Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
PJetski

GHB2019 Hopes & Expectations

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I thought that the past of AOS showed us that free batallions was not a good thing?  Now we're wanting it back?

Depends really, if you look at some of the rules for AoS 1 battalions they are a lot more potent than those in recent books. 

For instance the changehost, cunnin ruk and vanguard wing. A lot of the recent ones are much weaker. 

Battlions have gone from shaping the tournament meta to being almost complete absent from competitive lists. 

IDK only get three Battlions that they could realistically use. Nemarti Corp is over costed, akhelian Corp already has a very restrictive inbuilt tax in forcing you to take a shark and leviadon and the Royal council makes you waste a soulscryer, a command point and keep all your slow heroes in a blob around the king for the privilege. 

The only way these Battlions would ever see use is if they were free. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that this is tied to the same reason that summoning disappeared from tournament lists - because you had to pay points for it.  Now that its free it has become a core tenant in the game.  

Make batallions free and they too will become a core tenant in the game.

From that point the armies that have the most potent free batallions will be the ones that are used, leading to further imbalance.  

Lets face it at the end of the day, we all know that there are some batallions that are really no big deal and then there are batallions that can be fairly nasty.  Assigning them all 0 point price tags really tips the scales in a nasty way.  Especially since batallions also give you other free bonuses like more artifacts and command points.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the reason they've made all battalions since Soul Wars so pathetically weak is because they intend on making them free? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I'd say that this is tied to the same reason that summoning disappeared from tournament lists - because you had to pay points for it.  Now that its free it has become a core tenant in the game.  

Make batallions free and they too will become a core tenant in the game.

From that point the armies that have the most potent free batallions will be the ones that are used, leading to further imbalance.  

Lets face it at the end of the day, we all know that there are some batallions that are really no big deal and then there are batallions that can be fairly nasty.  Assigning them all 0 point price tags really tips the scales in a nasty way.  Especially since batallions also give you other free bonuses like more artifacts and command points.

Hence why my idea is that if you DO make them free they've got to be carefully balanced and give minor buffs.

I also wonder if AOS could use 3 Generic Battalions that any faction could use to level the playing field somewhat since some factions have none at all. Something like....

Gathering of Heroes

Req 3-5 Heroes

Endless Hordes 

Req 4 -8 Battleline units

Monstrous Battle

Req 3-5 Behemoths

Edited by Jetengine
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the narrative section, I would like to see battleplans with uneven forces with the more or less appropriate terrain setting (imagine a sort of à narrow pass defense) and shenanigans like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jetengine said:

Hence why my idea is that if you DO make them free they've got to be carefully balanced and give minor buffs.

I also wonder if AOS could use 3 Generic Battalions that any faction could use to level the playing field somewhat since some factions have none at all. Something like....

Gathering of Heroes

Req 3-5 Heroes

Endless Hordes 

Req 4 -8 Battleline units

Monstrous Battle

Req 3-5 Behemoths

I think at that point you're talking about detachments from 40k, which imo are a more interesting way to build lists even if they do have their faults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play both games and I think detachments are a lot less interesting than battleline/leader minimums & behemoth limits for army building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't make them without some form of cost, otherwise the game will fast end up like Warmachine is today - where you can pretty much only stick with themed forces/battalions. I'd really hate to see AoS degrade to a game of battalion army composition choices. Because many of them are very limiting in what you can and cannot take. It would tank army variety and composition options significantly. 

I simply want to see the cost not be in points. Eg 

"You get 1 army point per 500 points of models. You may spend 1 army point on a command point or Battalion (battalions no longer give command points). "

That's not what I'd expect to see, but its the basics of removing the cost of a battalion from the point cost of the army, whilst at the same time keeping an element of choice in the game. Battalions are at their best when, like allies, they are optional rather than mandatory or mandatory for competitive games 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that approach is as above, the batalions that are crazy-good will always be taken since they are still going to be free.  There will no longer be a cost to taking them.  Its win-win.  The armies that have the crazy-good batalions will therefore be the ones you will see mostly represented, which would further reduce the variety.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is that they somehow figure out how to make all armies somewhat meaningful in terms of list variety and chance for a tourney win :D Kinda impossible but hope dies last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really just want to be able to buy artifacts. 50+artifact+battalion benefit is all baked together currently, and the only army that I've been able to even attempt bringing more than one battalion with was Nighthaunt. It was suboptimal at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of something controversial that I would love to explore.  And I know...it would cause some serious issues.  However, as a collector of crappy '4 unit' mini factions, I would love allies to gain the true keyword of the faction.

Ok.  It would require SOOO much tweaking and probably fall into the category of nearly impossible, BUT it would be awesome.  List building would enter the realms of endless.  If you were a Kharadon player, you're now buying fyreslayers in droves.  Idoneth are going nuts for DoK.  Stormcast players (GW favorite frat-boys) can't actually decide what to do....ever.

I hate the limited options of some factions.  This would make every faction basically totally new.  It would be like a giant reset on the game where everyone was thrown completely out of whack.

It's probably for the best that it doens't happen because my collection would be hard to control.

Never gonna happen, however....I would love the chaos 😈

Edited by Vextol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean... itd totally invalidate grand alliances as a concept probably, but it'd be funny. Better imo would be more things like that one KO battallion that brings winged stormbois and makes them KO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of free battalions

Currently they give you a set of extra special rules. 

Lower your army drops

Give a command point

Basically lets you pick who goes first

And a bonus artifact

 

And we think they should be free? 

That is a very ill advised plan unless you think battalions shouldn't do any of that

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slayerofmen said:

On the topic of free battalions

Currently they give you a set of extra special rules. 

Lower your army drops

Give a command point

Basically lets you pick who goes first

And a bonus artifact

 

And we think they should be free? 

That is a very ill advised plan unless you think battalions shouldn't do any of that

 

I believe the suggestion was to make them free but remove the artifact, command point and heavily reduce the number and effect of the special rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d love it if the artefacts were removed from the battalions and given points values, that way we would see a much wider variety of stuff taken as the few “must takes” would be priced accordingly.

it would also even the playing field for the older non battalion armies and allow a richer more diverse list building meta to form. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zambo said:

I’d love it if the artefacts were removed from the battalions and given points values, that way we would see a much wider variety of stuff taken as the few “must takes” would be priced accordingly

Me too. And I hope to see some new mechanics to give Artifacts of Power to other units than Heroes (and change the behaviour of that unit). Don't know how (standards becoming Artifacts of Power maybe?), but it could be healthy for the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Me too. And I hope to see some new mechanics to give Artifacts of Power to other units than Heroes (and change the behaviour of that unit). Don't know how (standards becoming Artifacts of Power maybe?), but it could be healthy for the game.

So we’re going back to the old world.

love it 😂😁

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem is that the battalions from early aos and the battalions from now have very little in common. 

Old battalions like cunnin ruk let you basically get two shooting phases per turn (incredible), double your spells (sylvaneth), boost your key ability (gore pilgrims) etc. All the while generally including units that you'd want anyway. 

New battalions in comparison... I mean look at the IDK Royal Council. You have to forgo using a soulscryer to deepstrike, keep all your heroes in a tiny cluster and spend a command point in order to get a 3 inch move. Plus it has a hefty point cost.

GW basically double dipped in reducing rule efficacy for battalions and increasing their cost. Resulting in most armies never using them. 

Dump the cost down on the older ones and they are likely to return because they'd still be very strong. 

I don't really see a solution other than to wait until they release new books for the older factions and redo the battalions. Then they can all go down in points. 

  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Swampmist said:

I mean... itd totally invalidate grand alliances as a concept probably, but it'd be funny. Better imo would be more things like that one KO battallion that brings winged stormbois and makes them KO.

A little but your still locked into your allegiances.  I can't be a KO force with seraphon unless I'm grand allegiance.  It just gives more clout to the all system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why people keep thinking that we need to lose Open and Narrative Play?  Matched Play is great and has a really solid place - but it's designed when two opponents want to play a game with roughly matched forces and is the most restrictive method of playing.  Just because you've written an army list using matched play building rules, there's nothing stopping you using it in a Narrative Play game or even an Open Play game.

Why do we have 3 ways to play?  Because it means that regardless of your model collection, experience or persuasion, you've the foundation on how to play a game of AoS.  Different communities tend to veer towards a single play style, but that's not normally endemic of the game as a whole.  Don't forget that GW have the benefit of having a permanent gaming hall where they can see what games people are playing - every time I've gone round I've seen people playing a real mixture of play styles.

On 1/13/2019 at 11:49 PM, Skabnoze said:

I agree with this.  Both 40k 8th Ed and AoS are a bit lacking when it comes to meaningful terrain rules.  They did a good job tweaking forests for AoS 2, but I feel that they could still do more.  The battlefield should have more of an impact than it tends to and very basic terrain rules seem to be the culprit.

GW's game developers have been pretty open about how they're not really very happy with how terrain currently works within AoS and 40k.  However the challenge they have is that terrain rules need to be really easy to use during the game - if you have to pick up a rule book then they're likely too complex and will be forgotten or ignored (think about the number of times you've forgotten that 6++ from mystical).

They have to also be "non-exploitable", so if you gain a benefit if 50% of a unit is on a terrain feature what's stopping somebody stringing out a unit to benefit it, but fighting a combat 6" away?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why people keep thinking that we need to lose Open and Narrative Play?

I'd say because for a lot of us, Matched play is the only way you play and the other two ways to play just fill pages in a book that don't need to be there.  I don't think we need narrative or open play to have pages in a book.  Nothing stops you from playing a narrative game without those pages.  Just like nothing stops someone from playing an open game without those pages.  

However the challenge they have is that terrain rules need to be really easy to use during the game

I have had the opportunity to look at the old whfb rules and modern games like kings of war and conquest and a few others.  The way they handle terrain is pretty easy and doesn't really need a book to remember.  Difficult terrain hampers your movement.  Sometimes it blocks line of sight.  Dangerous terrain hampers your movement and can also hurt you.  Things like rivers would slow your movement down except for at bridges and fords.  Hills could be difficult or not but they also let you see over things and let you draw line of sight to things you normally couldn't see.  

However from how I understand it based on some input from others, those terrain rules are purposely removed because people did not like that terrain hurt their armies like causing them to lose movement, so they would make sure there was little terrain on the table, or put it in a corner where it couldn't effect the game, essentially rendering it useless and having no point in being there anyway.  

I've read that from a few people anyway.  I never got to play older editions.  I researched kings of war and their tournaments have maps and you cant put hills in deployment zones.  I don't know if that helps or not, thats just how they do it. 

But I definitely dont think that the terrain rules that the old whfb used or that current similar games use are complex by any means.  If anything the terrain chart we roll on in AOS today needs removed because its hard to remember all of those random effects.  Its easier to remember forests always do what forests do, rivers always do what rivers do, etc then having random effects.  For my taste.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
Quote

I'm not sure why people keep thinking that we need to lose Open and Narrative Play?

 

I'd say because for a lot of us, Matched play is the only way you play and the other two ways to play just fill pages in a book that don't need to be there.  I don't think we need narrative or open play to have pages in a book.  Nothing stops you from playing a narrative game without those pages.  Just like nothing stops someone from playing an open game without those pages.  

Highly disagree. That's very selfish reason. Narrative and Open play is not only "just don't use points". It's about creating a story and GHB contains many tips and battleplans that can inspire and help begginers. Maybe it's not absolutely necessary, but it's good to have some foundation which you can build upon and that's what GHB provides. GHB caters to all kind of gamers and it should remain so.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I'd say because for a lot of us, Matched play is the only way you play and the other two ways to play just fill pages in a book that don't need to be there.  I don't think we need narrative or open play to have pages in a book.  Nothing stops you from playing a narrative game without those pages.  Just like nothing stops someone from playing an open game without those pages.  

We had community driven match play prior to the GHB so I would say you don't need matched play sections in a book either.  Honestly the community driven stuff with pools was much better than straight up points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chord said:

We had community driven match play prior to the GHB so I would say you don't need matched play sections in a book either.  Honestly the community driven stuff with pools was much better than straight up points.

That's also not true. I know that is your experience, but it doesn't mean it applies to everyone . We should embrace all ways to play and not bash each other and say "it's not needed".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×