GHB2018 Wishlist

[chord]

• Remove points from battalions (this opens all battalions up for use)
• Change who gets to go first to be random die roll, not based on deployment
• Lower points on chaos warhounds
• Lower points on hammer prosecutors (or leave and make battleline)
• Up points on Rotigus
• Lower points on Celestant Prime
• Lower price on vanguard hunters
• Revisit Fyreslayer points
• Leave prayers as is, but no unit can be buffed (and de-buffed?) by the same effect more than once.
• Revisit Nurgle's wheel.
• Way too many units dish out mortal wounds now, give each allegiance the option to take an artefact to deal with it. 
• Lower points on Skarbrand.

[Bradipo322]

4 hours ago, ledha said:

For the Kharadrons, giving to all of them the "retreat" rules of the grundstock thunderers would make them a bit better and hard to catch in melee

I have thought of LOT of changes for the stormcast, too, both in points AND in rules. I would gladly share it if some people are ready to read several hundred of words

I'm intrested about what changes you have about stormcasts, I've been playing for a month now and I still haven't won a single game with them.

What I think AoS really needs is more battlelines and some better definitions for games that are not played at 1000, 1500 or 2000 (at my local GW store for a game at 500 they require me to bring 2 battlelines), just writing in an official book some percentages would really help  (for example 20% of the points can be allies if you do the math).

Also, liberators have only 6 bravery?! What the hell! They should be fearless warriors.

[ledha]

14 minutes ago, Bradipo322 said:

I'm intrested about what changes you have about stormcasts, I've been playing for a month now and I still haven't won a single game with them.

What I think AoS really needs is more battlelines and some better definitions for games that are not played at 1000, 1500 or 2000 (at my local GW store for a game at 500 they require me to bring 2 battlelines), just writing in an official book some percentages would really help  (for example 20% of the points can be allies if you do the math).

Also, liberators have only 6 bravery?! What the hell! They should be fearless warriors.

Oh, it's "a "rich guy problems". There is many things to change to the Stormcast army, but they are still in a better position than many armies.

I'll do a big rundown later. Maybe more on the stormcast topic, not in this one

[Mordeus]

11 hours ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Kharadron:

Gunhaulers reduced to 160

Frigate reduced to 220

GW clearly overvalued the transport capabilities of the airships. Gunhaulers is worse than a Ironweald cannon but 40 points higher???

Would also appreciate if they undid the warscroll change to the Thunderers... I play WYSIWYG and just finished making mine a week before they became unplayable...

Or maybe just make a new KO book... Cuz ya know, selling a product that has 14 warscroll revisions from FAQ and an entire warscroll change from another book makes the army unplayable using the rules in the book for any non-casual group as is.

Blows my mind that they still sell the book and unit cards unadjusted... 

If it was out for a year and needed nerfing or changes I wouldn't mind, but 3 months?!?

*End rant*

 

All this. Really surprising that with all the technology we have now have with apps, the scrollbuilder, etc they are unable to adjust their changes. The KO book is redundant rule wise. The whole thunderer debacle should have been dealt with better. My laziness means my thunderers weren't built yet but i really feel bad for everyone. Its an expensive product that is rendered useless in less than a few month. If this happened in another industry people would go ballistic.

[ledha]

I'll never be able to have any shadow of compassion to the kharadron players about the whole grundstock thunderer affair.

You have a unit whose all descriptions (from devs to white dwarf to battletome)  are about how they bring a vast array of weapon with them. All their pictures (right to the box) show them with a different weapon. There is only one weapon of each in the box.

GW forgot to state any weapon limitation, and suddenly, hundred of people mold their own mortar/aethercanon, slap several khemist on it, proceed to destroy absolutely everything from friendly game to tournament and convince themselves "no, it's fine, it's how GW saw it, since they didn't said we couldn't do that. Nothing will happen, they wouldn't correct one of their mistake, right ? So feel free to abuse ! now, let me mold 15 more mortars ! ".

Then Ghb come, grundstock thunderers now can only use one weapon of each and some people find the way to be shocked by it.

Honesty, everyone (except the kharadron players who were happy to table entire armies in 2 round) saw it coming. Sure, GW should have state they can't use more than one weapon, but it was EXTREMELY OBVIOUS it was suppose to be "one weapon for each guy", and the more you abuse of something, the bigger the chances are it will be nerfed to the ground

They can be quite reactive now. When they saw that well-placed stormcast eternals players in tournament were all (ok, only 80% of them) using vanguard wing, they understood they had to deal with it.

[Bradipo322]

45 minutes ago, ledha said:

Oh, it's "a "rich guy problems". There is many things to change to the Stormcast army, but they are still in a better position than many armies.

I'll do a big rundown later. Maybe more on the stormcast topic, not in this one

Yeah, they are indeed, but I have experience only with them.

[boots468]

Oh, I forgot the thing I most want to see in GHB2018 - the 4 pages of rules back in there. Played a game of Nurgle V Death the other week using GHB2017 and none of the books included the main rules - we had to faff around trying to find them online when we wanted to look something up.

[chord]

6 minutes ago, Bradipo322 said:

Yeah, they are indeed, but I have experience only with them.

They've gotten nerfed quite a bit lately 

[angrycontra]

Here's my wishlist:

First of all battalions should be a lot cheaper. Artifacts should also no longer be tied to them, maybe also remove the ability to drop battalion all at once. Artifacts should be tied to matched play size more than anything else.

Secondly some kind of hero protection against shooting would be nice. This was suggested in different thread but I thought it was pretty nice: Heroes under 8 wounds get basically 5+ chance to transfer wounds or mwounds to nearby unit within 3". No need to have complete protection but something little to protect those squishier heros.

Thirdly, shooting attacks can only be used to enemies within 3" if there are any. This would open new tactical opportunities to battle the whole shooter heavy meta (send verminlord deceiver with his teleport ability to tie that kunnin rukk archer unit, have fun shooting with -2 to hit).

Obviously rest of my wishes are simply the point changes. I would like gw to finally get out of their very conservative point changes (such as not changing points of morghast or mortarchs in LoN) mind set and do some meaningful changes. If people aren't playing/buying some models, common sense dictates that something is wrong with the balance. Also, while I can understand that gw wants to promote newer armies over old ones (hence fyreslayer favoritism over dispossessed in ghb17) I would really like to see them try their best to make all armies as balanced as possible.

[Gecktron]

36 minutes ago, ledha said:

I'll never be able to have any shadow of compassion to the kharadron players about the whole grundstock thunderer affair.

You have a unit whose all descriptions (from devs to white dwarf to battletome)  are about how they bring a vast array of weapon with them. All their pictures (right to the box) show them with a different weapon. There is only one weapon of each in the box.

GW forgot to state any weapon limitation, and suddenly, hundred of people mold their own mortar/aethercanon, slap several khemist on it, proceed to destroy absolutely everything from friendly game to tournament and convince themselves "no, it's fine, it's how GW saw it, since they didn't said we couldn't do that. Nothing will happen, they wouldn't correct one of their mistake, right ? So feel free to abuse ! now, let me mold 15 more mortars ! ".

Then Ghb come, grundstock thunderers now can only use one weapon of each and some people find the way to be shocked by it.

Honesty, everyone (except the kharadron players who were happy to table entire armies in 2 round) saw it coming. Sure, GW should have state they can't use more than one weapon, but it was EXTREMELY OBVIOUS it was suppose to be "one weapon for each guy", and the more you abuse of something, the bigger the chances are it will be nerfed to the ground

They can be quite reactive now. When they saw that well-placed stormcast eternals players in tournament were all (ok, only 80% of them) using vanguard wing, they understood they had to deal with it.

I agree that Thunderer Spam was no fun and definitely needed the nerf It got.

But I would disagree that it was obvious. Its an established pattern to release sets with fewer special weapons than one can field in one unit. Just look at 40K Skitarii or even the Arkanaut company! They all can use more than just the one you can get in a set. I think GW underestimated how much hurt a squad full of canons/mortars can dish out when buffed by multiple khemists.

[GeneralZero]

delete teleporting from the game!

make cavalery great again

reduce sizemax of "horde style" spamed units and/or maxout the total point value of the unit in an army: example: a unit can never be more than X% of total (example: no unit more than 25% of total army except monsters)

make  targettin of shooting on closest "in charge range"  mandatory ( no unit can shoot a far unit if an enemy unit is close to them)

some adjustments on bataillons points: some are OP some other need some love

same for units

[AthlorianStoners]

I’d like to see BCR get prayers.

[Gecktron]

9 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

delete teleporting from the game!

Great, now we need a re-work of a whole lot of armies

10 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

make cavalery great again

which one? Swifthawk Reavers are great, so are the new Doomfire Warlocks, and the Stormcast Dracoths aren't too shabby either. Blood Knights took a slight hit but are still a good unit. I dont see any problems with cavalry as a whole. Its more like singular units that need a few adjustments.

12 minutes ago, GeneralZero said:

reduce sizemax of "horde style" spamed units and/or maxout the total point value of the unit in an army: example: a unit can never be more than X% of total (example: no unit more than 25% of total army except monsters)

Please no! I hated percentages in fantasy and I dont want to see them return in AoS! 
Also, that could lead to problems for armies with less unit choices, especially in smaller games.

[PJetski]

14 minutes ago, AthlorianStoners said:

I’d like to see BCR get prayers.

Praying to the Everwinter? I can dig it

[BobbyB]

Some real own army bias apparent in this thread 

The only thing I'd really like to see is some of the emphasis on hordes rewound, think the game has got far too cumbersome, and was really enjoying the more elite feel of the earlier releases.  Especially when you've got armies like fyreslayers playing as a horde, which clearly should not be the case.

It's difficult, as the GHB model where primarily only points are amended, means when things are improved it's just because you can have more of them as they are cheaper, and board control is always going to be important so more models is always good.  Can't really think of an easy fix, but hopefully they can redress the balance a bit

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

Some real own army bias apparent in this thread 

The only thing I'd really like to see is some of the emphasis on hordes rewound, think the game has got far too cumbersome, and was really enjoying the more elite feel of the earlier releases.  Especially when you've got armies like fyreslayers playing as a horde, which clearly should not be the case.

It's difficult, as the GHB model where primarily only points are amended, means when things are improved it's just because you can have more of them as they are cheaper, and board control is always going to be important so more models is always good.  Can't really think of an easy fix, but hopefully they can redress the balance a bit

Hordes are the natural counter to mortal wounds and need to stay relevant in the meta. AOS is designed around a Rock Paper Scissors dynamic of MW > Elites > Hordes > MW. If you take Hordes out of the equation then all you're left with is mortal wounds and elites, and we all know how that goes - the GHB16 meta was all about spamming mortal wounds and that made most armies trash.

At their previous point values hordes were not worth running, but with massive regiment discounts they are worthwhile. I don't think the problem is all horde units; I'm not even convinced there IS a problem with hordes, since hard counter units like Drycha, Medusa, Decimators, Kroxigors, etc. already exist.  If the meta swings too far in that direction then the counter units that are already in the game will become more common.

If there is a problem with horde units, then it will be with specific units (like Vulkite Berzerkers). This is an issue that should be solved with surgical precision like a scalpel, and not a flat change across the board with the precision of a mallet.

[Kyriakin]

Bring back the most logical faction keyword for the surviving (i.e. generic, non-character) compendium warscrolls.

For example, Sorceress on Drakespawn and Dreadlord on Drakespawn get the ORDER SERPENTIS keyword.

Failing this, at least make these units ally options for current factions to keep their allegiances.

Basically, aside from a few individual cases, this is mostly a fillip for Wanderers and Dispossessed.

[Jamopower]

Proper rules for Sieges and more allegiance abilities for the factions still missing them would be nice.

[rokapoke]

I'd love to see a Matched Play rule that abilities that generate mortal wounds (e.g., Retributor attacks or Bloodletter attacks) only do so on natural rolls. So you can buff the heck out of your Bloodletter bomb, but they'll still only generate mortal wounds on 6s. Buffs still make it easier to successfully hit, but mortal wounds become less prevalent/problematic (in my opinion, anyway).

[BeardedBaller]

What if heroes (not monsters/behemoths) recieved a +1 to their save in the shooting phase if there is a friendly intervening unit. I feel like this would help balance things out without overhauling the game's mechanics. Thoughts?

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I'd love to see a Matched Play rule that abilities that generate mortal wounds (e.g., Retributor attacks or Bloodletter attacks) only do so on natural rolls. So you can buff the heck out of your Bloodletter bomb, but they'll still only generate mortal wounds on 6s. Buffs still make it easier to successfully hit, but mortal wounds become less prevalent/problematic (in my opinion, anyway).

Synergy like that is the whole point of the game. Every unit warscroll and pitched battle profile is balanced with these interactions in mind.

[Kyriakin]

Allow artifacts to affect the mount's attacks.

[Harioch]

I don't know what I really want from the GHB 2018 to be honest.

Maybe some limits to ranged units like not being able to shoot while a model is engaged (so not unit wise which means 1 goblin can't stop a whole unit from firing, but just one or two models) except if said model is a monster. But that's me and I've seen some good counter argument and some people wouldn't like this either.

Oh and artifacts tied to points, not battalions.

Why not some generic Magic Lores tied to Realms. It will helps some armies that haven't a battletome yet.

Other than that I really want some improvement to Ironjawz and BCR to make them able to being competitive if they want to. That because I really like when "armies" can take either the Fun or the Competitive road

[rokapoke]

39 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Synergy like that is the whole point of the game. Every unit warscroll and pitched battle profile is balanced with these interactions in mind.

Meh, I never said it would be a change without consequences. You can genuinely apply this logic to shoot down any changes to any rules in the game, anyway.

[Tittliewinks22]

2 hours ago, ledha said:

I'll never be able to have any shadow of compassion to the kharadron players about the whole grundstock thunderer affair.

You have a unit whose all descriptions (from devs to white dwarf to battletome)  are about how they bring a vast array of weapon with them. All their pictures (right to the box) show them with a different weapon. There is only one weapon of each in the box.

GW forgot to state any weapon limitation, and suddenly, hundred of people mold their own mortar/aethercanon, slap several khemist on it, proceed to destroy absolutely everything from friendly game to tournament and convince themselves "no, it's fine, it's how GW saw it, since they didn't said we couldn't do that. Nothing will happen, they wouldn't correct one of their mistake, right ? So feel free to abuse ! now, let me mold 15 more mortars ! ".

Then Ghb come, grundstock thunderers now can only use one weapon of each and some people find the way to be shocked by it.

Honesty, everyone (except the kharadron players who were happy to table entire armies in 2 round) saw it coming. Sure, GW should have state they can't use more than one weapon, but it was EXTREMELY OBVIOUS it was suppose to be "one weapon for each guy", and the more you abuse of something, the bigger the chances are it will be nerfed to the ground

They can be quite reactive now. When they saw that well-placed stormcast eternals players in tournament were all (ok, only 80% of them) using vanguard wing, they understood they had to deal with it.

That's fine and dandy about the Thunderers. But what about the 14 other warscroll changing FAQs that came out three months after the product launch.  They still sell the book and unit cards on their website for full msrp, yet they are not accurate at all.

Look at the drill cannons for example.

The book says:

Range 18", 4+, 3+, -3, 3

The app says:

Range 18", 4+, 3+, -3, 3 for gunhaulers

Range 24", 4+, 3+, -3, 3 for skywardens/endrinriggers

The FAQ says

Range 24", 4+, 3+, -3, d3

This is my main gripe with the KO book. How can a company still sell a product that is contradicted multiple times and nearly every warscroll has an FAQ that changed it...

The fact that the book went to print in the first place was a mistake.