GHB2018 Wishlist

[PJetski]

45 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

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.

Balancing aside, why would you want to change the fundamental design of the game?
Why is it bad that you can increase the effectiveness of abilities that activate on hit6+ with hit bonuses?

These are not rhetorical questions, I am interested in your reasoning

[ledha]

53 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

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.

 

I saw this coming as soon as the footmen version (light skyhook, drillcanon, etc) had better dmg than the mounted one, honestly.

Too bad they just nerfed the good and didn't buffed the bad

[generalchaos34]

56 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

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.

 

I personally wouldn't be as peeved if they could at least update the damned app. It would literally take them 5 minutes. Heck, I'd do it for free!

[rokapoke]

25 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Balancing aside, why would you want to change the fundamental design of the game?
Why is it bad that you can increase the effectiveness of abilities that activate on hit6+ with hit bonuses?

These are not rhetorical questions, I am interested in your reasoning

We're getting mildly off-topic here, but I'll make one last post on this. If you'd like to continue the discussion further via private message or a separate thread, I'm game for it if you are.

My reasoning is that too many warscrolls have too many ways to generate mortal wounds. Reading the (basic) rules when I was first learning the game (my first ever tabletop wargame), I thought that mortal wounds would be this extraordinarily powerful mechanic that would be rare -- after all, I had only seen the Khorne Bloodbound and Stormcast Eternals warscrolls in the starter box. So I see that one magic spell causes mortal wounds, some (few) abilities, and the Retributor attacks. And nothing (in my very limited experience) had any resistance -- as indicated in the basic rules, mortal wounds bypassed saves and therefore just sort of happened to units.

Over time, the new reality hit home. You've got your Clan Skryre shenanigans with pop-up mortal wound generation in spades. You've got Bloodletter bombs. You've got Skyfires doing mortal wounds with long range! Every force has, in my opinion, too many ways to generate mortal wounds (particularly when you add in buffs, including the standard Lord-Celestant/Retributor combo that I myself used to use) -- I won't even get started on the quantity (and quality) of mortal wound spells that Disciples of Tzeentch has... And to counter the high mortal wound output, many factions now have inherent resistance to them --  Fyreslayers, Death, Nurgle, etc. -- to the extent that (for a good long while now) when people talk about "is XXXXXX army competitive" one of the first strikes against them is that they're weak against mortal wounds. "Weak against mortal wounds" is supposed to be the normal condition, not a shortcoming. That's like not getting a pet dog because some day he'll die.

You say that units are pointed for the game/rules as they stand. I'll agree with that. But I'll also point out that my Saurus Guard (as an off-the-cuff example) are inherently less valuable when armies can generate mortal wounds at will, and should cost significantly less than they do. One-wound "elite" models will cease to have a place on the table when they are vulnerable to the many, many, many ways to easily overwhelm them with mortal wounds.

Long story short: it bothers me that the game revolves (at times) so heavily on a mechanic that seems like it should be rare. I feel that mortal wound generation should be limited to a unit or two per faction, and mortal wound resistance should be limited to 5-10 units throughout the game. Again, these are just my opinions. As I've stated in previous posts, I'm not particularly good at this game, so my opinion is obviously colored by the shortcomings in my gameplay.

 

[BobbyB]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

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.

I think you've  misunderstood me there. I'm not saying hordes are overpowered, just that their prevalence makes the game less fun

[BillyOcean]

If objectives are still going to be controlled by most models within X inches in GHB18, then I it will require something much more dramatic than a few minor points changes to make BCR viable (let alone competitive). Something like an allegiance trait where their units (or maybe just their Behemoths) count their number of remaining wounds rather than number of models for the purpose of objectives. Call it "Might over masses" or something.

[generalchaos34]

51 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

If objectives are still going to be controlled by most models within X inches in GHB18, then I it will require something much more dramatic than a few minor points changes to make BCR viable (let alone competitive). Something like an allegiance trait where their units (or maybe just their Behemoths) count their number of remaining wounds rather than number of models for the purpose of objectives. Call it "Might over masses" or something.

I can agree with that, A global rule of wounds instead of models would be very interesting too. But then again that would put nigh unkillable models like the star drake and treelord at a very distinct advantage when it comes to holding an objective. Something like the 40k "objective secured" would be very interesting if it applied to battleline units only and not allied factions (so no unit of 30 beserkers in your SCE!) especially since I think that a lot of armies need either more battleline choices or a reworking of how their battleline units work (judicators, really? and some armies only get one choice?)

[Charles]

4 hours 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.

I think having fun is the point of the game.

[PJetski]

3 minutes ago, Charles said:

I think having fun is the point of the game.

Finding and using combos to make two units greater than the sum of their parts is fun

[Charles]

9 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Finding and using combos to make two units greater than the sum of their parts is fun

Didn’t say it wasn’t, but I don’t think that is relevant to my post either way. 

The point of he game is to have fun, not to find synergies.

[Aeryenn]

9 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Curious but what do you think they could do? I assume it's the cost that you have an issue with? Do you think take away the one drop option for them or just repoint them?

It's more than that. There was an extensive thread here on tga, about the battalions and what can be done about them. There were several ideas. Either make an entire new point system for them exclusively or try to fix the current one, or switch to stratagems. I see great potential in battalions and what can they be and point reduction itself would be not enough. Certainly I would disband battalions from relics and one drops and bonuses that come from it. I see them as an interesting way to increase the strategical deepness of the game by bringing more mutual benefits for units working together. For me it should be about "Unit A with Unit B form Unit C/ gain new skill. There are so many ways to make it more interesting than just "add 1 to wound rolls". It is a hard task to bring together fun from the game with army customization. I'm just pretty sure that any change to ghb 2017 point increase will be for the good.

[TheOtherJosh]

I’d like to see proper clarity surrounding list creation, Pitched Battle Factions (and their Allies) and Alliance.

Something in the realm of cleaning up like they appear to have done in the official “Azyr” app.

The current GHB muddles the usage of Allegiance and Faction (using one when it appears to mean the other.) 

I’d also like that if they are using KEYWORDS in the Allies (or otherwise) list that they make them KEYWORD bold. 

(E.g. Nurgle Allies in Maggotkin lists Khorne and Slaanesh. Neither of which are keyword bold... though I assume they probably are keywords. But consistency would be great.)

[generalchaos34]

4 minutes ago, Aryann said:

It's more than that. There was an extensive thread here on tga, about the battalions and what can be done about them. There were several ideas. Either make an entire new point system for them exclusively or try to fix the current one, or switch to stratagems. I see great potential in battalions and what can they be and point reduction itself would be not enough. Certainly I would disband battalions from relics and one drops and bonuses that come from it. I see them as an interesting way to increase the strategical deepness of the game by bringing more mutual benefits for units working together. For me it should be about "Unit A with Unit B form Unit C/ gain new skill. There are so many ways to make it more interesting than just "add 1 to wound rolls". It is a hard task to bring together fun from the game with army customization. I'm just pretty sure that any change to ghb 2017 point increase will be for the good.

I would get behind a complete reworking on battalions. There are some really great flavorful ones that either have awful rules, awful compositions, awful costs, or all three. (Im looking at you stormcast hosts!). Not to mention theres a metric ton of battalions that aren't even allowed in matched play on top of that. Removing the one drop and the artefacts with a greatly reduced point cost (but not free, that was the failing grace of 7th edition 40k) would let us have some really interesting rules interactions and not just gunning for that first turn (which the nice thing about AoS is getting first is not always key to winning unless you have a deep striking alpha army).Not to mention the loads of fun artefacts you never see because of the strict limitations on getting more than one, so its mirror shields and phoenix stones all day.

[Vextol]

7 hours ago, ledha said:

I'll never be able to have any shadow of compassion... 

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

Woah woah... Thats all fine but they didn't JUST say one of each weapon and they definitely didn't intend it.  They, like so many of their decisions were hoping it would lead to a million boxes of thunders being sold.  They know which weapons are better (see literally every 3 man Retributors group-no soul star mace).  I think they definitely intended it written as it was. 

Either way, they didn't have to kill the mortar range.  They are so freaking expensive it would have been fine to keep the range and say one of each. 

I'd like to see a lot of the changes people recommended.  BCR definitely need a buff. 

I'd like Orrucks to abandon everything mortal wound, almost everything range, get a big wound boost and a universal 2 damage minimum.  We need some differentiation for them.  They're not green khorne, let's make them good at what they're good at!  Smashing faces! 

Seriously though, so many of the races just kind of blend together to me after a while.  Kharadrons are just fancy vanguard, Orrucks are just bad khorne who is bad nurgle.   Tzeentch is just more magical less resurrecty death...

Obviously I exaggerate, but point changes and abikities could help encourage the better/more unique aspects of armies. 

[Inqy]

If we're going for Pie in the Sky stuff:

FLESH EATER COURTS:

1) "Completely Delusional" is no longer a Command Trait, it is simply inherent to how Delusions work for all FEC armies.

2) Every time you roll for "Feeding Frenzy", you roll a number of dice equal to the number of times you have rolled to trigger Feeding Frenzy. (So one die the first time, two dice the second time, thre dice the third time etc.) If one of these dice comes up 6+, Feeding Frenzy is triggered.

3) Any FEC general may opt to take one of the Command Abilities on page 48 of Malign Portents instead of their normal Command Ability. (Or as their sole Command Ab ility if they do not normally have one.)

4) Crypt Horrors and Crypt Flayers are now battleline as long as your Faction Allegiance is Flesh Eater Courts.

[Keldaur]

Idoneth Deepkin nerfs.

[chord]

Lower gryph hound points.  GW is throwing them at people lately (I have 7, please no more) yet in matched play their point cost is crazy.

[chord]

I vote for removing points from battalions completely and just let us use any battalion from any book.  There are lots of fun ones out there that may seem to be "over powered" but the cost of the units in them in a 2K game usually make them less likely to be used.

[Vextol]

1 hour ago, Keldaur said:

Idoneth Deepkin nerfs.

Their shooting is crazy OP and the ability to guarantee a back to back turn is completely broken. 

[AGPO]

I'd like to see the power mechanic imported from 40K, and a more granular points structure (points per model and paying for upgrades) for matched play, for the following reasons:

• A lot of kits, including some new ones come with an irregular number of models, meaning that you always have some left over, or end up paying points for models you don't have. Likewise some armies like FEC and Maggotkin need to make characters out of their base sets, which leaves them with under-strength units. Paying points per model would fix this.
• At the moment all pick up games follow a matched play format, since it's the easiest structure. In contrast, with 8th ed 40k there seems to be a balance in most clubs between 'tournament prep' points games where people bring their power lists and 'casual' pick up games using power, where people tend to bring less powerful, more narrative lists. This would be great for both competitive and narrative gamers.
• Some upgrades and weapons options for units are simply much better than others, meaning you never see certain units. Paying for weapons upgrades would balance this out, and also allow people to field their old thunderer units they built before the nerf.

I think removing the free artefact and deployment boost for battalions and reducing the points cost is a great idea. They should go back to what they were originally envisaged as - typical or legendary formations that gain a boost to synergy in return for a restriction on what you can include.

[Gaz Taylor]

13 hours ago, Aryann said:

It's more than that. There was an extensive thread here on tga, about the battalions and what can be done about them. There were several ideas. Either make an entire new point system for them exclusively or try to fix the current one, or switch to stratagems. I see great potential in battalions and what can they be and point reduction itself would be not enough. Certainly I would disband battalions from relics and one drops and bonuses that come from it. I see them as an interesting way to increase the strategical deepness of the game by bringing more mutual benefits for units working together. For me it should be about "Unit A with Unit B form Unit C/ gain new skill. There are so many ways to make it more interesting than just "add 1 to wound rolls". It is a hard task to bring together fun from the game with army customization. I'm just pretty sure that any change to ghb 2017 point increase will be for the good.

Cool. I was just wondering what you thought as some people just like to complain but have not thought about the issue. I agree that battalions need tweaking but I quite like the current system and I think it's the costs that are a bit off (either though units or though the battalions themselves). I would hate to see them go as I do think they do bring some narrative to armies (as well as competitiveness) but it's tricky path to follow.

Have you sent those ideas over to GW (via Facebook) as they will look into it

 

[RuneBrush]

15 hours ago, rokapoke said:

My reasoning is that too many warscrolls have too many ways to generate mortal wounds. Reading the (basic) rules when I was first learning the game (my first ever tabletop wargame), I thought that mortal wounds would be this extraordinarily powerful mechanic that would be rare -- after all, I had only seen the Khorne Bloodbound and Stormcast Eternals warscrolls in the starter box. So I see that one magic spell causes mortal wounds, some (few) abilities, and the Retributor attacks. And nothing (in my very limited experience) had any resistance -- as indicated in the basic rules, mortal wounds bypassed saves and therefore just sort of happened to units.

^ this!  I can remember my first games where there were only a smattering of mortal wounds about and how overall it was largely more enjoyable.  Nine times out of ten we all got to roll armour saves, it was just the odd attack with a high rend or the infrequent mortal wound that would go straight through - and normally only d3, so not enough to outright kill a hero.  Now, both AoS and 40k seem to have a huge proliferation of ways to general mortal wounds, but what that's meaning is more and more armies are getting ignore damage rolls - DoK have a 6++ roll from what I've read.

However, back on topic

The biggest thing I'd like to see (along with a few others) is a change to the one-drop battalion mechanic and thus a drop in points.  It would be nice to see a change to the way artefacts are handled, but I'm not sure the best way this could be done.

I'd also love to see battleplans with secondary objectives.  I think this would force us to think a lot more tactically rather than the "just need to last longer than my opponent" or "just need to smash my opponent" approach that we see quite a lot.

[Vextol]

I'd love to see a serious change in Ar-Kitten's Warscroll.

After Nagash was was made useful, I got jealous.  It would be cool to actually be able to field Archaon instead of just looking at his coolness on the shelf.  

And I don't want a point reduction, I want him to be worth his points 

[Keldaur]

The problem of mortal wounds goes hand to hand to improved armor saves. 1+ armor saves rerolling 1 are obnoxious and you need mortal wounds to deal with it. Escalation happen and now we are getting more and more extra "armor saves" with the rules to save against mortal wounds. It will continue to spiral until they reset.

[Charles]

During the rules talks for the Newest 40k codexes they talked about actively trying to reduce the number of invulnerable saves. It does seem odd they are going comepletely the other way in AoS.