Command Traits how to generate

[mmimzie]

@Veterannoob

I didn't quite understand what you meant about the special characters?

[Veterannoob]

Just agreeing with you that named guys can't take a command trait is all. Sorry if my babble is unclear;) hah

[childoffang]

17 hours ago, Leviathus said:

@childoffang it was actually gnaleinad's posts not mine

Haha, genuinely came up as yours. Maybe my work internet is making things look screwy.

[Lordzombie]

Personally, I like the idea of picking your trait, but I feel my group, which is big on 40k, will want to roll. It is all going to come down to groups. 

[Strength_Hammer]

I see the norm for Narrative games being to pick your trait and Tournaments having it clarified for the event.  Either rolling each game or choosing a trait and putting it on your army list.

Otherwise each game will probably begin like this...

"Should we roll for traits or pick?"

"Lets’ roll." or "Let’s just pick."

Fun game had by all parties.

[WoollyMammoth]

You have to understand the conceptual purpose of the new rules. Seems like the understanding is a bit off, maybe not a lot of people played 8th.

A. The point of the Command Trait and the Artefacts is specifically to take a non-named hero and bring him up to "named" status.
- Personally, trying to work out balance since the start of AoS, 'named' chars have always been an issue. Named guys are just kitted out for mayhem and it's really hard to put it in perspective the difference between say, a Skaven "Assasin" and "Deathmaster Snikch". All you can really do is have a point system where the named char cost more points.

- In 8th edition, you could fully kit out your hero with a ton of stuff. As a result - named chars totally sucked almost all the time. Build a custom super char with only exactly what you want/need, or deal with the preset things that may or may not be useful at a hefty point cost?.  A prime example was the Vampire Lord - he could be made to be the most powerful lord of death, and all other vampires - Vlad, Mannfred, Isabella, Konrad, etc. were useless models reserved for non-competitive games (for the most part).

So these new rules bring back the customization from 8th that many people miss but wonderfully does it without making named chars useless.

Generally you pick a named char for their effect on the army, building around a central theme. The new traits allow you to build an army around a non-named char theme. If you have to roll on a table you cant pick a theme or tactic, you cant build a specific list - matched play is supposed to be all about list building.

With Nagash, Archaon, Alarielle, etc. This game is quickly turning into whether or not you have a god-hero or not. These rules level the playing field. You need to be able to pick your trait so you can pick a trait that is actually useful for your army/theme/synergy/tactics thereby allowing your general to compete with the named general across the table. 

Example: You roll on a table and your protected caster general gets extra damage on the charge. Charging your general = his death, so you mine as well throw out the ability, you are wasting your time. Alternatively, you could say make your caster general with two spells +1 to cast to be able to get the two protection spells off on the units you brought to guard them and secure the line for your protected advance. 

B. The new rules are not as big of a deal as you think.
- These new traits are really situational and specific. I know you read something like "heals a wound for each model slain" and you think, OMG BROKEN. Well actually during the game, stuff goes down. Your super artefact whiffs. Your hero dies before he gets to use it. These new rules are a minor push for a bit more fun, not a giant rocket into space like you might think reading them.

C. Command Traits are not Command Abilities.
- Your non-named general gets both a trait and a command ability. Most heros of note have a unique command ability for building a theme around them as a general (not just named chars).

The new rules let you take that crappy secondhand general you took because he had a cool theme and now you can give him a trait and a aretfact and actually make him a bit of a badass. Or you can roll on a table for a chance at something that doesn't matter and waste your time.  

D. There can be only one general.
You pick your general at the start of the game. He is given one trait (unless named) and typically 1-2 Command Abilities (unique & Inspiring Presence). The general can activate one of their command abilities per hero phase. 

A core concept with AoS since the beginning, and even more so with the new rules, is to keep your general alive at all costs.

When your general dies, you can't pick a new one. Your troops are left to battle it out having watched their leader get butchered, and there is nothing you can do about it.

E. There's plenty random in this game.
First off, its a dice game, and you can roll a ton of 1s. there's a ton of crazy tables and random abilities. It's random enough as it is IMO. We don't need to apply a randomness to how you are designing your army, let the randomness begin when the game starts.

As a general, I would never see a barbarian horde rushing my keep and think, we need to get crossbowmen up on the walls - and then accidentally point to my spearmen when making the order. A general would train the types of troops he would need, build the right kinds of fortifications of which would most benefit him. In the same way, a general known for defending a wall isn't suddenly going to forget how best to defend a wall and realize he is a master swordsman. 

If you think of it as the general learning a new special trait every game, that's kind of silly. Generally you're going to pick a trait for what your general does - make a dracoth charge better, give him more defense behind a shieldwall, make him support his troops better while he leads from behind. Most people will pick one that works with their tactics which ties in with their army composition, so its unlikely people are just going to switch it up every game to try and gain a tactical advantage over the type of army they are up against. Rolling every time, they would be becoming a different person every game, which to me is silly. In fact, GW recommends to model based on the ability/artefact and make them a preset thing instead of something random every game.

But, regardless - due to point B it does not really matter. Pick or roll, whatever you like. Just understand these concepts so you are making an educated decision. 

Just so you know, this is how magic worked in 8th edition. You would roll for 4 (or less) spells on a table of 6. Some games your wizard just happened to forget the key spell your entire army was based around - those games were super fun. Lets not go back down that path please.

[mmimzie]

Nice post @WoollyMammoth I'm wasting all my post likes on you today and I'm already super jelly of your +51 rep. 

[gnaleinad]

On 7/5/2016 at 2:45 AM, mmimzie said:

First, i don't know what i did to offend you sir. I don't know why you feel the need to say i'm "ranting" or otherways try to cast me in a negative light as though i'm the bane of your hobby. 

Look man you know what suck for the hobby??? When people try to ****** on other peoples ways to want to play the game. I hope you'll take on a more inclusive attitude toward those in our fun community.

You were ranting. So don't feel offended, I didn't feel offended.
I am sorry if I really offended you that much. I am.
If your intention was to play narrative games and choose your General abilities that is great. I support that. I think that table top games should be imaginative and full of possibilities that excite the imaginations! 

But what I saw in your post was a complaint about why must there be a random and uncontrollable factor involved when choosing trait.. And you were complaining about how stupid it is. I just wish to explain why tournament organizer do so.

This randomness is a must for tournaments because it can stop people who takes advantage of the rules. 
Because of ultra-competitive individuals who want to break the game and WIN AT ALL COST, having a random table for the bonus stops Min/Max Math-hammer individuals.
There are people who will spend hours to exploit the extra bonus to create a list that are just game breaking or out right unfair...
By giving a random factor to such players in a tournament, they will be forced to make a much more balance list to cater for all the bonus and situations. 
Randomness must exist to deter Power Gamers from hacking the table. 

I wish to convey that I did not say that you are a power gamer, just that you complaint about things that power gamers complaint about.
You might had a grudge against it because the random table disallow you to build your ideal campaign/narrative heroes, but power gamers are unhappy about it because they cannot exploit the system.

I am not saying how to play your game. I am merely saying that we wish not to play against "THAT GUY" in Age of Sigmar and why.

@WoollyMammoth 
If the synergy is planned well it can be a big deal.
Take Death "Ruler of the Night" Command Traits and "Ring of Immortality" Artefact. If you bring a Wight King you can really make your units last in combat and against shooting/spell, a unit of Skeleton can have up to 3 layers of saves against attacks. If you use a Ghoul King on Monster as your general, it has high wound and good armor save, per wound save of 5+, if it's near the Wight King ignores death on a 6+, and it can resurrect after it's first death, and it can heal D3 wounds every turn. 
Certain combination is deadly good, they make certain thing soooooo much better. Don't underestimate the ability of power gamers to break games.

[mmimzie]

3 hours ago, gnaleinad said:

You were ranting. So don't feel offended, I didn't feel offended.
/snip
This randomness is a must for tournaments because it can stop people who takes advantage of the rules. 
Because of ultra-competitive individuals who want to break the game and WIN AT ALL COST, having a random table for the bonus stops Min/Max Math-hammer individuals.
There are people who will spend hours to exploit the extra bonus to create a list that are just game breaking or out right unfair...
By giving a random factor to such players in a tournament, they will be forced to make a much more balance list to cater for all the bonus and situations. 
Randomness must exist to deter Power Gamers from hacking the table. 

/snip

I agree i was. I said as much in later post. for the rant bit.

 

As far as randomness throwing folks off from min maxing. By making the tables random all your doing is pushing the players to take special characters. Names characters don't generate stuff off the tables instead they get their own bonuses already from their characters sheets. As such, why would anyone pick anything other than Nagash, neferata, Manfred, Arkan as generals for their army. 

 

Giving folks access to the table stuff while it's powerful only lets having a simple Vamp Lord, necromancer, or even a powerful Vamp on zombie dragon a competitive choice. Otherwise all these units are pretty much relegated to being sub par. The Generic guys are far worse generals than all the special characters without access to artifacts and command abilities of their choosing. 

 

So the real power gamer will just say ****** it and throw down nagash, nef, etc and still min max just as much. Though folks who don't want these generals are forced to roll tables. So you'd still have to deal with "that guy" who brings Nagash, Manfred, Nerferata, Septa (whatever her name is). So your pretty damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

[WoollyMammoth]

I differ again to point B. Its not as big a deal as you think it is. AoS is nicely balanced, more than any additionso far. Id like to see a power gamer try to break the game. This isint 8th, which was designed mainly for power gamers, by power gamers. Im not worried about it in the least.

In fact last game, i had a tgheist abhorrant with 5++ and mystic shield and 5+ to ignore death. Still died to a straightforward stormcast list.

Theorycrafting is fun but on the battlefield, the 'broken' tactics fail and you lose your general and your army falls apart.

 

 

[mmimzie]

13 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

I differ again to point B. Its not as big a deal as you think it is. AoS is nicely balanced, more than any additionso far. Id like to see a power gamer try to break the game. This isint 8th, which was designedmainly  for power gamers by power gamers. Im not worried about it in the least.

In fact last game, i had a tgheist abhorrant with 5++ and mystic shield and 5+ to ignore death. Still died to a straightforward stormcast list.

Theorycrafting is fun but on the battlefield, the 'broken' tactics fail and you lose your general and your army falls apart.

 

 

Yep today i went against a fireslayer list that had buffs glore. First round of combat i lost a fat handful of zombies. Felt like a punch in the gut. Thought i was gonna lose. I retreated my zombies back, and charged his flank with my Vamp lord. This forced him to either get few attacks on my Vamp Lord, or to reactivate my zombies and let me deal a power house punch for free. Even through i "Min/Maxed" it with taking ruler of the night and a wing of immortality. Had i instead kept my zombies stuck in i would have been screwed that game. 

 

Edit: the only real way to counter Min/Maxing players is not by trying to limit their Min/Max options because no matter how much your prune the game you'll always be able to Min/Max out your list. THe best way to do this is by having a larger more Diverse Meta. If X is meta dominating than by having Y a possible list it can counter X, and so on  To where it's hard to make a list that just beats everything. If you Nerf X then Y now suck but Z that was countered by X now is the best, and now it has no counter. When you over Balance things you end up just chasing your tail all day.

[Chris Tomlin]

At my Tournament on the 6th August I will let people pick Trait/Artefact(s) before each game. I am also including the option for a sideboard so there will be plenty of customisation available from game to game as I will be announcing the Battleplans before each round and not in advance. The only thing that must stay fixed is the army's allegiance.

[Josh Meads]

Assumed that the intention was for 'Matched Play' to choose, narrative/campaign driven was to roll.

There is always the choice of mixing those 2 options as well - guessing some less ball stompy events will make you roll as well, which is good!

[mmimzie]

5 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

At my Tournament on the 6th August I will let people pick Trait/Artefact(s) before each game. I am also including the option for a sideboard so there will be plenty of customisation available from game to game as I will be announcing the Battleplans before each round and not in advance. The only thing that must stay fixed is the army's allegiance.

How big is the sideboard and she. Can you choose to use this. You don't think a side board could trivialize the benefit of summoning, since your basicly giving them part of the summoning flexibility without the casting risk??

[Chris Tomlin]

2 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

How big is the sideboard and she. Can you choose to use this. You don't think a side board could trivialize the benefit of summoning, since your basicly giving them part of the summoning flexibility without the casting risk??

The overall army size is 3,000 points and each game the player selects a 2,000 point army after finding out the Battleplan. The only thing that must stay constant from game to game is the Allegiance.

Apologies but I do not understand the reference to summoning? If you want to summon in game, it's basically as per the General's Handbook.

Ie if you want to summon 350 points of models, you would deploy up to 1,650 points. The 350 points of models you summon could be anything from the remaining 1,350 pool, as opposed to anything in your collection - making it more restrictive if anything (although admittedly more lenient than the summoning pools we've had thus far).

[mmimzie]

2 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

The overall army size is 3,000 points and each game the player selects a 2,000 point army after finding out the Battleplan. The only thing that must stay constant from game to game is the Allegiance.

Apologies but I do not understand the reference to summoning? If you want to summon in game, it's basically as per the General's Handbook.

Ie if you want to summon 350 points of models, you would deploy up to 1,650 points. The 350 points of models you summon could be anything from the remaining 1,350 pool, as opposed to anything in your collection - making it more restrictive if anything (although admittedly more lenient than the summoning pools we've had thus far).

Ahhh so it is less beneficial summoning. That's all i was trying to figure. 

[daedalus81]

6 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Ahhh so it is less beneficial summoning. That's all i was trying to figure. 

Hmm?  You might be looking at it wrong.

Let's completely ignore summoning for a moment.  It goes like this - you can bring 3,000 points to the game, of which you can deploy only 2,000.  This allows you to alter your army on the fly.  So, if I was facing a ranged army I might opt to drop a couple units to fit the hellcannon in from my sideboard.

I don't get to use anything else from the sideboard after I've chosen my army for that game.

[mmimzie]

No i know how it works. One of the benefits of summoning is that very thing. You get to bring something to counter stuff your opponent has. Paying for it by having to cast it, and baring any special abilities or really good rolls it won't do anything for the turn it comes on. You loose this aspect of summoing as everyone will get this bonus.

You'll still get your summoning benefit of surprise positioning and potential free 18" move. So stuff like morghast harbingers would still be good for that surprise 3d6 charge, Hex wraiths & zombie dogs would still make great meat shield walls. Though all other summoning units you'd probably be better off just deploying on the table. For instance a nurgle army won't really need to pick and choose what to summon mid game and hope it goes off when they already know what they are facing, so why risk it when you could just drop them on the table.

Or my zombie horde army. I summon about 100 of my zombies, on top of the 90 deployed, over the course of the game to refill my zombie units via thier rules. I do this because if someone has an army with a bunch of decimators i can switch to harbingers & arcai. However, if i'm pretty sure i know what kind of army i'm going against ahead of time i could just plop what ever zombies & arcai i would have summoned straight on the board. In this way i don't have to go the riskier summoning route. The Harbingers would still be summoned for their great charges out of summoning.

Summoning is already a sideboard. That's sort of its purpose. Giving everyone a sideboard it becomes a niche thing for some units to use.

 

I'm not saying its bad or good. I'm just saying playing like this just makes summoning worse, but i am no way saying it makes the game better or worse in any way. It's just different, or it's a different meta. Purely an observation of consequences. 

[daedalus81]

Ah, ok, I understand your point of view now.  In light of that your position makes a lot of sense.