Jump to content

General's Handbook 2017 Announced


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

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!

I think some of the hope is that if the new handbook can bring unit point costs a little more in line with each other (I hesitate to use the B word).  That should mean that people who run lists which include those less optimal units will be at less of a disadvantage.  I genuinely believe that GW wants to see all of the models they make being played on the tabletop rather than just the uber-powerful ones.

I'm a huge advocate that both players should come away from a game smiling, regardless of who won.  I've had some amazing games against novice players who were making up their tactics as they went on - it's really challenging to plan against an unpredictable opponent!  Some of my least enjoyable have been when (often a proficient) opponent has systematically dismantled my army unit by unit - no tactics involved, just knowing they can dish out X wounds per turn and having a target priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour 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.  

 

Or ... play in non-tournament games. AoS as it was released is a lovely game. Your buddy just put a Rukk on the table? Counter by putting out enough stuff to make an enjoyable game. Sure, if you calculated points you might need to add 700 extra points to even it out,  but you're not doing points in this game,  so don't sweat it. 

 

The game was better off (more relaxed and enjiyable, in my opinion) 18 months ago,  even if it was not suitable for tournamets. 

The horse has left the barn now,  though,  and it appears to be killing open and narrative gaming and driving good ppl like you away.  Unfortunate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

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?

You are mistakenly assuming that since you play to win and see anything else as pointless, everyone else should too. That's just not how the world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Thats always been one of the main fulcrum points of my arguments.

If this stuff was only seen in tournament games I'd say not a word.  

This stuff seeps into every type of game though.  I've run three narrative campaigns now since AOS was released.  The first using Azyr Comp.  The other two with GHB.  The Azyr Comp campaign ran very well and smooth and the balance issues were adjusted on the fly.  The GHB campaigns were very frustrating for me because the competitive guys leaked their tournament builds into the campaign and broke it, and when we tried to adjust it there was a lot of anger and hostility that changing official rules was bad.

So my buddy puts Rukk on the table cannot be countered by adding models because thats not a 2000 point game and therefore not "legal".  They won't do unpointed games.  

The tournament games have, in essence, become a part of every game played tournament or otherwise, and the AOS community is very small here and honestly no one wants to deal with the gamer politics or drama of having a faction of players constantly talking **** about an event organizer who won't let them run their tournament build in their casual narrative campaign.  So its one of those... is it worth the fight to even bother?  

For me... I say no.  Its not worth the fight to bother anymore because of the personal community politics so I have to hope for an official resolution that at least brings the game closer to parity than what it is now.  

The problem is that you are looking for GW to solve what is, in essence, a social problem in your community.

 

I feel for your situation. But it isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with your local community. The game already has all the solutions you could possibly ask for. It has an Open mode, a Narrative mode, and a golden rule that encourages house rules and making having fun the top priority. The system isn't the problem, your local community is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The horse has left the barn now,  though,  and it appears to be killing open and narrative gaming and driving good ppl like you away.  Unfortunate. 

The awesomely fun and successful coalescence narrative event would like a word about this.... Honestly, If  that is the case it is the players in your area killing it, GW has legitimized all ways to play with the GHB. Points resurrected a game on life support in my area, FLGS even stopped carrying AoS products for a time.  While I loved the game, few strangers were meeting to play games in store, and no product was moving. Now we have a small diverse gaming group down for anything from tourneys, to narrative, to skirmish, casual, competitive, these things really can co-exist if people on opposite sides of the divide can stop bickering about whose fun is better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

The game was better off (more relaxed and enjiyable, in my opinion) 18 months ago,  even if it was not suitable for tournamets. 

 

Agreed.
I'd like to see the rule of 2 implemented.  No more than 2 of any unit 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chord said:

Agreed.
I'd like to see the rule of 2 implemented.  No more than 2 of any unit 

 

Can't happen - aren't there a ton of battalions that require more than two of any unit? Wildstalker, off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trout said:

You are mistakenly assuming that since you play to win and see anything else as pointless, everyone else should too. That's just not how the world works.

No I do not assume all players play only to win. Me and other players enjoy the tactical challenge even if I am against the odds due to a more powerful list. But every competitive endeavour is all about doing your best whether you win in the end or not, I've lost games and I enjoyed them as long as I did my best. I firmly believe that the effort is more important than the end result. But strive to the end result we must.

My argument though was that if a player wants to field only the units he feels are beautiful or go well with his fluff, he shouldn't complain if he loses most of his games.

@Auticus  

It's not that I think that every power-player is a great general or that a player who fields a sub-par army is not smart enough. I do believe though that players with sub-par list most of the time haven't dedicated enough time to fine-tune their lists and learn well the scenarios and as such their generalship leaves something to be desired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

No I do not assume all players play only to win. Me and other players enjoy the tactical challenge even if I am against the odds due to a more powerful list. But every competitive endeavour is all about doing your best whether you win in the end or not, I've lost games and I enjoyed them as long as I did my best. I firmly believe that the effort is more important than the end result. But strive to the end result we must.

My argument though was that if a player wants to field only the units he feels are beautiful or go well with his fluff, he shouldn't complain if he loses most of his games.

You say that and then proceed to use words and phrases such as: ""tactical challenge", "odds", and "competitive endeavour" in such a way that it seems you really believe that's how we all feel or should feel. Many of us would never use such words to describe our games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trout said:

You say that and then proceed to uses words and phrases such as: ""tactical challenge", "odds", and "competitive endeavour" in such a way that it seems you really believe that's how we all feel or should feel. Many of us would never use such words to describe our games.

They why are those people concerned about kunnin' rukks?

As much as people hate the "it's a social thing" argument this sort of lays it out pretty clearly doesn't it?  I like competitive games and I will seek them out more than casual games.  It's just how it is.  I am fortunate in that most tournaments are competitive, so, casual players need to champion their own events more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

They why are those people concerned about kunnin' rukks?

As much as people hate the "it's a social thing" argument this sort of lays it out pretty clearly doesn't it?  I like competitive games and I will seek them out more than casual games.  It's just how it is.  I am fortunate in that most tournaments are competitive, so, casual players need to champion their own events more.

I don't disagree with this. I said something very similar just a few posts above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.  

But no GW game has EVER been balanced enough, there has always been "killer" tournament builds.  I started GW games in 1996 and have kept up at least somewhat on it ever since even when I wasn't playing.  The game has never been balanced in the way that other games are (and even those other games have tournament builds; I played Warmahordes for about 2 years very recently and while the balance was a lot closer, there were still the "uber" lists, they just didn't completely roflstomp anything else they came across and there was a lot more variety in what you could see list-wise)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The thing is that when I try to run casual narrative events, the competitive players seek them out and by the simple presence of them bringing in the Rukk have made the casual narrative event competitive as well because they don't know when to dial back.

This I can understand. Then you should make the events a bit "comped" as in having lists of 1000pts with no battalions allowed etc in order to tone down the field. Those who want only full competitive will excuse themselves on their own.

Again though I've seen many fluffy narrative events and still those who wanted to take it to the extreme managed to abuse the fluffy campaign rules of the organizer thus resulting in the campaign to fail. And they weren't bad people it's just their nature.

I would advise to make the narrative events "one-shot" with prospect of continuation, so you can have better control of the process and have better chances to get those people to bring more tone down lists. And then if all goes well you can plan the Pt2 on the following event. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is a one day thing you'll have better chances to get people to relax and make "an exception" and bring something more tone down. Campaigns on the other hand need more time investment and those who prefer competitive play will find it more difficult to participate and they may feel that it will take players away from their cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad part is that this is 100% related to a community.  If you have a community who want to all play competitive, with no deviation (or, Heaven Forbid, no points!) then nothing is going to work and it'll just be a tiny handful of people playing since a large chunk of the community will say "no way" and not participate, or, worse, show up with a competitive list and steamroll the "scrubs" (I've heard, but thankfully never witnessed, competitive players who do that and will show up to wreck a casual event just because they know it will be "easy pickings" to win).  And, like it or not, it's often the competitive people are more prevalent than those who want to have fun with narratives and casual events.

I face a similar issue in that my group (I don't use the term "meta" because it's too small to even register as one) is incredibly laid back.  I run the most risk of being "that guy" and deciding to play a power army that can just roflstomp everyone else's lists and, as a result, ostracize myself from the group.  But playing super laid back, no scenario, no extra rules (e.g. terrain rules or Time of War) games all the time can be just as frustrating as only playing strict by-the-book matched play, since it becomes incredibly boring and anything, whether filth list or just a decent list, can be seen as "OP" (I have heard people say that bog standard stormcast, I mean like the starter set and another unit, is "super strong" and debated playing against them at all)

I have followed @Auticus's posts here and elsewhere for a while, and his area seems to be largely made up of the "git gud" competitive folks who don't want to dirty their hands with "casual scrubs" playing the game, they want everything to be competitive focused and refuse to see that the game has multiple styles of play, as to them there is only one: go big or go home, and if you bring a "weak" (read: non optimized filth) list and get curbstomped, it's your own fault because you willingly chose a weak army/list.  Sometimes I wonder if these people would be happy if everyone played the same army, because then at least it'd be the ultimate test of who can play the filth lists the best since it would be all filth, all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The thing is that when I try to run casual narrative events, the competitive players seek them out and by the simple presence of them bringing in the Rukk have made the casual narrative event competitive as well because they don't know when to dial back.

Make them invitational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chord said:

Agreed.
I'd like to see the rule of 2 implemented.  No more than 2 of any unit 

 

That wouldn't really do anything to curb the current problems with the game. Most Tzeentch lists don't bring 3+ units of Skyfires, they bring 1 or 2 big units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Skyfires is the buff from the Shaman. Without it there would be no problems. So one would say that one should kill the shaman and deny the unit the buff. Problem is that with their movement and range they can decimate most of the range threat of the enemy and get away with it before he can get to shot at the shamans. Not to mention close combat armies have no hop of getting rid of the shaman...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chord said:

Hmm...good point.  

Lots off things change for Matched Play.  Why not just say "if your battalion doesn't fit this rule, it can't be used" and move on?

There is no requirement for everything in AoS to be MP legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Lots off things change for Matched Play.  Why not just say "if your battalion doesn't fit this rule, it can't be used" and move on?

There is no requirement for everything in AoS to be MP legal.

In fact there's quite a precedent that everything in AoS is NOT matched play legal.  See all the abilities that bring a new model that has to be paid for in Matched

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

But no GW game has EVER been balanced enough, there has always been "killer" tournament builds.  I started GW games in 1996 and have kept up at least somewhat on it ever since even when I wasn't playing.  The game has never been balanced in the way that other games are. 

Of course you're correct here but where I want to push back is that we should (and many do) expect more from GW. They've consistently neglected their own games in the past and the annual GHB was supposed to represent a departure from that. That promise is a not insignificant part of what drew people (back) to AoS with the original GHB after the rather dismal launch. 

Addressing points costs is a positive step forward but that is a very limited, blunt tool for games design. Bad units and armies are rarely just bad because they're too expensive and good ones aren't that just because you get a good rate with them on a couple of units. 

If they don't address broken warscrolls (good or bad) and dysfunctional rules we're going to be stuck with the same proven bad balance cycle we had in the past where mistakes were left to fester for years until a new game edition or army book came around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bjarni St. said:

Of course you're correct here but where I want to push back is that we should (and many do) expect more from GW. They've consistently neglected their own games in the past and the annual GHB was supposed to represent a departure from that. That promise is a not insignificant part of what drew people (back) to AoS with the original GHB after the rather dismal launch. 

Addressing points costs is a positive step forward but that is a very limited, blunt tool for games design. Bad units and armies are rarely just bad because they're too expensive and good ones aren't that just because you get a good rate with them on a couple of units. 

If they don't address broken warscrolls (good or bad) and dysfunctional rules we're going to be stuck with the same proven bad balance cycle we had in the past where mistakes were left to fester for years until a new game edition or army book came around. 

Oh yes absolutely.  I was excited at the idea of actual errata to warscrolls and the like to fix issues, change abilities, etc.  And we haven't really seen that (I think only a handful, 1-2 stormcast models and some Bloodbound stuff).  They may have done a few things, but I think they should have done a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the annual GHB are a good idea being executed in a bad way.   We live in the age of digital media, and GW needs to come more to grips with that.  We have the power to send and receive updates in the blink of an eye and yet that power isn't being used at all.  Instead what we're being given is a printed version of points and rules that once on paper is hard to correct because it's out there, people have spent money on it, and it's difficult to justify changing too much of something someone just purchased from your company.  I understand they need to sell stuff, and physical products have a certain appeal to a section of their market.  I think they just need to find a better middle ground.

The GHB should be the core rules for different game types, the scenarios for those game types, and the abilities.  That way it remains a viable and necessary product for their customers to purchase. Point costs, number restrictions on models, etc though should be an online, dynamic, easily adjusted and updated, part of the rules that can be modified as needed during the course of the year, available for free.  If GW was interested in keeping the balance of the game fluid and up to date based on the current metas etc, then this is what would work best.  Surely they have considered this option internally, but maybe they have reasons why they feel it's not a viable option for them.

I'm sure there's man hours to consider in doing something like this and maybe they just don't feel it's financially viable for them to put work hours into maintaining viable and competitive point costs/restrictions for the competitive side of the game.  The frame work is certainly already there to support this sort of move though given their use of their own app, and then their more recent partnership with scrollbuilder.  So maybe they are heading this way in a very slow drawn out manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...