The great big Generals Handbook 2019 Discussion Topic

[TheCovenLord]

6 hours ago, Overread said:

Buffs is an issue, its like Daughters of Khaine where witch aelfs are good, but become broken good with built in combos within the army due to buffs and auras and army abilities. 

I posed the idea of limiting the number of buffs a unit can be under at any one time and still think its a viable option; even if it varies so some units have a greater or lesser limit. However I think such a rule would require GW to be very clear in tehir wording about what is a "buff" so that players could easily count them up rather than wondering "is a priest prayer a buff? Do endless spells count? Etc.."

I really like this idea. Max 1 positive buff per unit, Max 1 Negative buff per unit at any time, new "buffs" replace the current ones when used. Implement it under the "rule of one".  GW would have to make an index though and re-categorize everything as a "Status effect" and positive or negative.

Would also help reduce the effectiveness of certain prayers/buff stacking which currently have little counterplay beyond chaff shields as they are usually tied to prayers, command points or are just active. It could also have unforeseen consequences though and such a massive overhaul would potentially just shift who is "broken strong"

 

I am biased in my statement though. I would prefer a slightly slower game and grindier combats.

Edited June 21, 2019 by TheCovenLord

[Overread]

36 minutes ago, TheCovenLord said:

I really like this idea. Max 1 positive buff per unit, Max 1 Negative buff per unit at any time, new "buffs" replace the current ones when used. Implement it under the "rule of one".  GW would have to make an index though and re-categorize everything as a "Status effect" and positive or negative.

Would also help reduce the effectiveness of certain prayers/buff stacking which currently have little counterplay beyond chaff shields as they are usually tied to prayers, command points or are just active. It could also have unforeseen consequences though and such a massive overhaul would potentially just shift who is "broken strong"

 

I am biased in my statement though. I would prefer a slightly slower game and grindier combats.

The bonus is if GW rules it one buff and one debuff per unit then they can also add in cumulative buff spells/prayers. So standard factions would be on 1 which keeps support units valuable, but also means you have to be careful what you pick; whilst at the same time also meaning that some armies could have cumulative spells which can stack one atop the other. Perhaps not being as strong on their own, but allowing two or three mages to stack buff a single unit - a risky tactic but a good one for niche armies that might otherwise not have as powerful units on the table etc...

 

[Azamar]

Genuine question (as I haven’t seen it in action) how much of the concern about 30 hearthguard is theory crafting, and how much actually translates to a problem?

I ask as it often gets mentioned as the main fyreslayer tactic (and often listing every single buff in the book on them simultaneously) but it seems to me to be too many eggs in one basket to be viable. 

By that I mean the minimum cost of a lords of the lodge battalion is 1100 points. It makes for a pretty nasty unit, but one that can guard precisely one objective and has to stay quite bunched up to keep many of those buffs active (so no guarding multiple objectives by snaking out, and can’t easily make use of the vorstag run and charge tricks). It’s not moving fast, so anyone who knows what they’re doing would surely just ignore it, or feed it a few chaff units whilst bringing the entire rest of their army down on the other 900 points of fyreslayers.

For my part I’d just remove the max unit discount and put it on the vulkite berserkers, as an elite unit has no business having that kind of discount in the first place, but how much of a problem are fyreslayers actually causing right now with that trick? 

[TheVenerableBede]

13 hours ago, Kitsumy said:

People like me arent asking for nerfs to fyreslayers as army. Only want that hearthguard be a bit more balanced. Since right now they are absolutly broken op and noone can deny it. Saying dont go cloose them is a joke i think. Since it is sooo stupid. So a unit can be broken since you only need to avoid it..... 

 

I would also add here that 30 HGBs on 32mm bases, 3 ranks of 10, 1" apart, has a table real estate of, what, 21" x 5"? So that's a theoretical charge range bubble of 66" x 29"?  So avoiding them is not always so easy.  And if they are Hermdar, there is nothing in the game that can charge them and come out on top.  If I were nerfing, I would make a couple of changes: that command ability in YOUR combat phase, rather than THE combat phase, so that they are at least able to be alpha struck by a low drop army; and ideally the FNP would be dropped or never go above 6.  They are still the strongest combat unit in the game without the FNP, why that was tacked onto their Warscroll is beyond me.

[RuneBrush]

Back onto the generals handbook as a whole.  Anybody else find it a bit strange that the two new allegiances added in Forbidden Power didn't have "proper" entries in the Pitched Battle profiles - but the Penumbral Engine & new Endless Spells did!?

[JackStreicher]

14 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Back onto the generals handbook as a whole.  Anybody else find it a bit strange that the two new allegiances added in Forbidden Power didn't have "proper" entries in the Pitched Battle profiles - but the Penumbral Engine & new Endless Spells did!?

Definitely. I still hope that‘s due to to them adding Dispossessed to the Lethisian Defenders Allegiance 🤣

 

@TheVenerableBede i Said Right when the new tome was released that 2 blobs of 30 Heartguards have absolute map control, can‘t die (60 wounds per blob and usually a 4+ feel no pain) and kill anything that moves within thread range. All people were answering was „you just need to kill the heroes and they‘re weakened“ - ... not really. Or „Gristlegore is worse“ 🤷🏼‍♂️ I din‘t Know how GW could have Not have seen that coming.

Edited June 22, 2019 by JackStreicher

[prochuvi]

The game is won by speed,there is a reason that even with the "best melle unit of the game" as people here are wrongly claiming fyreslayers are at the level of idoneth or lower.

They have 4" move that is a joke and gonna do imposible win any objetive game.

Sure if we get one especial lodge and a special warlord trait etc etc we can move 12" only the first turn and only wholy within 12" of our general but even then we have 4" move out if first turn.

There is a reason that eels are broken,14" move,fly etc etc THAT are stats that win games.

 

Also per example idoneths tralls have 50% more move and 50-100% more damague than hearthguard for only 10 extra points and the 4++ if they are close to heroes.

But hearthguard are broken and tralls are useless(as every idoneths player say) even if math show how tralls are better than hearthguards(i prefer 50% move and 50%-100% more damage than a 50% extra save only close o heroes)

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by prochuvi

[Forrix]

18 hours ago, Azamar said:

Genuine question (as I haven’t seen it in action) how much of the concern about 30 hearthguard is theory crafting, and how much actually translates to a problem?

I ask as it often gets mentioned as the main fyreslayer tactic (and often listing every single buff in the book on them simultaneously) but it seems to me to be too many eggs in one basket to be viable. 

By that I mean the minimum cost of a lords of the lodge battalion is 1100 points. It makes for a pretty nasty unit, but one that can guard precisely one objective and has to stay quite bunched up to keep many of those buffs active (so no guarding multiple objectives by snaking out, and can’t easily make use of the vorstag run and charge tricks). It’s not moving fast, so anyone who knows what they’re doing would surely just ignore it, or feed it a few chaff units whilst bringing the entire rest of their army down on the other 900 points of fyreslayers.

For my part I’d just remove the max unit discount and put it on the vulkite berserkers, as an elite unit has no business having that kind of discount in the first place, but how much of a problem are fyreslayers actually causing right now with that trick? 

I haven't taken a 30 HGB unit for pretty much exactly the reasons you say. I've been running a 15 man HGB poleaxe unit in lotl and doing pretty well with it, including against Gristlegore (though I still lost that one due to objectives). I'm currently building 15 more but planning on running two 15 man units, one poleaxe and one broadaxe. I've also started running Icon of the Ancestors for 18inch bubble on the battlesmith and taking prayer of embers when I take Hermdar.

I know 30 man HGB units did well at 6 Nations but I'm still not sold on that build personally. Objectives seem to be the Achilles's heel of Fyreslayers when I play them and I've yet to entirely lose a 15 man HGB unit. 

[Kitsumy]

Eels broken?? Letss se numbers.taken from honest tables ( i dont know if they are accurate or not but it is all i have)

 

Tournaments won: 9th place

5+wins etc: 8th place

Winrate: 6th place.

So stats shows idk are roughly 7th at best. That is spaming only the supossed broken op autowin eels..... So if they are so broken as haters claim why arent they 1-2 place? Heck we arent even on top 5. 

My maths. And tourney numbers shows eels were perfect. Strong for sure but milles away to be op. Despite the hate some guys have them.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kitsumy

[prochuvi]

In statics raw numbers dont matters onky relatives.

So only win rate matters.

Per example if stormcast have 50% win rate and idoneths 60%, but we have 100 stormcast players and 10 idoneths player,it is 100% comon sense and basical maths that even if idoneths are better than stormcast,the stormcast gonna win more tournaments because they have more players.

Or easier army A have 50% win rate and 100 players and army B have 50% win rate and 10 players,then army A gonna have 10 times the tournaments wins than army B even if they both are the same balance.

This is the reason that nobody that know maths use raw numbers and only relatives.

And with relatives idoneths have 58'5 win rate that they are at 4th place,only behind of broken armys as dok,fec or slanesh and at the lvl of skavens.

[ACBelMutie]

Does anyone know if Reapers are still part of Legions of Nagash?

Greetings

[Nin Win]

On 6/21/2019 at 6:04 AM, Overread said:

Personally I dislike the concept of "spirit of the game" because it is a bit like "casual play" in that it can mean very different things to different players.

I agree.  So you talk to your opponent and find out what people are into and find people who like the same sort of fun you do.  And find events that support that same sort of fun.  Be it a tournament or a narrative event or whatever.

On 6/21/2019 at 6:44 AM, Dead Scribe said:

Unfortunately whenever spirit of the rules is a topic of debate, it becomes a touchy subject.  I and others like me get criticized daily across social media or other forums for playing the game competitively as if its an abomination to play to win and is akin to "clubbing baby seals and enjoying it".

People just enjoy different things so if you have a mismatch with your opponent, it's going to create a problem.  If someone selects their army based purely on what they want to paint and you have a tuned and tested tournament list and you crush them, what does it accomplish for anyone?

One of the problems with a single way to play being solidified as the norm is that it excludes portions of the game that are not that thing.  If a local club is only ever about playing narrative recreations of battles in novels, it necessarily excludes armies and units that are not in the novels.  If a local group is all about tournaments and tournament practice, it excludes the majority of the units out there that are simply not good enough for a tournament list.

It's okay that different people want different things from the game and understandable when they advocate a bit too vociferously for them.  I know if my area went super competitive my entire collection would become shelf sitters or I'd need to get really used to losing every game.  Similarly I bet if other people's regular opponents suddenly became super interested in open and narrative play, a tournament army could get relegated to the shelf as well.

I think the ability to find a consensus with each opponent is a skill worth developing.  Play competitive in tournaments and practice games, don't when the opponent wants a different experience.  Actually talk to people to find out what's what.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Nin Win

[Qrow]

The attached statistical breakdown (retrieved  from https://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-2-2-final-stats-13th-june-2019/) is accurate as of the 13th of june. If we are going to discuss balance based on win rate then lets actually provide the data.

On the FS side, they have a 51.8% win rate, even with "the best melee unit in the game". I can see why people are calling for a nerf, but I am beginning to suspect that this super unit build is exactly what GW designed them for.

You have one massive, unkillable unit. It can move 4", hit like a truck, absorb damage like a tank, but costs almost a third of your entire army and loses a massive amount of power if the squishy squishy heroes that buff it die. It is literally FSs gimmick, like HoS forcing you to attack last.

Now say it gets nerfed, I think it will go up around 20 points, not the 40+lose horde bonus that everyone suggests. Ok, cool. How will you compensate FS for that hit? FS have exactly 3 units, they can't simply adapt the builds like other armies can. If the 360 point increase in the cost of a full unit of HGB goes through, then a 51.8% win rate army will have taken the hardest nerf any AoS army has seen so far.

51.8% win rate is not offensive, HoS have been out for less time but you can still see how they immediately started became one of the top 5 with a 62.1% win rate. FS are clearly designed for synergistic buffing, they have terrible board control and one good unit.

This is why I was concerned about the idea of 3 month or less changes to armies, instead of adapting their own lists to beat this new enemy, people want every new thing adapted to be beaten by their current builds. Take chaff units, use the movement decreasing endless spells or even just summon the prismatic palisade and block off a portion of the map. The  that terrifying 600 point unit with 4" move will have to, very slowly, plod around it.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Qrow

[darranh1]

8 hours ago, TheVenerableBede said:

I would also add here that 30 HGBs on 32mm bases, 3 ranks of 10, 1" apart, has a table real estate of, what, 21" x 5"? So that's a theoretical charge range bubble of 66" x 29"?  So avoiding them is not always so easy.  And if they are Hermdar, there is nothing in the game that can charge them and come out on top.  If I were nerfing, I would make a couple of changes: that command ability in YOUR combat phase, rather than THE combat phase, so that they are at least able to be alpha struck by a low drop army; and ideally the FNP would be dropped or never go above 6.  They are still the strongest combat unit in the game without the FNP, why that was tacked onto their Warscroll is beyond me.

I thought lords of the lodge the unit has to be within 6inches of any hero from that battalion. With 30 models on 32in bases it’s limited to keep them all in for buff and snaking they out means lose all of their buffs. Isn’t that correct??

[Kitsumy]

U cant see fireslayer numbers yet. Those tables are since the start of aos 2. And slayers git the tome less than 1 month ago.

 

And again noone is asking for huge nerfs ti hearth alone. Those shoukd go together buffs in others places. So the total power remain the same but with a better distribution than 99% on 1 unit only. 

[Overread]

I wonder what the win/loss results would look like if results were tallied from the start of AoS, but each individual army only had results logged since their new Battletome was released (with, of course, results from the start shown for any that don't yet have a 2.0 battletome)

[Qrow]

24 minutes ago, darranh1 said:

I thought lords of the lodge the unit has to be within 6inches of any hero from that battalion. With 30 models on 32in bases it’s limited to keep them all in for buff and snaking they out means lose all of their buffs. Isn’t that correct??

It is, pretty much all their buffs are completely within 12-18".

[Qrow]

43 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

U cant see fireslayer numbers yet. Those tables are since the start of aos 2. And slayers git the tome less than 1 month ago.

The table is from the start of this year, not the start of AoS, I have attached an additional table that compares 2018 results to 2019 results. FS have gone from a 45.5% to a 51.8% win rate for a total increase of +6.3%; comparatively HoS have gone from a 51.7% to a 62.1% win rate (total increase of 10.5%) while being out for less time and FeC have gone from a 47.5% to a 64.1% win rate total increase of 16.6%). As shown, even when taking into account the new battletome, FS are not overperforming to the degree of other top armies.

I actually do agree with you that the power should be shared between the other units, all of which do see play, but the battletome seem to be built around a HGB core and no amount of point changes will stop people taking it. My main problem stems from:

A. People refusing to adapt; take chaff, bring a wall, snipe the heroes, play the objective, a brisk walking pace would do the trick. It is literally one 600 point blob of 4" mov, that must stay fully within 12" of several heroes to get to the level of power everyone complains about.

B. The massive overnerfing people call for; 360 points is massive, change the rules of the lords of the lodge to something else, limit the double attack ability. Seriously, it would be like if I suggested a 360+ point increase to verminlord warpseer and GKoTG lists. Are they overperforming? Yes, do they need to be made redundant? No.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Qrow

[Ahn-ket]

2 hours ago, ACBelMutie said:

Does anyone know if Reapers are still part of Legions of Nagash?

Greetings

They as long the LoN faq isn't changed witch grande them to LoN

[Qrow]

2 hours ago, ACBelMutie said:

Does anyone know if Reapers are still part of Legions of Nagash?

Greetings

Grimghast reapers? Yeah, they can still be taken in LoN, but they now cost 160/420.

[prochuvi]

This topic is going out of topic.

But for me hearthguards are balanced vs batletomes armys,have the same damage per points than similar elites units,similar wounds,but have 50% extra save with a counterplay of must be close to heroes and a 50% less move than similar units.

So a slower unit being the same % mora sturdy seems balanced to me.

They have many counterplays as chaff  units,kite them,snipe the heroes etc

The problem are units fast with zero counterplay as  eels,you cant use chaff due to fly,you cant snipe heroes because they dont need auras,you cant kite them because they move faster than every unit in the game and you cant alpha strike it because can be put out of the table.

I said eels as i could have said any other top unit.

So hearthguard are very good,but have many counterplays so fyreslayers have that win rate.

Hearthguards dont need a nerf,but vulkites need a huge buff of 30-40 points to be competitive and rangued hearthguard need other 40-60 points decrease to be balanced.

People asking for nerfs to hearthguard need think about weaknes\strength of units. A strongth unit with many weakness is balanced,a strongth unit with 0 weakness is broken

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, prochuvi said:

Also per example idoneths tralls have 50% more move and 50-100% more damague than hearthguard for only 10 extra points and the 4++ if they are close to heroes.

But hearthguard are broken and tralls are useless(as every idoneths player say) even if math show how tralls are better than hearthguards(i prefer 50% move and 50%-100% more damage than a 50% extra save only close o heroes)

 

This isn't an Idoneth discussion, I know this, however this cannot be allowed to stand uncontested. 

Using your numbers now;

Lets ignore the ranged attack on the berzerkers, it's not great so who cares.  1 damage vs 2 at double attacks and 1/2 the wounds.  Surface=same.  +1 attack against 1 wound.  OK, there's your 50% more.  Got it.   +1 damage against big things, God forbid you end up in combat with something big,  but say you do so 100% more damage because they have 2x the attacks.  Understood.   Careful though, keep your unit math to small numbers because thralls need to get WAY more guys into combat (that double movement does nothing for pile-ins)  to keep those numbers true and that 2 inch range on the berzerkers is going to be hard to deal with if you go much more than min unit size.

If you're thralls you better hope you wipe the unit because you're looking at taking 2.5x times more damage MINIMUM than the berzerkers.  Not to mention damage on 1 wound units has a much bigger impact on the unit's damage potential than on 2 wound units.  Oh, and they run easier.   Ouch. 

Close to even units?  I think not. 

As always, 2 wounds is more than twice as good as 1 and defense trumps offense.

3 hours ago, prochuvi said:

There is a reason that eels are broken,14" move,fly etc etc THAT are stats that win games.

Let's make eels 500 points for 3.  Then what?  What does Idoneth have?  They have garbage shooters, meh infantry, WAY over costed heroes (seriously, our Eidolons cost almost as much as a zombie dragon!) and an ability that gets off in one round that's essential that we go first in that particular round or it's potency is cut in half.  "Nerf the eels!" is akin to "Kill the faction!"  It's all we have.

It's the problem with expecting the GHB to fix faction problems.  It can break things much easier than balance things.  Factions have to be fixed with FAQs (or new books).

Edit: I am NOT in camp nerf the fyreslyers BTW.  I think we need to see how they pan out but I'm not gonna lie, I read their scroll and said "Yep...that ought to do it."  when I was looking for the next 'spammed unit' looking forward.  I think thralls could be a good unit if priced a certain way or tweaked to have more resurrection potential, but as of now they would not fill the gap if the eels were ruined. 

Edit 2: Oh and fyreslayers can teleport anywhere on the battlefield with the hero they need and be 9 inches away, Idoneth are stuck on a side  of the board.  Just saying 😀

Edited June 22, 2019 by Vextol

[Qrow]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

Fine, make eels 500 points for 3.  Then what?  What does Idoneth have?  They have garbage shooters, bad infantry, WAY over costed heroes (seriously, our Eidolons cost almost as much as a zombie dragon!) and an ability that gets off in one round that's essential that we go first in that particular round or it's potency is cut in half.  "Nerf the eels!" is akin to "Kill the faction!"  It's all we have.

Mate, I 100% feel this point here. Nerf HGB, then what do FS have? Even with a point reduction vulkites damage output is nothing great; auric hearthguard maybe, FS become a range spam army? Alright, the they can use... oh, nothing. Because they have 3 units. 1 of them is great, one is alright and the other is a wet noodle.

 

This next part is in no way aimed at you @Vextol, just wanted to add that so you know I'm saying this at you.

Out of funsies I have fixed AoS balance issues by adopting the same suggested balancing baseline for HGB to other troubling units. I chose an extremely conservative basline set; HBG being increased to 140 and the horde bonus removed (instead of the max suggested 180 and horde bonus removed). This would mean and increase from 600 to 840 point; or a 40% total increase in cost. Additionally, using the win percentage of FS as a baseline, i have factored in army win percentage as an additional variable. For example; skaven vs FS is 58.4 - 51.8 = 6.6 or 6.6%. Together with our baseline of 40%, the equation for skaven units will be base (1.4) plus army difference (0.066) for a total of 1.466 or a 46.6% increase in cost. Remember, as per a base example of HGB, all horde bonuses will be removed.

As such, here is how to fix the balance of AoS:

 

SKAVEN: 1.4 + .066 = 1.466

verminlord warpseer: 380

Plague monks: 100/400

 

FeC: 1.4 + .123 = 1.523

Ghoul king on terror ghiest: 610

 

Slaanesh: 1.4 + .103 = 1.503

Keeper of Secrets: 540

 

IDK: 1.4 + .067 = 1.467

Akhelian morrsarr guard: 230/920 (based on pre-GHB2019 point costs)

 

DoK: 1.4 + .124 = 1.524

Witch aelves: 150/450 (based on pre-GHB2019 costs to show how wrong GW got their point changes)

 

 

There we are mates, all fixed. Feel free to use the formula on all overperforming units you see. And in case it isn't obvious, I'm being outrageously sarcastic. But, it is worth knowing, for comparison sake, that I was genuinely conservative in the baseline. People are asking for a 40-60 point increase for HGB AND the removal of the horde bonus, I did all this stupid working out on an only 20 point increase and removal of horde bonus.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Qrow
added IDK and HoS examples

[Vextol]

3 minutes ago, Qrow said:

Mate, I 100% feel this point here. Nerf HGB, then what do FS have? Even with a point reduction vulkites damage output is nothing great; auric hearthguard maybe, FS become a range spam army? Alright, the they can use... oh, nothing. Because they have 3 units. 1 of them is great, one is alright and the other is a wet noodle.

Tiny factions...we walk a fine fine line....

[Fairbanks]

Kinda feeling a little disappointed that the “AoS Community” didn’t let me know that Tomb Kings, Brets, Chaos Dwarfs, the “dead” elves, and everything Forge World got points in the book. 

All y’all who got books ahead of time are utterly failures in my book, because I see a lot of AoS stuff and didn’t know about this until I picked up and saw the book myself.

And to those who didn’t want to see any of them get points: Your tears are delicious.