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

GHB2019 Hopes & Expectations

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, michu said:

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".

I agree, but sadly the addition of points has brought in people who are very anti-anything but matched play.

All should be equal!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually i find all of the three ways to play, a very Important part in the book.

although most players do play only with the matched play rules, the other two ways, can give somebody, who is interested in organizing a tournament or Event, great ideas. think of the extra rules, like playing inside a gigantic mountain with thousands of tunnels. This ideas and extra rules can make the game so much more interesting and fun.

Same goes for the artefacts and lores.

i heard so many people complaining about them beeing to good, wanting them to be discontinued and so on, Isually forgetting about all does non battletome factions who have nothing, and can only gain something thanks to the rules (especially Bret’s and very dead dead-things).

Share this post


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

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).

....right.  Because the last thing we would want is to struggle to find all the rules in 5 different books, 4 relevant FAQs, a questionable app, some tarot cards and the interweb.

Seriously though, I was more talking about where you set terrain pieces up for board building.  Like, in the 6 quadrants, roll two dice.  For each 6, set up a fancy terrain.  For each 4 and 5 setup a "normal" terrain.  Or something like it to guide board setup a little.  Maybe even have custom dice you could roll that had pips in the various locations that correlated to a quadrant.

And as for remembering the terrain, just mark them somehow.  GW loves their fancy dice and "don't forget what you're doing" cards.  Just make some kind of marker.  

Besides, I already have terrain I don't ever remember how it works (ships, moon men, icky trees, mean trees etc.) so have it with the new stuff 😋

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a touchy subject I understand.  What I've seen it do is divide up the community and make warring factions.  No other game has the need to do this, but there are people playing narrative and open versions of those games as well.  

I don't even think there needs to be a matched play version of the game.

There should just be "the game".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michu said:

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.

Also, not every game with points is matched play. 

My local group uses points near exclusively but we still play open/narrative. Points just help to compared army sizes between different factions. 

For example, a friend and I played a few aerial battles from the current GHB (Kharadrons vs. Idoneth). We left out the unit restrictions but still used a 1000 points limit. 

EDIT: Not directly targeted at you. I just used your post to say this.

Edited by Gecktron
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has veered off topic. It was begun with the intent of listing and responding to hopes for GHB 2019 but its become a referendum on the three ways to play which is the least interesting/ important/ likely aspect of changes that could be coming down the pike.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vextol said:

....right.  Because the last thing we would want is to struggle to find all the rules in 5 different books, 4 relevant FAQs, a questionable app, some tarot cards and the interweb.

Seriously though, I was more talking about where you set terrain pieces up for board building.  Like, in the 6 quadrants, roll two dice.  For each 6, set up a fancy terrain.  For each 4 and 5 setup a "normal" terrain.  Or something like it to guide board setup a little.  Maybe even have custom dice you could roll that had pips in the various locations that correlated to a quadrant.

And as for remembering the terrain, just mark them somehow.  GW loves their fancy dice and "don't forget what you're doing" cards.  Just make some kind of marker.  

Besides, I already have terrain I don't ever remember how it works (ships, moon men, icky trees, mean trees etc.) so have it with the new stuff 😋

i usually do d3 pieces in each hexrant (that a word, i think its a word), and next game im going to try and set it up by rolling the old scatter dice set up the terrain 2d6" from the center along the line of the scatter dice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Gotrek said:

i usually do d3 pieces in each hexrant (that a word, i think its a word), and next game im going to try and set it up by rolling the old scatter dice set up the terrain 2d6" from the center along the line of the scatter dice 

We do similar things.  I was thinking of something like this too;

dice.png.fd240126d10fc07f02ad807585582fcd.png

where the smaller number wins and if you match up two big circles you can span squares.  Obviously there are issues in that lower numbers would come up  more often, but, conceptually that's what I was thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next GHB should have literally a one-two page addition of "Now with terrain rules!", because other than nitpicky rules lawyers, most level-headed players need about that many rules for effective, fun terrain.

Especially with area terrain, I figure with the right visual resources I could fit useable Cover, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Garrisoning rules, and Linear Terrain items, along with attending diagram pics, in about two pages of rules.  Especially for an army-scale game terrain selection which is usually more streamlined.  For a skirmish game, I could probably fit in climbing, falling, and jumping down at enemies, too.

Edited by Aegisgrimm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aegisgrimm said:

The next GHB should have literally a one-two page addition of "Now with terrain rules!", because other than nitpicky rules lawyers, most level-headed players need about that many rules for effective, fun terrain.

Especially with area terrain, I figure with the right visual resources I could fit useable Cover, Difficult Terrain, Dangerous Terrain, Garrisoning rules, and Linear Terrain items, along with attending diagram pics, in about two pages of rules.  Especially for an army-scale game terrain selection which is usually more streamlined.  For a skirmish game, I could probably fit in climbing, falling, and jumping down at enemies, too.

I agree.  The mystical terrain is neat, but I honestly miss simple terrain features that impact movement more than giant obstacles that you have to go around.  

Things like rough terrain that slows movement, walls that can be defended (without weird garrison rules like buildings), rivers/streams that are tough to cross.  Basically the things that generally made up medieval battlefields and that influenced the tactics and flow of battle.  AoS is already a game based entirely around objectives.  I would like the terrain rules to augment that.  I could house rule these things, and sometimes we do, but I think it is a change that would improve the game from a tactical & strategic standpoint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they need more high ground types of terrain.  I was interested in changing up the battlefield more, so I  got these 3D printed ones.  I have been house-ruling it so that you can only climb up 2", anything higher is impassable unless you are flying.  This terrain has steppes, so that there's always a path to get up there if you want, but you can't jump down either! It's added a lot to the line of sight, the path to objectives or saving a low wound hero.  I don't use any special terrain rules yet, but I'll start adding a bit because I want to use the goblin loonshrine :P

IMG_0498.jpeg

IMG_0497.jpeg

IMG_0495.jpeg

  • Like 6
  • LOVE IT! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to see them replace allies with something similar to 40k's detatchment system, with tweaks. Allies were a really cool idea, but they often don't feel worth taking unless you have a very specific role you need filling. So something like what 40k does with detatchments (basically one list may have three armies in, complete with allegiance abilities), but with a points cap, weakened allegiance abilities, and no summoning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original rules had a scenery placing chart. It wasn't very nuanced, but you rolled 2D6 for each 2 foot x 2 foot section of table and applied the following:

2-3 No terrain

4-5 Two terrain features

6-8 One terrain feature

9-10 Two terrain features

11-12 Choose from 0-3 terrain features

You could then add scatter terrain to fill up bare sections a little.

It does seem a little like GW don't have a clear plan for scenery at the moment, as the interaction with faction specific scenery seems to be becoming more and more difficult. For example, on @DINOSTAR's table (which looks fantastic by the way) Sylvaneth would struggle to get any woods down, which would seriously hamper them in a game.

Share this post


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

The original rules had a scenery placing chart. It wasn't very nuanced, but you rolled 2D6 for each 2 foot x 2 foot section of table and applied the following:

2-3 No terrain

4-5 Two terrain features

6-8 One terrain feature

9-10 Two terrain features

11-12 Choose from 0-3 terrain features

You could then add scatter terrain to fill up bare sections a little.

It does seem a little like GW don't have a clear plan for scenery at the moment, as the interaction with faction specific scenery seems to be becoming more and more difficult. For example, on @DINOSTAR's table (which looks fantastic by the way) Sylvaneth would struggle to get any woods down, which would seriously hamper them in a game.

thats really only a problem for Sylvaneth though, as no other allegiance ability terrain is obnoxiously annoying and able to spam them all over the board (on that note, i feel that the faq that gave Wyldwoods the line of sight blocking rules from normal trees was the wrong decision)

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

I'd really like to see them replace allies with something similar to 40k's detatchment system, with tweaks. Allies were a really cool idea, but they often don't feel worth taking unless you have a very specific role you need filling. So something like what 40k does with detatchments (basically one list may have three armies in, complete with allegiance abilities), but with a points cap, weakened allegiance abilities, and no summoning. 

as is, allegiance abilities are way too strong to allow up to 3 factions in the same army to get access to all their rules. as for weakening them, that would require a complete rewrite of every set of allegiance abilities and/or punish mono faction armies by weakening their abilities for no reason, at that point youd basically be forcing armies to take allies to be competetive as theyd be at a disadvantage without

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

as is, allegiance abilities are way too strong to allow up to 3 factions in the same army to get access to all their rules. as for weakening them, that would require a complete rewrite of every set of allegiance abilities and/or punish mono faction armies by weakening their abilities for no reason, at that point youd basically be forcing armies to take allies to be competetive as theyd be at a disadvantage without

Not quite what I was going for with mono factions. You wouldn't weaken every allegiance ability, but rather have a "if this is part of a detatchment, this allegiance ability instead does X". It would be additive. So, let's say there was a 2000pt Nurgle army with 400pts (standard ally points) of a Khorne detachment, the Khorne detachment may only be able to get 4 bloodtithe points (and they only come from units killed in or by the detachment), but the Nurgle allegiance would be as normal. 

Edited by Enoby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be non intuitive for normal forests to block line of sight but the sylvaneth forests suddenly don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 6:42 AM, 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.

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

I think that would wreck the character and the scant balance that exists to be honest. Artefacts were written with scarcity in mind, you can gurantee that if they were pointed someone will find dozens of combinations that allow synergies with plentiful artefacts that allow units to become essentially immortal or to always hit, or ways to make the lowliest of heroes 3x as powerful as a bloodthirster and similar dumb stuff. A huge part of AOS is that units are known quantities that have obvious purposes. You need that anchor to allow for the more exotic and flavourful army traits to work and those traits are kept stable because they work with the assumption that units do certain things.

Very few people are going to want to play an AOS game in which an engineer goes from being an artillery buffing unit to somebody who wins across the table because through freak artefact manipulation he can one shot a Leviadon now, or makes a unit of 40 crossbowmen do more damage in combat than witch elves  or something similarly weird. That’s always the way these things goes. It’s never about character, people work out how they can pay the least to make something do the most damage or fit the most utility. The meta is plagued enough by that as it is without allowing for the potential for people to routinely use a unit for something other than its intended purpose.

On a similar topic, and I say this as a Stormcast player, I would remove any ability that basically guarantees an action for a unit such Sureheart’s charge. The sweet spot for AOS is the tension between informed decision vs the chance that it might still not pay off. That risk reward overlap is the best thing about it. Having an ability that guarantees 800 points worth of models will almost certainly  get to do something wrecks that.

Edited by Nos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually a big reason a lot of us play GW games is FOR solving the combo puzzles and finding the combos of artifacts that can break the game.  Thats part of the fun and competitiveness.  

I'd love it if artifacts were pointed so that we could find the most efficient ones to increase our optimization of our list building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Actually a big reason a lot of us play GW games is FOR solving the combo puzzles and finding the combos of artifacts that can break the game.  Thats part of the fun and competitiveness.  

I'd love it if artifacts were pointed so that we could find the most efficient ones to increase our optimization of our list building.

If the challenge to break the game has about 5 answers in the form of the current meta when there's dozens of factions and options, either the people who like doing that aren't particularly creative with it, or the rules don't exactly suit it, is what I would suggest.

Regardless I don't think GW are going to wreck the character of their carefully crafted unit designs and army faction rules. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually a big reason a lot of us play GW games is FOR solving the combo puzzles and finding the combos of artifacts that can break the game.  Thats part of the fun and competitiveness.  

I'd love it if artifacts were pointed so that we could find the most efficient ones to increase our optimization of our list building.

Magic the Gathering may be a better game for that type of combo puzzles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DINOSTAR said:

I think they need more high ground types of terrain.  I was interested in changing up the battlefield more, so I  got these 3D printed ones.  I have been house-ruling it so that you can only climb up 2", anything higher is impassable unless you are flying.  This terrain has steppes, so that there's always a path to get up there if you want, but you can't jump down either! It's added a lot to the line of sight, the path to objectives or saving a low wound hero.  I don't use any special terrain rules yet, but I'll start adding a bit because I want to use the goblin loonshrine :P

IMG_0498.jpeg

IMG_0497.jpeg

IMG_0495.jpeg

Where can I get these plateau/hills????

Share this post


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

Magic the Gathering may be a better game for that type of combo puzzles.  

Maybe, but having now traveled the country to do AOS tournaments I find that a good majority of the people I've rubbed shoulders with enjoy the combo puzzles that AOS offers.  And anything that increases the combo puzzles is a positive for me.

 

Share this post


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

 

Maybe, but having now traveled the country to do AOS tournaments I find that a good majority of the people I've rubbed shoulders with enjoy the combo puzzles that AOS offers.  And anything that increases the combo puzzles is a positive for me.

 

I think hard core competitive types prefer combo puzzles where the rest do not.  

 

You should give MtG a try its all combo puzzles nothing else

Edited by chord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...