepare for so many more outcomes.

This comes up a lot, and I ask the next question a lot but rarely get a good answer, so I'll pose it again.  Bear in mind I *largely agree with you*, but I hate turn-based games anyway in the IGO-UGO format (I prefer alternating activation)
If you are playing in an environment where the min/max shooting tournament play has seeped into your casual environment... how do you prepare for 420 kunnin rukk shots that they'll get when they eventually get the back to back turn?  The way it is now... they deploy their formation and are done and then choose to go second EVERY TIME, because they know that if they get the back to back 420 shots that 99 times out of 100 they are going to win the game.
Its not just kunnin rukk either.  Just using that one as its the most well known.  
What strategic counter-play can you employ to not get decimated by that?  Are there battle reports somewhere that demonstrate this counter-strategy?
Because this is the AOS that I have to endure and would love to experience the advanced strategic game that people on forums talk about, but that I seem to be chasing after and can't find.  I don't find back to back kunnin rukk down your throat advanced strategic play.  
What I've found is that the majority of people I get to play with go on the Buy/Sell facebook group after a couple games of that and sell their stuff and go buy Kings of War or 40k or something else.
What would be super cool would be like an Unearthed Arcana where they could release "advanced rules" that were more logical.  That way "official rules" could exist for either style of play.

I totally get your point, and agree that in that situation the game mode is not ideal. In order to get the most advanced strategic game, it requires to be balanced, and right now the heavy shooting army's is not balanced.

So it is my hope that they in some matter will fix this in the upcoming GH2. I was only making my statement truly out from a perspective that I don't see that the game would be in a better place if it would be a turn based game.

And let's say that we got a turn based game, how would you then ever get in combat with slot of shooting army's when you don't have the possibility to get a double turn? Sylvaneth would just outrange you all the time for you to get in, same goes for skyfires. And they would even be able to bring more shooting, because they would not have to set any walls to protect them, when they know that you would never be able to get in there.

But all in all, I totally agree with you in the games current situation. But I'm positive about the new changes [emoji6]

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[Koalaninja]

Created an account just to post about how excited I am by this release and how satisfied I am as a consumer. Look at GW's stock price since AOS release. Now couple that with 40k's amazing new edition and Total War II. Did they need to release a new handbook for AOS this year when they are going to be piling money hand over fist in other channels? No but they are. They are making every effort to make us happy and be deserving of the title of best minatures company in the world and I for one applaud them. 

Perhaps we can turn this discussion to units that need a point increase/decrease? I will be shocked if the stonehorn stays cheaper than the mawcrusher and if the skaven flamethrowers on weapons teams and stormfiends don't become more expensive than the other alternatives. 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

. how do you prepare for 420 kunnin rukk shots that they'll get when they eventually get the back to back turn?

Easy. I refuse the game. 

[Jamopower]

2 hours ago, stato said:

Its an interesting point no-one has really discussed yet, changes to min and max unit sizes.  I cant see it as a likely change though, too many units are sold in the multiples they can be run.

And compendium stuff probably wont get a lot of change anyway, if its included at all, could be they take the opportunity to ditch it and only carry forward AoS versions of legacy stuff, so Dispossessed, Free-People, Wanderers etc.

*though i hope they dont lose Brets or even change to 10 per unit, as ive just finished collecting mine so that would be a bunch of extra models id need to find   

Well losing the legacy units would highly unlikely considering that they have already sneak peeked some revised playtest point costs from ghb2 for legacy units

[Jamopower]

14 hours ago, stato said:

 

Triple post actually

[Jamopower]

2 hours ago, stato said:

double post

[WoollyMammoth]

10 hours ago, Kirjava13 said:

This whole 'let's break up all our iconic races into dozens of tiny factions' was one of the things that irked, and continues to irk, me about AoS. Who was absolutely coked off their face when they suggested that? "Let's make Dwarven artillery, like, it's own thing." " Let's put Pestilens in their own book, with their whole two different infantry units." Any move away from that, be it re-consolidating factions or fleshing them out substantially, is a fine piece of warp-cheese, yes-yes.

This goes back to what I said about, forcing matched play back to requiring factions would go a long way to making it more balanced and fixing it.

Their concept for the game has clearly took some hard turns over the last two years and different armies/factions are still all headed in different directions.

It started with combining everything into 4 flavors. This comes from the original concept where you take whatever you want and nothing matters. They were hoping to sell more models by allowing people to just pick and play whatever. The idea should have been, that they were going to make 4 equal parts, but the plan was that nothing mattered so they continued to just make whatever they felt like (Stormcast + order, order and order)  and put zero focus into balancing out the grand alliances.

Well - it didn't work. Very few were taking to the "nothing matters" idea, and most of those that were were handcrafting custom rules to make it work. They had to add the GH - matched play and points to get AoS moving. It worked - 98% of us are now primarily focused on matched play as our core game.  Matched play puts a restriction on staying in your alliance, which only emphasizes their lack of attempting to balance out the allegiances.

The "mini" factions, again, were part of the "nothing matters" attitude. The basic idea is fine - you put artillery in an artillery group, you put the elf pirates in the pirate group, the human people in a human group. The problem is that its fine to make a faction of two units when nothing matters, but now that they realized things have to matter, this doesn't fly anymore. little to no people are playing any of these broken sub-factions and those that are are disappointed and hoping for an update that could be a decade away, if ever.

The faction idea works, is working, and has always worked. Seraphon, Stormcast, Sylvaneth, Blades of Khorne, Discpiples of Tzeentch, Fyreslayers, Ironjaws, Beastclaw Raiders, etc - these are all great, fully established factions that work great and are very popular. They have re-embraced factions with the GH, and the ones which are not shattered and ignored are doing great. 

Now its time to re-up the factions into legitimate groups again, update their scrolls to have more synergy:

- Take "Collgiate Arcane" , "Devoted of Sigmar", "free peoples", "ironweld arsenal" and "Dispossesed" and make them "DENIZENS OF THE REALMS"

- Just make "DARK AELVES" and "HIGH AELVES" - all these mini factions are useless

- Make "Wanderers" "FOREST FOLK" and simply give them all the Sylvaneth Keyword.

- Combine Gargants, Monsters, Brayherds, Thunderscorn, & Warherds into "CHAOS MONSTROSITIES"

- Combine all Skaven into just "SKAVEN"

- Combine Everchosen, Slaves to darkness and Daemons of Chaos into "CHAOS UNBOUND"

- Combine Gargants + all Ogors, Grots and Troggoths into "THE HORDES OF DESTRUCTION"

- Combine Deadwalkers, deathlords, deathmages, and soulblight into "THE LEGION OF DEATH"


This would create reasonable factions for every army and balance out the game. You can still make an all Beastmen version of "CHAOS MONSTROSITIES", or all Skyre version of "SKAVEN", nothing is forcing you to play your army a certain way. They could also pull out certain units and make new armies out of them like they do now, this doesn't prevent any of that, it only organizes the loose factions into real factions.

Next, everything needs updated scrolls and full allegiance abilities, artifacts and spell lores/prayers to make them a fully established faction.

Lastly, the can add a rule that every army in Matched Play must belong to a single faction, thereby removing all the "pick and choose the best of everything" armies that have been winning most tournaments this year.

I hope the GH-2017 is moving us closer to this kind of this kind of a more organized world for AoS.

[ReynakZhen]

Perhaps, GW could make it so that certain over powered units are only able to be fielded in lists that are faction specific? for example the Tzaangor skyfires could only be taken in a pure Tzeentch list. 

[chord]

45 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Well - it didn't work. Very few were taking to the "nothing matters" idea, and most of those that were were handcrafting custom rules to make it work. 

Opinion stated as fact.   There were plenty of people having fun prior to the GHB.

Points focused people did not "save" AOS.   

I'd like to see GHB2017 focus on grand alliances.  Provide a greater reason for taking them so we can see more diversity in units played