The great big Generals Handbook 2019 Discussion Topic

[John E]

4 hours ago, Luzgurbel said:

Played yesterday a pre toruney game, 1000 points, using IJ vs FeC.

 

My opp was using a King in Terror, Gristlegore with the trait of attacking first, and of course, use Feeding Frenzy without spending any 

 

If you have grand court Gristlegore you cannot also have the delusion that gives you 1 free feeding frenzy a turn

tel him to look on page 55 of his book, under Grand courts

it tells you if you have. Grand court you cannot have a delusion!

[Luzgurbel]

19 minutes ago, John E said:

If you have grand court Gristlegore you cannot also have the delusion that gives you 1 free feeding frenzy a turn

tel him to look on page 55 of his book, under Grand courts

it tells you if you have. Grand court you cannot have a delusion!

Yeah you are right. My fault, I invented that part. I remember now he saved 1 cp in order of using the Frenzy. My bad, sorry!

[John E]

8 minutes ago, Luzgurbel said:

Yeah you are right. My fault, I invented that part. I remember now he saved 1 cp in order of using the Frenzy. My bad, sorry!

Makes a bit more sense,

Feeding frenzy is not an automatic win for FEC

I had my first game with FEC last week ( not Gristlegore), I used feeding frenzy on a 40 man unit of Ghouls fighting a  Deamon prince of Nurgle with a 3 up save , re rolling 1, I think I got in around 120 attacks , it suffered 4 wounds in the end!

[Luzgurbel]

The point is that he also used a spell to buff the mounts (and the King iteself, obviously) attacks. And the trait that allows it to rerolls failed hit, trying to get as much 6's as possible, that deals MWs (3 per 6, if I don't remember bad). 

 

That, combined with the fact that even though it gets charged it fight always first and for 1 cp it fights again, some armies like IJ can't do anything, just looking at it with all the hatred you have, as I did haha.

 

What I really want as a nerf for the FeC is to avoid that combo, to combine in the same guy the Savage Strike and the Feeding Frenzy in any way. Perhaps a wording saying "the mount is not affected" or "you can't use this command ability in a mod with the Savage Strike command trait" or "a model with Savage Strike can't fight again in the same comba phase under no circumstances".

[John E]

I have no problem with some changes to Gristlegore, providing it does not make all FEC unplayable  with over the top point changes.

[Acid_Nine]

7 hours ago, Nin Win said:

Take any battle plan and add them.  Ever want to play the missions from your battletome?  Perhaps combine them with your favourite matched play scenario?  Want to do Meeting Engagements in a city?  Just add them on.

You mean I have to talk to my opponent as I set up a game?! Heresy!

 

but, fair enough. Will try it sometime, but for now it's a neat thing.

 

also those name generators... I think realm of plastic did a better job, but at least it's nice to see.

[Banshee1978]

I have a question regarding the new setup for Meeting Engagements. If you have a seraphon hero on carnosaurus. Will he count as a hero and therefore can be setup as part of the  spearhead. Or as a behemoth as well and therefore only as a part of the main force?

Edited June 24, 2019 by Banshee1978

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Banshee1978 said:

I have a question regarding the new setup for Meeting Engagements. If you have a seraphon hero on carnosaurus. Will he count as a hero and therefore can be setup as part of the  spearhead. Or as a behemoth as well and therefore only as a part of the main force?

He has both roles. So if a rule targets one of those roles it affects the complete model. Same goes for keywords.

In this case if the rules for meeting engagements prevent behemoths in the spearhead, he would be excluded. 

(Unless the meeting engagements have specific exception to that rule, but it don’t think so)

[EMMachine]

I haven't read the entire thread (okay most of it was before release), but what do you guys think about the Army Generator?

At first I thought it was an interesting idea (possible to use as an alternative campaign format to Path to Glory), but quite quickly a flaw jumped at me (and I'm not even a competitive player).

The system is basicly "balanced" in lose term with the amount of amount of wounds a model has and in the lowest categories (Horde, Regular) with the save as well . In most cases I think the system will work (mostly in Horde and Regular Category), but I have already found two cases where the unit will create some problems in its category.

For example Fanatics (loomsmasha as well as sporesplatta) are basicly in the horde category (both of them normally would have a maximum of 15 and would cost if they could have 20 models 480 - 560 Points) and that for 1 armypoint (or basicly 20 Freeguild Crossbowmen/Handgunners or Archers for 1 armypoint) 🤔

And in some other cases Savage Orruks are in the Elite Category because they have 2 wounds paying basicly 1 arymypoint for 60 points if we compare both systems. In that System its basicly better for Bonesplitterz playing only Boarboys (because they are in the same category as the normal Orruks).

Edit:

Another point could be that it can get expensive when you need to use substitutions because you rolled a value that you can't field (Gargantuan model or Horde unit in a Dispossessed Army)

Edited June 24, 2019 by EMMachine

[pseudonyme]

The goal is too have à rough balance. Sure you will spot lots of cases, but it is just too give some guidelines. Nothing more.

If anyone is concerned about the balance, they should check the points

[whispersofblood]

20 hours ago, Luzgurbel said:

Played yesterday a pre toruney game, 1000 points, using IJ vs FeC.

 

I used a slightly bomb of 10 Brutes, that could deal with the FeC Monsters. 340 points, but need the support of a Warchanter and a Megaboss and a Shaman/Ironfist. The total cost was 720. My opp was using a King in Terror, Gristlegore with the trait of attacking first, and of course, use Feeding Frenzy without spending any CP.

 

In my turn, I activate the Ironfist, roll a 2, Brutes moves 4" more. I'm in a 8+ charge (including the +1 from IJ). I spend my 2cps on waaagh, recovering 1 and using it to more waaagh. Roll the charge, I heavily fail it. Yes, I could save the earned 1 to reroll a charge, but I need my unit of brutes to kill the King and another DRAGON next to him...

 

My opp starts his turn, just move, buff the terror through spells, sing (1 brute less) and charge. Strikes first and kill 2 Brutes. Activate Frenzy and kill the rest. GG.

 

What I'm complaining here is that I had to spent a lot of points, resources (in form of cps and characters auras correctly located) and a bit of luck in order to charge the enemy general, that in under any other circumstance the Brutes could easily wiped out. BUT, with no cps investment, no extra points and no extra resources, all FREE, my opp could have beated them even me charging him. That's SO UNFAIR, overall because you can'd do anything to avoid the combo.

 

FeC MUST HAVE a heavy nerf in this combo. It's insane you can combine Savage Strike with Feeding Frenzy in a mount that shoots and fights well (fights specially well, with that trait rerolling failed hit and dealing mortal wounds "because yes") and free CP for the Frenzy. Insane and unfair. Maybe some other top armies could stop this, but... What can do armies like IJ, that relies in cc, and ONLY cc?

 

Thanks for reading my cry xd

Did you not know how it worked before hand?This strategy was a fail before any dice were rolled.

Since the GKoTG has to either go at start of phase of activate normally, and feeding frenzy is immediate you have a few options.

Charge with chaff, have your hammer unit positioned so that if he piles in for feeding frenzy he is within 3" of the hammer. 

Remove models from the chaff unit so that if he wants to fight again he must pile in.

Ard'boyz are great for this by the way, cheapish, 20 wounds, decent defence 4+6++, a GKoTG can't for sure kill them all without feeding frenzy.

If he doesn't feeding frenzy he is locked in combat in his turn, not letting him target your juicy units, if he does he pulls the whole hammer unit in. Both situations are a win for you. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by whispersofblood
clarified.

[Urauloth]

16 hours ago, Nin Win said:

My absolute favorite part of this GHB is that it's very much an evergreen book.  The yearly points updates are seperate and the format of play contained inside are all pretty much useful for any time and place in terms of the rules.  The army generator and streets of death and meeting engagements and Alixia is all cool stuff that will be useful to play even after GHB20 comes out.  The conquest unbound and yearly matched play specific stuff is getting smaller and smaller as more armies get their battletomes.

Oh? Nice. I was on the fence about picking this one up, as I'm not playing anything at the moment so I don't need the points updates etc. If there's more "other stuff" in there than usual, and content that could be useful anytime, I'm down.

[peasant]

20 hours ago, Luzgurbel said:

Oh, I saw that, not with 3, just 1, but good enough for 1000 points game summoning free units with free cp with free scenary, That's the word for FeC, FREE.

 

But even with that I'm fine. The worst of the worst is that guy that almost kills what he wants and you just see with all the loathe you can, because you can't do anything else...

From now on we shall call the FREE eater courtS

[Nin Win]

5 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I haven't read the entire thread (okay most of it was before release), but what do you guys think about the Army Generator?

We used it yesterday and it worked.  We had a bunch of stuff and did a 15 FP game I we ended up using about 40% of my "full sized" armies.  My friend was hosting the game so he had his entire collection available to pick from.  It didn't break things for him to have more options than me, but he wasn't trying to game the system and pick the best stuff to counter what he knows I have.  He was picking what he wanted to field because he thought it was cool.

One thing to remember is that pitched battle minimums and maximums do not apply.  So if something says 5 models with X wounds and you have a unit that is 10 models with X wounds in matched play, you can put down 5 of them.  Minimums and maximums and whatnot simply don't apply.

The point of the system is also not balance but to pull from a collection and put it on the table.  It's okay if one person's army would be worth more points if they were in matched play.  Sometimes a game can be about unequal sides (it happens in matched play all the time just from army building skill or from GW never getting the points quite right).
 

[Dead Scribe]

We had a couple guys try the open generator at the store last sunday.  They brought their collections in and did some narrative thing with it.  It was pretty one-sided game because one guy drew better than the other and its based off of wounds, so they just picked the best units they could.

Granted, our matched play games often end the same way (very one sided) because list building and points balance.

However, I would be surprised to see this used in our store again.  Both players were kind of not happy with the type of game it produced.

[Nin Win]

5 hours ago, Urauloth said:

Oh? Nice. I was on the fence about picking this one up, as I'm not playing anything at the moment so I don't need the points updates etc. If there's more "other stuff" in there than usual, and content that could be useful anytime, I'm down.

I play every mode of play now (used to only do Open and Narrative but Meeting Engagements got me into Matched Play as well).  Here are my thoughts on each section/general topic:
 

Spoiler

 

Open War Army Generator - Tried one game with it, it worked.  We didn't plan anything, I just brought about 60ish stormcast to my friend's place and ended up fielding about 25 of them.  I think it really helps to play a smaller size than your present collection.  Although even if you use every model you have because you deploy them as you generate them it does create an unpredictable experience as your deployment order and what and where you deploy needs to be done without knowing what else is in your army (or you can plan ahead and burn your force point rolls on substitutions to get what you want and end up with a smaller army).

Open War Terrain - A bunch of random tables and grid layouts if you want to be surprised by the terrain layout.  It's focused primarily on the terrain GW makes, so it might be a good basis for a terrain project where peope make their own versions as having all the options could get pricey.

Open War Close Quarters Battle Generator - It's basically tables that are a version of the Open War cards meant for smaller tables.  I love Open War cards and find them general enough that we use the 40k and AoS ones interchangeably for both games.

Hidden Agendas - A small selection of objectives you pick and keep secret that you can add to the game.  For example, Terrify is scored if an enemy unit is destroyed by a failed battleshock test.  So as soon as that happens you'd score it.  This is also used in Pitched Battles now as well.

Streets of Death - A few pages about fighting in cities.  Rules for lighting buildings on fire, destroying buildings, attacker and defender type situations, hidden deployment.  A friend of mine already challenged me to an arson-fest where we are going to see if we can get every building on the table on fire.  I'll be borrowing some gitz for that game so it'll be a bonesplitters vs grots destruction game where we burn down the world.

Arcane Objectives - A single page that adds special effects to objectives when they are first claimed.  Like an objective turns out to be a place of power where a hero might get the ability to reroll 1s to hit or something.  Pretty minor but potentially fun.

Regiments of Renown - A couple pages of tables to give your units extra abilities.  Broken down by type so to roll on the marksmen table the unit has to have a missile weapon.  Pretty basic stuff.  No experience or leveling up system or anything like that.

Alixia - 4 scenarios and some extra rules for fighting a campaign in the Shattered City.  Has rules about rolling on the Regiments of Renown tables and when to do that.  One campaign focused on Stormcast vs Chaos or Nighthaunt, another more open ended.  They're just really simple campaigns of 3 games.  Like a paragraph or two outline the campaign structure and then you use the scenarios.

Raids & Ambushes - a page and a bit of extra rules you can bolt onto games to make them more about surprise attacks.  Some look cool.  Some will really make sure the turn 1 ambush has close combat.

Naming your Heroes - some tables to generate random names.  They're pretty limited with 3 rolls per hero with a total of 216 possible combinations.

Mercenary Companies - Rules to add out of faction stuff to any army.  They cost you your turn 1 command point.  They come in preset packages of units or have ranges of things you can take.  It's not just use whatever you want.  They tend to get abilities so you do get something for your command point.  I have too much to paint already but some of these are inspiring conversion ideas for me.  Like skeletons crewing cannons for adding in the Blacksmoke Battery.

Pitched Battles 2019 - Things get quite specific with terrain placement rules and how and when you place your faction terrain.  Updated versions of recent matched play scenarios.  12 scenarios.  Rules or advice for running events.  This is probably the most developed "format" for the game so far.

Meeting Engagements 2019 - 1000 point games where you choose your army in three parts that, depending on the scenario, arrive on different places on the battlefield at different times.  Played on a smaller table, restrictions on both taking multiples of the same unit (limit 2) as well as unit sizes (minimum sized and double sized units only with which ones depending on the section of the army the unit is in.  6 scenarios and a section on running Meeting Engagement tournaments.

Conquest Unbound - 20 pages of allegiance abilities, spell lores, summoning points and that sort of thing.  Not every allegiance gets everything, some are just allegience abilities, command traits and artefacts.  Armies covered:  Darkling Covens, Dispossessed, Free Peoples, Seraphon, Wanderers, Slaves to Darkness, Ironjaws.  I think it's entirely possible that this section could be gone or nearly gone by the next GHB.  It would only take 7 battletomes to cover it all.  And I imagine some could get rolled into things like Aelves or Darkoath or something.  Maybe a joint orruk book?  It's actually kind of impressive how small this section is getting as more army books come out.

 

So there's my long overview.  One thing I'll say is that I hope no one tries to use everything at once.  Imagine having the realm rules from the core book, the realm spells from Malign Sorcery, then use Streets of Death, Arcane Objectives, Raid & Ambush and Hidden Agendas.  You could have a million things you need to remember.

I really like that the GHBs are shifting to be about playing the game rather than being stand in army books for the more neglected factions.  I think splitting out the matched play points is a pretty clear demonstration that this is about game supplements/expansions rather than army updates.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Nin Win

[Nin Win]

12 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We had a couple guys try the open generator at the store last sunday.  They brought their collections in and did some narrative thing with it.  It was pretty one-sided game because one guy drew better than the other and its based off of wounds, so they just picked the best units they could.

Granted, our matched play games often end the same way (very one sided) because list building and points balance.

However, I would be surprised to see this used in our store again.  Both players were kind of not happy with the type of game it produced.

Why would you intentionally break something and then be unhappy that it doesn't work?  This makes no sense.  I guess some people are the architects of their own misery.

[Dead Scribe]

I think its more that they were trying to see how it worked and since almost everyone in my store is pretty much pro-sports competitive level, they found out that open play is not for them.

[Nin Win]

Yep.  I can see that.  But surely you agree that they used the tool incorrectly?  The second they tried to game the system to get the most powerful thing possible for the roll was when things went off the rails.  If you know the unit strengths well enough to know you are getting an advantage over your opponent based on your selections... just don't.  Choose another unit instead.  They intentionally unbalanced the game and then were unhappy the balance wasn't there.

Must be something wrong with Open Play, amiright? 🤪

EDIT:  Not that you are saying or implying that.  Though we have heard for years about people's beefs with Open Play and how the game was at the launch.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Nin Win

[tripchimeras]

GHB meeting engagement thoughts after getting 2 meeting engagement games in this weekend:

The Good: Way more enjoyable then a 1k pitched battle game.  Both were a ton of fun, and I think this is going to be a favourite for "beer and pretzel" nights.  It was a nice change of pace and should give some variety when you want a quicker game, keep things fun as you are still building up an army, and for getting some play in for your fluffier units that may actually live long enough to do something.  Because of the tiered rollout and how things get deployed it also ensures the games last most of the battle.  Both of our games were called before the end, but one lasted till halfway through turn 4 before we called it which at 1k pt level is a record for my group (though in both cases we knew which way the wind was blowing very early on) lol.

The Bad: GW calling this a tournament playstyle or using the word competitive in any way shape or form is an extreme mistake.  This is a beer and pretzel playstyle through and through.  Sure I would totally play a 3 game tourney of this at a local shop, but it would be more appropriate to call it an "event" then a tourney.  It is just not competitively viable at all.  The balance issues we are accustomed to seeing in 1k are very much still present, and the format if anything actually opens up some new problems I think.  There are definitely factions that just do not have very viable roll-out strategies for the tiered approach from the games my friends have had so far.  

Overall the game type is a net positive for the hobby.  I am going to be way more excited to play low pt games then I was before and I think this is a fantastic intro level to the hobby for new players.  Luck is a much larger factor in meeting engagements then I think it is normally, and the tiered approach provides the illusion of a closely fought competitive game even when a route is actually in progress.  This is going to be great for new players, and for groups with a wide range of competitive levels I think a great player pitted against a new one will allow both to have fun in this setting while in a normal pitched battle it would all basically be over after turn 1.  Competitively and balance wise however, I think meeting engagement is a mess from my initial experiences.   That same increased luck factor that was a bonus to the casual play, is going to make competitive play more frustrating and less rewarding.  I also think balance is if anything worse then it is at basic 1k with high movement models/armies even stronger then they were before as an example. 

Overall, I am still really frustrated GW billed this as a competitive/tourney experience. while simultaneously pleased with it as a casual game mode at the same time.  I get why GW advertised it how they did, and its a lot of fun but it is just not what they advertised.

[michu]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

hey found out that open play is not for them.

No, they problem is that they try to play open play competitively - it's bound to backfire. Try some more relaxed approach (e.g. don't choose the best options) and it will be much better.

[Belper]

21 hours ago, Nin Win said:

Take GW's sales numbers from their annual and half year reports, their breakdown by sales channel and come up with average sales per store (both their stores and independent stores) and count the number of tournament players and figure out just how tiny of a minority actual event attendees are.  We know how many players the big events get and even a ton of the smaller ones thanks to the spread of event software and social media use.  Even if every tournament player made a new army for both AoS and 40k every quarter, it would still be a drop in the bucket of their £254 million in sales for the last year.

That's a quarter of a billion pounds.  There is just no way tournament players are anything but a minority.  They're simply the most vocal online and the most likely to show up to organized events and gaming nights at stores and clubs.  The majority of GW's customers play in their own houses at at friends' places.

This is why GW keeps talking about games that fit on kitchen tables and why this new GHB concentrates so much on smaller table sizes outside of the pitched battle section.  Even the Meeting Engagement section is designed for kitchen table sizes.

We also know from their financial reports that every single product down to the individual SKU is reviewed by the board of directors in terms of return on capital, margins and sales volumes.  Only a small percentage of the total available units and a minority of new releases make it into tournament lists.  The majority are simply not good enough.  If the tournament players made up any significant portion of the customer base their board of directors would have noticed and stopped making the majority of their products unsuitable for the largest portion of their customer base.  I think the better explanation is that competitive matched play people simply think they are the majority when they are not.

There is an absolutely hilarious amount of very suspect assumptions and logic here.

1. You start talking about active tournament players being a minority of the player base (which is true) and then switch over to describing competitive matched play players as if that is not in actuality a different subset of players. A tourament player is a competitive matched play player, a competitive matched play player is not necessarily a tournament player. You ignore non-competitive matched play entirely.

2. You make the assumption that the only contribution events have to GW's bottom line is what is purchased by those players for that event, which is pretty reductionist.

3. You're making some really wackadoo assumptions about when and where each group plays. Tournament players are just as likely to play primarily at home and non-tournament players are just as likely to play primarily at stores. The community makeup determines that. If everyone in your area but you and your 2 friends do narrative, you're probably not gonna traipse down to the  FLGS to roflstomp fluff players. You're going to play each other to get competitive games. Vice versa is also true. Community supersedes playstyle in this regard.

4.  It's actually unlikely that tournament players are the most vocal online. What IS true is that gameplay creates the most discussion. You attribute people talking about the mechanics and balance of the game as being tournament players, but EVERYONE talks about gameplay and balance. People will proudly proclaim they'd never even consider going to a competitive event in the same sentence they give their opinion on a unit being OP or a rule being exploitable.

5. You make the assumption that tournament players either never or very rarely, buy anything that isn't a competitive option. My 12000pts of stormcast alone is enough to call BS on that.

6. You assume that the board of directors A. Actually does that, which is 60/40 at best and B. That their standard is 'makes a lot of money' rather than 'well, we're not losing anything.' Also  doesn't really address the fact that a significant number of  kits are popular choices for other game systems.

7. Your last paragraph is deeply confused. You start talking about a 'significant proportion' and then switch to 'largest proportion' mid sentence. And I know I mentioned this before, but you've narrowed the scope from where you've started (competitive matched play scunched down into 'people who go to tournaments').

8. The entire paragraph also(intentionally or otherwise) makes the assertion that all of GW's current kits sell well, which is ******, competitiveness be damned.

9. AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN you started at matched play, shrunk down to tournament play and then expanded back out to matched play again without batting an eye.

If you had just made the point that 'the majority of people don't play at tournaments', the response would have been 'duh'. Instead you tried to conflate a bunch of stuff together and tangle everything up in a bunch of nonsense assumptions and lost the point entirely.

 

[tripchimeras]

7 minutes ago, Belper said:

 

1. You start talking about active tournament players being a minority of the player base (which is true) and then switch over to describing competitive matched play players as if that is not in actuality a different subset of players. A tourament player is a competitive matched play player, a competitive matched play player is not necessarily a tournament player. You ignore non-competitive matched play entirely.

 

Great points!  Another thing is that Tournaments and community events get a lot of visibility and are free publicity for the hobby.  They get talked about a lot on forums and podcasts.  This seeps into the community.  So even if we were JUST talking about tourney players here, for better or worse, they have an outsize impact on the game and sales in proportion to the % of the overall population they contain.  They often dictate the "net lists" and what is "OP" and what is "bad".   The tourney stats you constantly see discussed and posted about on forums, are seen by many more people then those who played in a tourney.  Anyone  who participates in the online community (or lurks on these threads) is going to be influenced by this one way or another.  The plentiful podcasters, even those who are hobby focused, often discuss tourneys on their podcasts.  Again anyone listening to them is going to be impacted by this info to some limited degree.  That is meaningful and don't think that GW doesn't understand that either.

[Kramer]

35 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

Yep.  I can see that.  But surely you agree that they used the tool incorrectly?  The second they tried to game the system to get the most powerful thing possible for the roll was when things went off the rails.  If you know the unit strengths well enough to know you are getting an advantage over your opponent based on your selections... just don't.  Choose another unit instead.  They intentionally unbalanced the game and then were unhappy the balance wasn't there.

Must be something wrong with Open Play, amiright? 🤪

You do realise @Dead Scribe never said there is something wrong with open play, iamright🤪 

 but seriously from this conversation I understand two people that normally play ‘pro sports competive level’ got the ghb, where excited enough to give it a try didn’t like it. And dead scribe offered it up as a play experience for those wondering about open play. 

I think the conclusion is it wasn’t for them but big props for trying something new. Maybe give it another go playing someone who does enjoy it so they can show them the ropes. Instead of blaming them for not doing it ‘right’.

[Ravinsild]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:14 PM, HollowHills said:

Actually this is all based on my own experience playing deepkin. I've never actually used more than 6 morsarr in a game. I've played with large units of thralls and used both types of eidolon. 

I have had moderate success on a local level, for instance winning a small tournament, using mixed idoneth lists. However, I am very much aware of where the army struggles against those at the cutting edge. 

 

I want to run a mixed list of Sharks, Thralls, Leviadon and melee infantry with calvary support in a little bit of everything list myself. I would love to have moderate success on a local level haha.