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

GHB2019 Hopes & Expectations

Recommended Posts

Oh I play MTG competitively as well I know.  Thats what attracted me to AOS, there are a lot of similarities.

Share this post


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

Oh I play MTG competitively as well I know.  Thats what attracted me to AOS, there are a lot of similarities.

You would absolutely enjoy Warmachine and Hordes then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Swampmist said:

You would absolutely enjoy Warmachine and Hordes then.

I actually know a lot of Magic players who don't like Warmachine.  Warmachine has combos and synergy, but so does AoS, 40k, Malifaux, etc - to various degrees and using different mechanics.  Each of these games, and others, excel at different things in different ways.  They also each can lack in certain areas.  In my experience it still depends on what the player wants from a miniature game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I'd really like to see them replace allies with something similar to 40k's detatchment system, 

giphy.gif

 

I could probably write a massive novel on this topic, but the detachment system is at the heart of the major issues with 40k.  In fact, the force-organization chart has been at the heart of many of the issues of 40k since they created that system in 3rd edition.  40k has had issues with the army creation since they moved away from using the Fantasy system and designed that one.  They have never been able to make it work effectively.  Fantasy on the other hand has generally had elegant army creation rules that work well, scale up across game size, and are rarely the major issues with any particular edition.  The army building restrictions and the ally restrictions work very well in AoS and I don't want to see GW touch that at all.

Honestly, the only thing that I think AoS truly needs is to address the battletome situation so that all armies are on a relatively even footing with a modern-style battletome.  If they get that done then the game would possibly be in the best state that any of GW's flagship games have ever been in.  I would personally still like to see more interesting terrain rules that better influenced positioning & maneuvering, but I think that is a minor gripe.

Edited by Skabnoze
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree it would be weird for normal trees to block line of sight by wyldwood dont. however its a problem when sylvaneth can just spam them all over the board and block line of sight basically everywhere

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 11:16 PM, Payce said:

I'd like to see Grimghast Reapers remain at the points they are, but moved to allies for LoN (and thus lose LoN allegiance abilities). The problem with them is gravesites, not their points cost, and a points increase would be downright destructive for an already struggling Nighthaunt.

While on the subject of Nighthaunt, I'd like to see Hexwraiths down to 140 points per five, Spirit Hosts unit size 3-9 with points at 100/260, Kurdoss Valentian lowered to 180 points, Lady Olynder to 220, Dreadblade Harrows to 80, and Dreadscythe Harridans to 80/280. All three endless spells could do with a 20 points decrease, they're all really bad and there's literally no incentive to take them outside of liking the models.

I'd also like to see the Black Coach get the HERO keyword, though this should come at a points increase (300 or 320 points would be in line with similar models). Reikenor could do with a 20 points increase as well. Finally, upping Chainghast unit size to 2-8 and costing them at 80/280 might actually make them playable.

We must have a very different experience of our armies, as chaingast out perform a y other infantry I play. I'm not playing Legion, where I can see reapers shine, but in nighthaunt alliegance, I'll take chaingast all day long over reapers! 

I'd also diverge with you on the coach, but agree with your hero recostings. 

 

Which kind of highlights the difficulties the designers face. Meta, preference and experience means the data they get for what should be adjusted must be very conflicted. I do not envy them. 

On a different note, I'd pay cash money to add "spend a cp to reroll a single dice once per turn" into the game as a generic command ability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

I actually know a lot of Magic players who don't like Warmachine.  Warmachine has combos and synergy, but so does AoS, 40k, Malifaux, etc - to various degrees and using different mechanics.  Each of these games, and others, excel at different things in different ways.  They also each can lack in certain areas.  In my experience it still depends on what the player wants from a miniature game.

It's too off topic to go into in detail but there's some really interesting things to look at regarding why a lot of players prefer AoS to WMH as a "combo game" style of thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Russrmc said:

It's too off topic to go into in detail but there's some really interesting things to look at regarding why a lot of players prefer AoS to WMH as a "combo game" style of thing. 

I would love to see this topic started otherwise. I play WMH as my primary game so would love to be able to discuss this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at WMH but really there are two factors for why I am not as interested.  One - it literally vanished in my community in the span of 30 days.  It went from booming to nothing because of some stuff that the owning company did.  As I didn't play the game I am not really sure what those changes were, but needless to say I'm not investing money into a game that no one around me plays.

Two:  I have heard it often boiled down to killing some central key figure in the enemy warband.  While fun once in a while, that also really does not interest me much.  The combos portion of WMH I have looked at and I am definitely glad AOS copied that playstyle over, but I prefer having different (though standardized) objectives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I looked at WMH but really there are two factors for why I am not as interested.  One - it literally vanished in my community in the span of 30 days.  It went from booming to nothing because of some stuff that the owning company did.  As I didn't play the game I am not really sure what those changes were, but needless to say I'm not investing money into a game that no one around me plays.

Two:  I have heard it often boiled down to killing some central key figure in the enemy warband.  While fun once in a while, that also really does not interest me much.  The combos portion of WMH I have looked at and I am definitely glad AOS copied that playstyle over, but I prefer having different (though standardized) objectives.

So, WMH ABSOLUTELY has standardized objectives. There are 3 ways to win in WMH: score 5 more control points than the opponent, have more control points than the opponent on turn 7(when the game ends,) or kill the enemy general (called a Warcaster or Warlock).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

i agree it would be weird for normal trees to block line of sight by wyldwood dont. however its a problem when sylvaneth can just spam them all over the board and block line of sight basically everywhere

The best way to fix wyldwoods is by redesigning the kit. Everyone hates the model anyway.

One thing I'd like to see changed in the GHB is making it so that battalions either deploy as 1 or as normal. No mixing between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could fix Wyldwoods by just not having them be so obnoxiously big. Just limit them to one base instead of three and they'll be much more manageable.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 10:10 PM, Skabnoze said:

Honestly, the only thing that I think AoS truly needs is to address the battletome situation so that all armies are on a relatively even footing with a modern-style battletome.  If they get that done then the game would possibly be in the best state that any of GW's flagship games have ever been in.  I would personally still like to see more interesting terrain rules that better influenced positioning & maneuvering, but I think that is a minor gripe.

Yeah this exactly! Apart from looking forward to a few hopefully fair point tweaks I really dread that they will change AOS too much. I love the game in its current state. Simple to play hard to master. It’s easy to introduce to players without forcing them to a full comitment and since none of my group care for the tournement scene, we enjoy, narrative as well as matched play. All of us have huge armies but little time to actually play with them so every time they make vital changes we never really get to settle on them before something new comes up.

Keep making battletomes, endless spells, new armies, battleplans, narratives and so on but pleeease leave the core rules be for a few years or so.

I suspect that complicating the game just for the sake of the matched play scene will scare away those that like me left WHFB many years ago and returned to AOS because of its simple approach that welcomed both casual and competitive players.

IMO providing points for artifacts is a step towards complicating things.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kirjava13 said:

I think you could fix Wyldwoods by just not having them be so obnoxiously big. Just limit them to one base instead of three and they'll be much more manageable.

That would definitely be reasonable and fall in line with the other free terrains that they are pushing for other factions.

Share this post


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

So, WMH ABSOLUTELY has standardized objectives. There are 3 ways to win in WMH: score 5 more control points than the opponent, have more control points than the opponent on turn 7(when the game ends,) or kill the enemy general (called a Warcaster or Warlock).

As I understand it, while what you are saying is true, everyone seems to go after kill the enemy general because its the easiest and most straight forward objective to accomplish.  Seems like a false-choice.  I know if AOS had a kill the enemy general condition that always won you the game, I can pretty much bet at least in the tournaments I go to what people would be gunning for most of the time.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 11:30 AM, Tittliewinks22 said:

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

  I got it from Terrainify.  A basic set is 800$ and with shipping that goes up to about 1K.  I also have four additional pieces that I ordered separately.  I have a lot! 

However, I have two sets-  and I also ordered the full  hagglethorn hollow kickstarter which should be coming up in the summer, so I want to make room for it.  If you're interested in this terrain, I'd be willing to offer the "less-painted" versions (most people don't even notice until I point it out) for a good discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DINOSTAR said:

A basic set is 800$

Holy ****** on a cracker

Edited by Kirjava13
Awwww c'mon forum, that's not a bad word

Share this post


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

That would definitely be reasonable and fall in line with the other free terrains that they are pushing for other factions.

I think it should have been a single model, like the Nurgle tree, that you can summon onto the table.  The issue is that they added that rule before they made army-specific terrain and they decided to use the existing woods kit.  They honestly should have made the rules simply drop a single tree from the Woods onto the table as a marker for the army abilities - although the cynical answer there is that they would then sell less tree boxes.  Otherwise they should have made a model just for the Sylvaneth.  I think they are going to have issues with this decision moving forward because so many Sylvaneth players have already invested heavily into the Citadel Woods kits and that makes it tough to simply produce a specific piece of scenery for this.

That said, I really like the woods kit visually once it is assembled.  Not many companies make the spooky-tree types and the Citadel makes a nice non-spooky version if you add the leaves to it.  I picked up a bunch of the trees because without branches they work well for a spooky goblin forest, a graveyard, dead desert trees, or even for swamps.  I like to play Malifaux in addition to AoS and these trees really fit into a huge number of different board themes.  The downside is that you can really tell these were early GW plastic kits because they have really bad mold lines and they fit together very poorly with big ugly gaps.  Nothing that is not fixable, but they are a fair pain to assemble compared to more recent GW kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until you assemble your loonshrine. I'm notoriously bad at getting pieces together so maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how those two big ones were ever supposed to fit together without giant gaps somewhere

Share this post


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

So, WMH ABSOLUTELY has standardized objectives. There are 3 ways to win in WMH: score 5 more control points than the opponent, have more control points than the opponent on turn 7(when the game ends,) or kill the enemy general (called a Warcaster or Warlock).

I have played it for a decade now.  Yes, they do have scenarios and they update them on roughly a yearly basis.  However, the issue is that most of the scenarios are not part of the core design of the game.  They are in a separately designed competitive supplement.  The good thing is that scenario supplement is fairly responsive to changing with the game since they update it about as frequently as AoS does GHBs (it is also a free download).  The negative thing is that the scenario rules are constantly adjusting to deal with issues with how the core game plays that stem almost directly from the standard caster-kill win condition.  If you play without the Steamroller rules, and just the core rules, then the game plays drastically different and it has some very negative features.  They have never managed to get away from this.

After playing it for so long I feel that caster assassination should be altered, but honestly that is probably not my biggest gripe with the game.  I have a lot of gripes, but if I had to narrow down to a very specific one it is that the game is designed in a way that makes terrain an impediment to playing rather than a desired inclusion.  I don't play miniature games in order to play on 2D terrain.  Best case you just stack most of the terrain at the edges and a small feature or two more central.  Warhammer Fantasy Battles had this same problem to a certain degree - but at least it played on a larger table so the issue was not quite as noticeable.  I play wargames for the spectacle of playing with toys on a visually interesting battlefield.  If I wanted just pure game mechanics then I will play any number of board or card games (and I do play a number of those).  But, that is simply my opinion.  For people who still greatly enjoy playing Warmachine I say great - it's just not really my cup of tea after all these years even though I own a ludricrous amount of stuff.

Share this post


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

Wait until you assemble your loonshrine. I'm notoriously bad at getting pieces together so maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure how those two big ones were ever supposed to fit together without giant gaps somewhere

So you are saying that I should or should not take a hacksaw to it and put it together in a really weird way?  I'll do it!  Don't you try to stop me...

Share this post


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

As I understand it, while what you are saying is true, everyone seems to go after kill the enemy general because its the easiest and most straight forward objective to accomplish.  Seems like a false-choice.  I know if AOS had a kill the enemy general condition that always won you the game, I can pretty much bet at least in the tournaments I go to what people would be gunning for most of the time.

I haven't played WMH in years but back when I did every single game I ever played boiled down to getting the warlock/warcaster kill regardless of the objectives since you auto won if you did. I played Skorne and made a player rage pretty hard once with the infamous Molik Karn bullet. There was also some super gamey stuff like shooting at your own troops to hit invisible enemies with the splash damage and charging your own guys or enemies waaaay out of range to get extra movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its very off topic so I'm gonna not continue with the WMH discussion, but I will say that the more recent changes to the game and the scenario packet (Which I consider as much a part of the core game as the matched play rules in GHB are to AOS) have made scenario and terrain (2d as it may be) much more impactful.

Back on topic to GHB... Really, I would just like to see more mini-battletomes in it to tide armies without coming releases over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Back on topic to GHB... Really, I would just like to see more mini-battletomes in it to tide armies without coming releases over.

It would be nice for us to get either a rapid release of all the remaining factions, or even just a new Grand Alliance equivalent like Legions of Nagash. Order is such a mess of fractured alliances right now, with aelves so spread out, and Free Peoples getting split and merged ad infinitum.

  • Like 3

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

×