General's Handbook 2017 Announced

[Oppenheimer]

52 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

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.

Sometimes I just think that the game was better when we just used the old pdfs that came out when the game first started where it had larger factions.

Maybe I'll just play with those again.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Thats the crux of the issue here for me.  When you have a very small community, refusing games means often you are playing with yourself in your garage.

I too will not play that ****** anymore but the majority of the armies in our campaign group are borderline tournament armies, if not full on tournament armies, and thats them "toning it down" lol.

This is very true.  I already have a small community, without much AOS interest (especially now with a "good" edition of 40k).  Not that I encounter people like this (it's the opposite mainly, we are so laid back and casual that many of my group feel bog standard stormcast, like starter set and extras, is grossly OP), but if I did (and same applies to 40k) refusing to play against them means I've just wasted the day with nobody to play against.

[Mikosan]

Have you guys tried some form of comp for tournaments? Like a cap on shots, or cap on same unit choices. I know it was pretty much universally accepted in previous editions of the game, maybe then some of the changes you want to see in the core game could be brought in that way and then have that trickle down to the casual games.  In my admittedly limited exp on the competitive scene the only thing WAAC players like better than breaking a game of toy soldiers is breaking the comp put in place to stop them breaking a game of toy soldiers, Lol. Not saying it'll take but just curious.

While I don't doubt peoples negative experiences, it just hasn't been my exp at all.  There are of course folks here solely interested in the competitive side of the game, but just as many people like me that don't mind either way and we all happily play in tourneys and club days, some guys switch it up, all filth at tourneys and fun lists at club days.  I have found that if someone at the club is enthusiastic about a particular style of game, different battleplan, or list someone else will be drawn in and give them a game.

[Mikester1487]

Good news to hear a new ghb is on the way! Kinda stinks they didn't toss in a little bit of change to the shooting phase, but perhaps the baby step approach to updating the game is best here.

 Even if they did change some of the rules to take the top lists down a peg I'd give it a week and a half tops before someone else comes out with another monstrosity that's super tough to play against. 

To me the game is never solved or straightforward unless you're at a tournament which in my experience tends to be terrain light and lacks table diversity.  I honestly don't think a rukk would do as well with more terrain on the table to block shots for example.  

Hopefully the book is well received as I'd like to have aos start up around my area again.

[Sleboda]

17 minutes ago, Auticus said:

There is a basecamp of players that believe that the only ones that should alter the game are GW.  And thats it.

When it comes to tournaments, count me among them.  Solidly. Simply put, I don't trust the results that most TO egos end up with.

Plus, consistency. Variety for basement gaming, consistency for competitions.

[kozokus]

Extract from the announcement : 

"Perhaps most excitingly of all are the new Allegiance Abilities. These are much expanded from those four Grand Alliance army-traits from the previous General’s Handbook. The new book will cover Allegiance Abilities for the likes of :

Fyreslayers, YEAAAAH ! 

seraphon, HURRAAAAY ! 

Nighthaunts BADAAAASSS \o/

Slaaneshi hosts, GREAAA..Wait! What?!... NONONO! NO WAY! NO WAY! NO FREAKING WAY!

So this basically indicate that Slaanesh is not going to happen soon and probably at all. What a grim news in all that brightness. It rains in my heart.

[Mikester1487]

10 minutes ago, kozokus said:

Extract from the announcement : 

"Perhaps most excitingly of all are the new Allegiance Abilities. These are much expanded from those four Grand Alliance army-traits from the previous General’s Handbook. The new book will cover Allegiance Abilities for the likes of :

Fyreslayers, YEAAAAH ! 

seraphon, HURRAAAAY ! 

Nighthaunts BADAAAASSS \o/

Slaaneshi hosts, GREAAA..Wait! What?!... NONONO! NO WAY! NO WAY! NO FREAKING WAY!

So this basically indicate that Slaanesh is not going to happen soon and probably at all. What a grim news in all that brightness. It rains in my heart.

Perhaps the plan is to release elves so slaanesh has a buildup to a new release? 

I must say it brings me great joy to stamp all over slaanesh.  My least favorite chaos God. 

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

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.

I was with you until you suggested the bigger factions. For me the utopia of this setup would be that every faction offer a certain play style with advantages and disadvantages, including the artifacts etc. 

that way players would have to choose between gaining the faction bonus for more synergies but with the faction drawbacks. Bloodhound is a good example to me. No magic no shooting but immense cc power. Add a Chaos sorcerer for magic? No worries but no Khorne alliegance abilities for you. 

If you add all dark elves together... you have an army with cheap battleline (spear men are 80pt for 10) elite infantry (executioners, black guard) monsters (hydra 2x, dragon, manticore) mobility (cold one knights, chariots, dark riders) 3 different sorceress options + doom fire warlocks. Only thing they are missing are war machines but with the reaper crossbows....

For me a faction like witch  elves only needs a couple of abilities and artifacts to be a fun choice until they get a full tome. Same for order serpentis and covens maybe add another hero but then they are good until they get a proper release. 

But all free people or elves together doesn't fit the faction vs alliance to me. But to be fair. Just my opinion and a tremendous task for gw. Maybe even out of their league if they also want to add new factions in between. 

[Kramer]

21 minutes ago, kozokus said:

o this basically indicate that Slaanesh is not going to happen soon and probably at all. What a grim news in all that brightnes

I feel you pain brother! But it doesn't exclude the rumors for slaanesh shadow elves so that st least would be cool ?

[kozokus]

Just now, Kramer said:

I feel you pain brother! But it doesn't exclude the rumors for slaanesh shadow elves so that st least would be cool ?

Hope has left me. Yet, what i didn't saw is what brought me the most joy, deathrattle, Soulblight, etc

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, kozokus said:

Hope has left me. Yet, what i didn't saw is what brought me the most joy, deathrattle, Soulblight, etc

Where there is joy and high emotions there is slaanesh. ?

 

 

 

Or chutlu, you never known ?

[WoollyMammoth]

4 hours ago, chord said:

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

You should save your "that's just your opinion, man" taunts for actual opinions. My statement is only an opinion if it's your opinion that there were more than "very few" AoS players before the GH, and you have a lot of facts and data against you there. In any case, this is not the correct place for your "GH is not needed" argument. 

@Kramer
You already can add any Dark Elf you would like together. I have yet to hear anyone complain about "Dark Elf power lists". In fact, I've never even seen a Dark Elf player. There were a few early on trying to use their 8th models in AoS, though most DE players were powerlisters and, those were just the type to rage quit the "blown-up world skirmish game for children".

I didn't propose allowing Khorne to add wizards, in fact, what I propose is to prevent them adding wizards, which is currently very common (Sayl). My idea is not an end-all perfect cure for all problems in AoS. These ignored factions need to be better organized with new models and full books in the future, but it would go a long way to improving the current climate of AoS in the short-term while GW spends most of its focus ignoring older factions, choosing instead to focus on inventing new ones.
 

[Mirage8112]

I dunno. i just imagine in WWII when Germany invaded Poland, the Polish Equestrian-based cavalry standing around watching the German advance saying to each other: "OMG Nerf tanks plz". While the rest of us think, "Why are you charging a tank with a horse?". In short, if your army is getting rolled, it's worth looking at your list building strategy as well as in game tactics before attributing everything to unit costs. 

Even so, there's nothing more interesting than watching debate re: the power lever of the higher-tier competitive builds. Because the debate largely centers around getting higher level tournament builds down to the level where mid-tier players aren't overwhelmed. Kunnin' Rukk isn't invincible (although it is very challenging to play against). If the list were truly "unbeatable" it would be completely dominating the tourmanet scene. And if that were objectively true, we'd really only be debating which version of Kunnin' Rukk is the best version, and we'd all have to be Bonesplitta's players if we wanted to win a competitive event. Which obviously isn't the case. Nearly every Grand Alliance (and most armies that have fully-fleshed rosters) has access to some very very powerful builds, (which are of course, the ones everybody else wants toned down).

All of these builds take advantage of the core mechanics of the game in one way or another, and are designed so that every single unit is optimized to work with everything else. Ultimately there will always be a number of top builds regardless of how units are pointed, because there will always be some units that just work better with others. So really, what does a broad point change across the boards mean? It means we might see a possible rotation of the 'top-tier" tournament lists, but lets not pretend that those type of builds will totally disappear. It also means you might just see the same amount of skyfires in tournament builds because even if points for skyfires go up say 60pts, (putting them at 220pts for 3) it's quite likely the other options the in the army will see a points decrease, possibly resulting in the same (or nearly so) army hitting the tabletops at competitive events.

Personally I'm more interested in the revamped rules of 1, matched play scenarios and new allegiance abilities. I actually think these will have a marked impact on the tabletop. I'm not expecting to see abilities with similar effects (i.e. -/+1 to hit from different abilities) prevented from stacking, but it will be interesting to see if ability stacking from the same source is still a thing (aether khemists?), or if that will fall under the "new" rules of 1. I'm also interested to see what changes to battleline units there are (if any). 

This is also interesting insofar as previous editions of WHFB often found updates making changes to unit abilities and weapon options as well as points. This time around, it will be interesting to see how much of an effect a "points" only rebalance across the game has on the meta. 

[armisael]

I really want them to change for how to grab the objective. at currently, it is very awkward when your Archaon lost objective to 2 Plague Monks

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

the debate largely centers around getting higher level tournament builds down to the level where mid-tier players aren't overwhelmed

Trudat.  Don't improve or change youtself, make others come down to you.  Pretty much modern American thinking (says an American). 

[someone2040]

Actually, having slept on it and putting aside the issues of rules, I am actually quite excited about the revamped points and new allegiance abilities.

Like many, I have a few armies from previous editions of Warhammer that have largely been untouched since Age of Sigmar came out. Some are on the precipice to be sold off, while others like my Lizardmen are the army I started the game with, and I'm just waiting patiently for the right time to pull them out and put them back to use. The GHB2, and the points/allegiance abilities I think based on the GHB2 it will be a good indication of what to do with some of my existing armies.

The other thing is, it's getting me excited about what I could do with some of the older factions, depending on where they land post GHB2. I've had some ideas that I'd like to run, but I've been a bit put off on the lack of support that factions made up of 'older' models have gotten. I already run Undivided Chaos that's mainly Slaves to Darkness, and have a Freeguild Army on the grow, I don't need another army that's going to ultimately sit in mid to low tier due to lack of support.

This at least shows, that those factions aren't completely forgotten, and excites me again for what the future could bring for some of those factions.

 

[Tzaangor Management]

I'm excited to see the points moves and am sure, with GW appearing to be so 'plugged in' to the community, that a good deal of time, effort and thought would've gone into it.

I'm just hoping that we see the new GHB sooner rather than later, as I think, along with the arrival of the new 40k, that it's paralyzing a lot of Age of Sigmar projects and I want to see more cool painted minis damn it! 

[Mikosan]

15 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The only way to improve vs an AOS tournament build is to bring an AOS tournament build yourself.  

I'd gladly retract that statement if there was evidence of a player using a mid-tier build beating Kunnin Rukk or Skyfire list or Judicator Spam or Hunter spam run by a player that is also fairly good.  A posted battle report of such an event, video or otherwise, would be awesome.

The math is too overwhelming in the favor of the tournament build.  

You can only git gud to a certain point.  

Part of the big divide is the git gud philosophy.  Tournament builds too hard?  Git gud.   Which is another way of saying buy a tournament build and ignore 90% of the models in the game so that you don't get rolled every game.

The game shouldn't have such disgusting parity between a min/max build and a middle build in my opinion.  

Really.... Judicator spam.  You have been beating the drum of OP shooting for a while here, and while I don't often agree with your solution to core rule changes, I do agree with the units you single out.  Until now, how on earth are Judicators a problem in your meta at 160 pts for 5, no mortal wounds, and no melee ability and now only battleline in SE allegiance.  Methinks you doth protest too much...

[chord]

How about a Rule of 2.  No more than 2 of any unit unless it's a battleline unit?  

Cut down on spamming units, hopefully increase army diversity

 

[stato]

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

You're right.  I do protest too much.  While this stuff is commonly taken and until GW fixes it, this is probably not the game for me if I'm not looking to chase the tournament meta to have a decent game.  Its time to put energy elsewhere.  

 

I play in a club that is dominated by tournament builds, ive currently got dwarfs and bretonnians, i still have fun, i even won a game in a local tournament against Sylvaneth!   Sure some battleplans are almost impossible to win, so i just play the best i can. If i want a fluffy game i arrange one, our club is doing one this week, 5 player game, i bet everyone will love it.  You need to find a way to get enjoyment out of the game, its VERY clear that the GHB2017 is not going to give you what you want, so either change how/who/where/what you play, or subject us to another 12 months of the same 'arguments' 

[stato]

24 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Yes it is very clear GHB2017 is not going to fix anything in regards to what I want.  Its time for me to move on from AOS and find a different fantasy game that has less of a disparity in power levels.  

Dragon Rampant and Frostgrave were fun.  

 

You dont need to quit, just find players not obsessed with win-at-all-costs, and maybe play games other than straight matched play.  From what ive read Frostgrave is just as unbalanced if what you want to take is less optimised. 

 

EDIT: I feel like im teaching my Grandma to ucks eggs here. Youve posted so much cool narrative stuff and campaigns but seem to be letting yourself get soured by those players who just want to play to competition only and arnt interested in anything else. You must have opponents who just want to play for fun? just play them. This 'town' IS big enough for all of us.   

[Mikester1487]

I'm not convinced that buying only certain models to win at all costs works anymore in aos.  It certainly did in 8th though so I see the argument there.  I suppose it's more about the mindset you take to a tournament.  

If you want to take an all comers list then yeah there's not really much of a choice but to min max everything.  I prefer the challenge myself and I take what makes sense and is fun to play with.

 Still kinda bummed core rules aren't being slightly updated.  As a kharadron Barak zon player I would kill for some of those 40k close range shooting requirements 

[Mikosan]

31 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Yes it is very clear GHB2017 is not going to fix anything in regards to what I want.  Its time for me to move on from AOS and find a different fantasy game that has less of a disparity in power levels.  

Dragon Rampant and Frostgrave were fun.  

 

Or you could move to Western PA where I can assure you of at least ten regular players rocking solidly mid-tier armies to game with

Heck, I haven't won a regular game of AoS since the 8th grade picnic, but I've had fun in every one with the exception of a game against double Rukk, which was an hour and half of watching my opponent sloppily rolling dice, lol. 

[Mikosan]

7 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Where at in Western PA?  I'm originally from a town called Girard in Erie County.  Though I moved at 18 and joined the army and have lived where I am now for 20 years.

Pittsburgh area, I live about 30 min. north of the city, and also play games in Grove City though not as often.

[Siegfried VII]

@Auticus 

I have read several of your posts and I must say I do not agree with your mentality. Personally I am a competitive player mostly but I enjoy all the aspects of the hobby I have several fully painted armies and a few in the works, I have all the AoS campaign books and almost all the novels So I like to think that I have an all around experience with the hobby. 

In my opinion each aspect has its place, but when it comes to the game-play part of the hobby where it's a game of a guy versus another guy I play to win. And I can't blame the other guy for trying his best in the list building/strategy. Or else what's the point of the battle? Of course every game has its imbalances and that won't change. I have played over 10 different wargames in my life and all of them are more or less the same. Some armies are OP, some armies are better than other specific ones etc...

When I build my lists I follow as a rule that 80% of my list will be optimized to win and I leave an 20% to indulge myself in case I like the models/fluff of some units that are not that good and try to make them work. 

Now when I play with a guy that is not on the same level (and here I would like to take the chance and say that most guys who bring sub-par lists are also not very capable strategians with a few exceptions) I tend to play more relaxed and applying less strategy in order for the other guy to have some fun but he'll most likely still lose. 

And sometimes that I experiment with some lists that turn out to play horribly I don't blame my opponent for winning or bringing a good list.

It's like being the president of  a soccer team and just hire the good-looking and well behaved players. You will have the most good-looking team with the nicest people but unless you actually bring some players who are actually good in the game you'll lose the vast majority of the matches and you can't blame the other president for bringing against the best team he can get.

You either find teams with a similar gameplay level or step up your game. And you CAN be competitive without having to change armies all the time.

We have a few players who are more in the hobby side of the game and play their battles using the models they want regardless if they win. Kudos to them but they've made a concious choice that has some consequences in the game-play. If you want to play for the win you must play the game.

Finally (and sorry for the wall of text) even if all the points were balanced and every unit had a game-play value proportionate to its points, even then the guys who would spend lots of time studying the different roles of the units in their army and the scenarios/battleplans of the game  I assure you they would end up with optimized lists that would beat most of their opponents who haven't dedicated as much of their time and intellect. And rightly so!