The great big Generals Handbook 2019 Discussion Topic

[whispersofblood]

@Enochi you are misunderstanding,

But I will first point out some misconceptions you are making about my position. I address the chaff role in my third paragraph.

The comment about horde armies is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I never said that they don't exist, that they aren't competitive, but your point belabours my own. They are viable but we only need to look at faction representation (available on The Honest Wargamer) sample the lists available for those factions from events and we find that true hordes of single models in the competitive realms are extremely rare. And, that fact has a distorting affect on what selections are worthwhile in faction books, and those distortions cause distortions and so on and so forth. The same is true of real range damage.

As to your PT example. Riderless Phoenix are the perfect example of a unit culled at the role stage. The are unable to fulfil a role effectively. Lower the point cost of the unit, makes it a compromise choice can it provide enough in the role, that the something else I get is worthwhile. What if I get 2 or 3? Etc. But the game provides counter balance to that because drop count matters, so dropping the cost of something, letting you take more of that something to the fill the role still has other costs. 

Again your Anointed on foot example displays the same principles, what role can it effectively fill. If the answer is none, then there isn't anything else on the flow chart. If he was 200 points, it doesn't matter if he was the best at his role, you might determine that the cost you have to bear to get the best isn't worth it, or having looked at your options holistically you might determine the trade of in effectiveness is to steep and that you have to take him for whatever cost you can. This likely would mean your faction has structural issues, not that he is worth 200 pts.

This is all very well known stuff, its the basis of money ball, and why Liverpool and Manchester City from an organisational stand point leagues ahead of the rest of the Premier League. And, why on the field they are successful. I

@Overread Cost is an important factor, but its not the FIRST factor, basically its convincing a person looking for a car to drive, that a non-functional car has value as scrap. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by whispersofblood
furthermore

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

13 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Enoch you are misunderstanding,

But I will first point out some misconceptions you are making about my position. I address the chaff role in my third paragraph.

The comment about horde armies is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I never said that they don't exist, that they aren't competitive, but your point belabours my own. They are viable but we only need to look at faction representation (available on The Honest Wargamer) sample the lists available for those factions from events and we find that true hordes of single models in the competitive realms are extremely rare. And, that fact has a distorting affect on what selections are worthwhile in faction books, and those distortions cause distortions and so on and so forth. The same is true of real range damage.

This is all very well known stuff, its the basis of money ball, and why Liverpool and Manchester City from an organisational stand point leagues ahead of the rest of the Premier League. 

@Overread Cost is an important factor, but its not the FIRST factor, basically its convincing a person looking for a car to drive, that a non-functional car has value as scrap. 

Hordes are still playable and popular man, check out the 6Nations lists on honest wargamer (was recently looking at these because I heard some mad man brought KO) plenty of hordes of rats, reapers, skeletons, etc even some hearthguard blobbing (while not a traditional horde it is internally a horde by fyreslayers standards)

[whispersofblood]

12 minutes ago, Lucky Snake Eyes said:

Hordes are still playable and popular man, check out the 6Nations lists on honest wargamer (was recently looking at these because I heard some mad man brought KO) plenty of hordes of rats, reapers, skeletons, etc even some hearthguard blobbing (while not a traditional horde it is internally a horde by fyreslayers standards)

There might be some gap in my explanation, here. I am categorically not saying hordes are non-viable or non-existent in competitive play.  I just played 240 odd rats, I know they are there. The observation is if you are building your list, what consideration do you give the possibility of facing a true horde. At the moment its is probably at the utility level. As in you are taking a unit you would take to deal with the majority of the meta, but you take a spell (like hysterical frenzy) or when deciding between two relatively similar units you err towards the one with some utility in the horde match up. You don't take Hurricanes over Longstrikes because you might fight hordes at the moment at least.

[sal4m4nd3r]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:30 PM, 5kaven5lave said:

Any word on the Nurgle points chaps?

Lord of Afflictions 200

Sloppity Bilepiper 90

Spoilpox Scriviner 90

Bloab Rotspawned, Morbidex Twiceborn, Orrguts Daemonspewn 240

Beast of Nurgle 80

Pusgoyle Blightlords 200

Affliction Cyst 200

Blight Cyst 200

They are all 20 point decreases, except for the two demon heralds which went down 10. Pretty disappointing. Glottkin has no business being 420 points. Horticulous still over costed, all maggoth lords still overcosted, plague cyst still over costed, beasts still over costed. Nurgles menagerie battalion at 240 points, plus overcosted horticulous and beats just like mind bogglingly bad. Affliction cyst is just a bad battalion in general and needs a re-write.  Same for plague cyst IMO. The GUO and the KoS being the same points cost is ridiculous. 

Pusgoyles seem worth it now at 100 a piece. And blight cyst going down is nice at 200

Pestilent Throng  (nurgle beasts of chaos battalion) staying at 200 points is LOL. 

Wildfire taurus went down to 80. Probably going to ally in bray shaman so he can cast it, so I got that going for me, which is nice

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[Kasper]

14 hours ago, Belper said:

Except it doesn't though? The changes  are so minimal that most skew lists are unaffected or not particularly different.

Some armies had points adjusted up/down which attempts to encourage usage of other units within a faction. Even if I don't agree with the exact point decreases or increases, and every unit they have picked, would you honestly rather have seen them in the 50-70ish range? I think it is important that they take babysteps, and not kneejerk changes that could have a massive influence.

[PJetski]

32 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Glottkin has no business being 420 points. Horticulous still over costed, all maggoth lords still overcosted,

I think GW applies a tax to special characters, because most of them are overpriced for what they actually do.

[5kaven5lave]

@sal4m4nd3r

Agreed, I love all the flying units and the beasts but this really isn’t really the shot in the arm Nurgle needs. 

[sal4m4nd3r]

3 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I think GW applies a tax to special characters, because most of them are overpriced for what they actually do.

 Glott should be priced at 360-380 I think. Horticulous at 200 starts to look good. I think a bigger shot to the arm for nurgle would be a reduction in summoning points across the board. It should take 2-3 turns to be able to summon ten plaguebearers. The whole tier level should be shifted down. 7 points should get you 10 plaguebearers, not 5. Horticulous and drones should be 14 points, not 21. GUO should be 21 not 28. ETC. Would love to see the Lord of plagues rule (corpse ridden mulch) applied to all nurgle units as an allegiance ability. (if any models were slain that turn in combat, add the number and dice roll together. if its 7+ receive on contagion point. )

Edited June 17, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[tripchimeras]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

The comment about horde armies is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I never said that they don't exist, that they aren't competitive, but your point belabours my own. They are viable but we only need to look at faction representation (available on The Honest Wargamer) sample the lists available for those factions from events and we find that true hordes of single models in the competitive realms are extremely rare. And, that fact has a distorting affect on what selections are worthwhile in faction books, and those distortions cause distortions and so on and so forth. The same is true of real range damage.

This right here is so important.  All of your posts on this topic have been very good, I don't agree with absolutely everything, but its the single biggest factor in list building.  I've seen a lot of people discuss for instance that they think eels aren't THAT good.  Well, on paper, you are right.  It is the role they fill both internally and externally in combination with the other rules within the deepkin book that makes eels so good.  The other truly important consideration for stuff like this is the rule of exponential returns.  The more eels you include the more effective their rules are.  The vultaic blast in a vacuum is meh, but if you mass it over many eels and are selective with its use it becomes one of the most important parts of the army.   The role a unit plays in terms of list building importance cannot be understated.  All of the tourney stats are there for us to see, like wispersofblood said, there is no need for anecdotal evidence.  When playing competitively you need to determine 2 things off the bat, A. what armies are brought most to tourneys and B. what lists are most consistently at the top.  The answers to these 2 questions form the basis of how you need to build a tourney list.  You must take something built to beat the common lists in the early rounds, and the most successful lists in the later rounds.  All other list types must be planned for in the margins, and that is all you can really do. 

As an example I think Sharks are well pointed for what they do at 120pts.  If you take their combat prowess and add the shooting they do on top of that based on counterparts in each you probably do get a unit worth about 120pts.  The problem is what is their role?  The answer is that I don't really know, and that is the problem.  I think they are more a combat unit then they are a shooting unit, and at that price point in combination with the generally poor state of deepkin as a shooting army you have to ask yourself is it possible to get almost any use out of their shooting in a game?  I think to even be capable of sniping the odd character, or killing a chaff unit or 2, they would either need to be paired with reavers (or god forbid leviadon) or you need to take 4+ of them.  In either event they are absolutely not worth their points for such a slight task/purpose.  The result?  You basically must discount the shooting attack from their profile entirely when considering their purpose within your army, which means you are no longer paying 120pts for their combat AND shooting, you are paying 120pts for JUST their combat ability.  And here, once again, we must ask ourselves what is their role in combat?  They provide no mortal wounds, they have worse movement then eels, they are less durable then eels, they do less damage and have less wounds then thralls, if taking more then 1 in a unit they require leadership bubble attention to prevent 120pt a pop deletions in battleshock far more so then anything else in the army.  Again the result is no matter which way you turn there is something more efficient at that role. 

So to balance the sharks we either need A. a universe where their shooting role accomplishes something which does not exist in the deepkin book as constructed and/or B. a pt cost in which their combat role is justified.  I think at 80-100pts they become more valuable in combat then thralls and eels on a pure combat basis.  I think the mortal wounds and movement speed makes eels still potentially better, but here at least is a world where I can invision taking 4 of them at which point the shooting may actually now provide some minor value, perhaps even enough where they can finally have a defined role and use worth their points.  But thematically 4-8 sharks running around the table does not make much sense, and thus we get back to now the unit no longer providing what GW envisioned, which is perhaps game breaking in a wholly different way.  This goes back to how damn difficult it is making dual purpose units balanced and usable, I really don't know what the answer is, but I do know going back decades it is something GW has never been able to crack.

Edited June 17, 2019 by tripchimeras

[chord]

What I don't get is the points on the Celestant Prime.   Does GW just not like him?

[kuroyume]

14 minutes ago, chord said:

Does GW just not like him?

There are so many decisions, especially on the bigger models for SCE, that make no sense in the context of the whole game. Celestant Prime is one of the most flagrant, of course. A 7 wound model that is only useful if he sits two turns out of the table and whose contribution is likely to be wiping out one unit and then melting out of existence should not be as expensive as he is. Vandus costing 40 points more than something like the Black Coach is equally nonsensical. Stardrake at 560 is mind boggling when so many deadly monsters are less than 500. 

[Thiagoma]

33 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

As an example I think Sharks are well pointed for what they do at 120pts.  If you take their combat prowess and add the shooting they do on top of that based on counterparts in each you probably do get a unit worth about 120pts.  The problem is what is their role?  The answer is that I don't really know, and that is the problem.  I think they are more a combat unit then they are a shooting unit, and at that price point in combination with the generally poor state of deepkin as a shooting army you have to ask yourself is it possible to get almost any use out of their shooting in a game?  I think to even be capable of sniping the odd character, or killing a chaff unit or 2, they would either need to be paired with reavers (or god forbid leviadon) or you need to take 4+ of them.  In either event they are absolutely not worth their points for such a slight task/purpose.  The result?  You basically must discount the shooting attack from their profile entirely when considering their purpose within your army, which means you are no longer paying 120pts for their combat AND shooting, you are paying 120pts for JUST their combat ability.  And here, once again, we must ask ourselves what is their role in combat?  They provide no mortal wounds, they have worse movement then eels, they are less durable then eels, they do less damage and have less wounds then thralls, if taking more then 1 in a unit they require leadership bubble attention to prevent 120pt a pop deletions in battleshock far more so then anything else in the army.  Again the result is no matter which way you turn there is something more efficient at that role. 

It match what i was saying about Phoenix beeing useless without an Anointed.

 

What a Phoenix is suposed to do is take a beating. They could take a lot of púnish and giving other Behemoths a run for they money with:

-   -1to hit aura

- save 5 (=1 save for each spell cast, and Phoenix Temple doesnt have mages, so you may count on 1 or 2 ALLIES wizard and any enemy casting at 18 range)

- Anointed Save After Save 4+ AND 3 attacks that the bird doesnt lose when it gets hurt

 

Without the rider:

 

- The -1 to hit aura becames useless, since you wont get a save 5+ behemoth in close combat. At best its save is going to 3 and would still have no mortal wound protection.

- Wet Noodle attacks - Since now it doesnt have resilience, its attacks are gonna go down fast, the bird is no longer a threat.

 

What role does it serve now?  None.

 

Dragonlord was another offender. 40 points incresase?  It had a 340 points cost already! It is not like it can take nearly 400 pts down on its own.

What does it bring to the table that makes it necessary to bump it to 380?

 

 

[whispersofblood]

40 minutes ago, chord said:

What I don't get is the points on the Celestant Prime.   Does GW just not like him?

Haha some things logic, reason and interpretation can't explain. But I expect there to be an exalted Celestant Prime coming since he got smashed in Forbidden Power.

[Forrix]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

Haha some things logic, reason and interpretation can't explain. But I expect there to be an exalted Celestant Prime coming since he got smashed in Forbidden Power.

Is the Anvil of Apotheosis still off-line in the lore? I know GW can just snap their fingers and say its back if they want some characters reforged but I'm curious.

[Barbossal]

As a Seraphon and Tzeentch player, I definitely feel loved in this GHB. It feels good to get some of the big pain points resolved.

Some of the changes are quite funny - Witch Hunter being moved to 40 points is silly while the rest of Devoted is still overcosted.

Oh well - it's caused me to look at the robed maniacs again haha

Edited June 17, 2019 by Barbossal

[JackStreicher]

21 minutes ago, Forrix said:

Is the Anvil of Apotheosis still off-line in the lore? I know GW can just snap their fingers and say its back if they want some characters reforged but I'm curious.

It was back online e rather immediately if I recall correctly. 

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

Dwarf Warriors likely went up by 10, not because they are used in Dispossessed, but because they get used in Order soup armies a lot. Why? They are efficient Battleline units, as they do not require support from the relevant heroes in order to hold objectives. They are basically the best part of a battleline tax, as soup lists often capitalize on the best of the Order units. In Dispossessed allegiance, they are overshadowed by Longbeards, but because Mixed Order is more relevant to the game right now, I am certain GW decided to increase their points; just like how Skinks were changed.

As it stands, my brother's Dispossessed list had 100 points knocked off it so it worked out well for him. This is including 2 cannons.

As for the Freeguild Griffon, a 20 point increase is nothing for such an efficient monster. He's easily worth 300, yet alone 280. My list freed up 50 points even with the increase to the Griffon as the cavalry and greatswords came down. It was 1990 so I can even make a unit of 20 greatswords 30 now.

Edit: 40 point Witch Hunter is actually relevant, at least to a Freeguild player. Before it was him or a command point, assuming you have that left. Now, if you have 40 left over I'd take it purely to be a beacon for command abilities. One of my lists adds up just right for this. He also fits into allies; the common ones being a Luminark and Battlemage being 360 combined.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Knight Scáthach of Fimm

[prochuvi]

After see so many crys of idoneth players about the shark i have checked the warscoll and i dont know what people think is wrong with it.

Gyrocopter\bomber of dispossesed:80 points

1'5 damage at rangue and 0'1 at melle

4 wound with 4 save

Idoneth shark:120 points

5 damage at melle and 1'5 at rangue

8 wounds with 4 save

 

So the shard cost 50% more than the copter for 100% more wounds,500% more damage(6'5 shark vs 1'5 copter) and same other stats

 

So two unit with same role and the shark is so much better and i dont see people crying about the copters

Edited June 17, 2019 by prochuvi

[18121812]

@whispersofblood You're absolutely right in that in a competitive list, each unit should have a role, and absolutely wrong that points cost is the last thing to look at, and can't make a unit good. Points cost is part of determining the role. You can't decide if a unit is potentially good at a role until you've looked at its points, and any unit that currently exists in this game could become an effective choice in the game if you reduced its points enough. If the unit gets cheap enough, roles appear. The argument to the contrary is frankly bizarre to me.

So yes, reducing a unit's cost enough will eventually make it competitive. Swarmofseals'  makes some excellent points in his thread about why just massively dropping points until they're cost effective is a bad idea for GW long term, in that some units would just feel wrong being super cheap, and jerking non-book armies points down now and then back up again when they get better rules would go over poorly.  

And I'm not sure why you keep referencing sports teams. No one is saying analysis isn't useful, just that they don't agree with your analysis. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by 18121812

[Nevvermore]

10 hours ago, prochuvi said:

After see so many crys of idoneth players about the shark i have checked the warscoll and i dont know what people think is wrong with it.

Gyrocopter\bomber of dispossesed:80 points

1'5 damage at rangue and 0'1 at melle

4 wound with 4 save

Idoneth shark:120 points

5 damage at melle and 1'5 at rangue

8 wounds with 4 save

 

So the shard cost 50% more than the copter for 100% more wounds,500% more damage(6'5 shark vs 1'5 copter) and same other stats

 

So two unit with same role and the shark is so much better and i dont see people crying about the copters

The Gyrocopter is one of the worst units in the game, you don’t see people crying about it because no one uses it.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Nevvermore

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

9 minutes ago, Nevvermore said:

The Gyrocopter is one of the worst units in the game, you don’t see people crying about it because no one uses it.

Eyy now with the new merc company it might

[EMMachine]

12 hours ago, Knight Scáthach of Fimm said:

Dwarf Warriors likely went up by 10, not because they are used in Dispossessed, but because they get used in Order soup armies a lot. Why? They are efficient Battleline units, as they do not require support from the relevant heroes in order to hold objectives. They are basically the best part of a battleline tax, as soup lists often capitalize on the best of the Order units. In Dispossessed allegiance, they are overshadowed by Longbeards, but because Mixed Order is more relevant to the game right now, I am certain GW decided to increase their points; just like how Skinks were changed.

Yeah, this could basicly be a point. Let's compare them for example with Freeguild Guard.

The Freeguild has 1" more movement (the warriors are more stable in case of running with a hornblower)

Warrors have more +1 Bravery, are hitting/wounding better bepending on the weapon (Freeguild needs basicly 30 models to hit better), can have Double handed weapons + Shield (for some reason), can have two banners.

And with the generals Handbook 2018 both cost the same, which means warriors are favored.

[whispersofblood]

12 hours ago, 18121812 said:

@whispersofblood You're absolutely right in that in a competitive list, each unit should have a role, and absolutely wrong that points cost is the last thing to look at, and can't make a unit good. Points cost is part of determining the role. You can't decide if a unit is potentially good at a role until you've looked at its points, and any unit that currently exists in this game could become an effective choice in the game if you reduced its points enough. If the unit gets cheap enough, roles appear. The argument to the contrary is frankly bizarre to me.

So yes, reducing a unit's cost enough will eventually make it competitive. Swarmofseals'  makes some excellent points in his thread about why just massively dropping points until they're cost effective is a bad idea for GW long term, in that some units would just feel wrong being super cheap, and jerking non-book armies points down now and then back up again when they get better rules would go over poorly.  

And I'm not sure why you keep referencing sports teams. No one is saying analysis isn't useful, just that they don't agree with your analysis. 

Its funny because one of the first things I said was that effective points drops would bust the narrative, and @swarmofseals essentially confirmed GW has a similar point of view. You can check the time stamps, it is a critical data point to the conversation I am trying to have.

I also think people are misunderstanding my position on points or more accurately resources expenditure. I have never said there is a point where any unit could be made cheap enough to be viable, if you can quote me and show where I have said that I would appreciate it and I will edit it out. Enoch has created some strawman to attack my argument, and it is derailing what I'm trying to get across.

Price is obviously a critical component. Cost is about competitiveness, capacity or capability is the first consideration ie; role. No one is going to choose Namarti Reavers as their main damage dealer, regardless of the point cost.  Especially as @swarmofseals confirmed there is a floor when it comes to point cost. They could theoretically be priced at a point where they could be the main dmg dealer. But, that place is so low it would fray the narrative and is thus untenable.

So in a world where their cost is in line with the narrative they can't fill the role.

In a series of critical measures, cost is the last to consider given the context I've previously established. That doesn't mean it isn't critical at all. Cost should be used determinate of how well a unit is fit for purpose. Gors vs ungors is the perfect example. Both are effective chaff units, and light combat units, relatively close in output. Either could fill the role well, but one is just cheaper and it's weaknesses are manageable or marginal in comparison. But, you never reach the points if ungors couldn't do the job, and you would take gors even if they were 1 pt per model overpriced. On the other hand you could price Gors as a heavy combat unit, and they would never see the light of day because their rules and points would be at cross purposes. An example of points trying to assign role.(Closed world example)

Cost is often the determiner of competitiveness, the best factions tend to have good rules first and foremost though. But, if your battletome is in the middle of the rules deviation you still need a hammer even if you have to overpay, or you don't play the game.

Edited June 18, 2019 by whispersofblood

[Dead Scribe]

That is why most competitive armies are the armies that have hammers that are ideally not just priced right, but underpriced.

[Enochi]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Enoch has created some strawman to attack my argument, and it is derailing what I'm trying to get across.

You know this would be easier to believe that you  actually read what I wrote if you bothered to get my name right. Considering you have gotten it wrong multiple times

Edited June 18, 2019 by Enochi