Jump to content

General's Handbook - Is it good enough?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Warhammer internet, in a nutshell.

Actually I do believe your post is the perfect example of todays "internet"; Pick a sentence out of context and make a useless comment that contributes zero to a discussion. Literally the next sentence (that you didnt put in your quote, how odd) was the entire premise for my post/thread. You obviously can not comment on the GHB20 unless you have followed leaks etc. I have personally already read GHB20.

2 hours ago, Laststand said:

How about people give the thing a chance to be released first? We know the GHB is meant to cover ever style of play, everything gets a bit of support and there is some content for all. 

What its not is a solution to all the things people dont like. If you see it like that you will be disapointed. See it for what it is, a AOS annual with some interesting features and updates. The points updates is a bit of a mess but imagine print schedules, covid and all sorts of plans have collided around that. Give GW space.

 If you really dont like it, dont buy it. Simple as that, vote with your wallet.

See above - The whole premise for my post was that you have been following the leaks/read it. The whole point is exactly that - The GHB20 is lackluster and is a rushed book where a bunch of game systems are combined into this forced annual thing, rather than creating seperate quality books. Just because this is how it has been done in the past doesnt mean we cant move forward and do better. We should be able to expect better, and I will pay for better quality any day of the week.  I dont actually think you read the whole thing because I did say that I only buy it for the Warlord's Edition due to the unique battleplan/realm cards that I like a lot. If those were sold seperately I wouldnt buy the GHB because as it is, it simply isnt worth the pages it has been written upon.

Edit: Also, if COVID is somehow an excuse for GHB20 (it isn't - the book was made at the end of 2019, otherwise it makes no sense they couldnt print the points for armies released in October 2019 and forward) what was the excuse for GHB19? Because that was terrible too, but I guess people forgot about all the whine threads here on TGA and on Facebook etc.

This is an ongoing trend, hence my post - Because I dont see anything positive in the GHB. It is a lackluster product that could be so much better, and it kinda makes GW look bad too since the GHB looks like a somewhat forced purchase for a large amount of their consumers.

I think many of us are more than happy about throwing money at GW - As long as we get something good.

Edited by Kasper
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kasper said:

May I remind you all that last year (GHB19) was a complete shitshow with especially the terrain rules being forced down everyone's throat and making a lot of faction terrain invalid due to restrictions (Gnawholes anyone?). This was later band-aid fixed with an errata/FAQ but luckily a large part of the community simply said "no thanks" and ignored those rules all together.

This was literally the only bad part. 

The open army/war/maps generator was brilliant in the open play section. 
Cities of death rules were really fun and fitting. Also in the narrative section the mercenary rules. 
In matched play they changed things up with very, very solid scenarios. But also added a whole new game type with Meeting Engagements. 
Which granted would be better placed in the narrative section instead of the mercenary rules. 

All in all, your post is filled with hyperbolics about how bad it was... but was it really? I think for an update it was pretty good. Just, afaik, the new one is as well. I think part of it is down to expectation. If you want game changing, I think you will have to wait for 3.0 :D 

But yeah, not doing point and rules updates digitally and keeping it fluid is a missed chance. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Actually I do believe your post is the perfect example of todays "internet"; Pick a sentence out of context and make a useless comment that contributes zero to a discussion. Literally the next sentence (that you didnt put in your quote, how odd) was the entire premise for my post/thread. You obviously can not comment on the GHB20 unless you have followed leaks etc. I have personally already read GHB20.

I'm not excited about this year's GH, will only buy electronic to keep the battleplans up to date on my phone.  Haven't been excited for one, really, since the first one.  It might be good, it might be bad, it might be somewhere in the "dull zone" in between.  Other than updated battleplans and points, I didn't get a whole lot of mileage out of the last couple.

"It's not out yet but it sucks" is *classic* warhammer internet, going back to even before there was proper internet.  Even if you surround it with caveats like "it's not out yet but the leaks have let us read a lot of it" or "it's not out yet but my friend who works at GW has told me all about it" or even "it's not out yet but I somehow have an advanced copy and have read it from page 1 to the end but the rest of you haven't".  It's peak warhammer internet.  Whether the specific criticisms are valid or invalid; on-target or off-target, in context or out of context.  It's still an old classic.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My short answer is yes, it's good enough.

Longer answer:

I think most of the highest value content for me personally could probably be given away for free. The matched play updates are honestly what I get the most mileage out of by far. Points changes, battleplan changes and the occasional rules tweak could easily be pushed out for free. In fact, GW is already doing this in the Winter update.

That said, I also value the content in the rest of the book. I like that they put effort into Narrative and Open play content even though the playerbase for those modes is smaller. If there were more Open and Narrative players then I'd pay a lot more attention to that content. I expect if my kids ever get into the hobby I'll probably start them there and will care more about that content then. When that time comes (if it comes), I will be thrilled to have years of GHB battleplans, scenarios, and weird rules to delve back into.

Would it be nice if this were just published for free every year? Yeah.

Is it worth $35 to me? Absolutely. That's the cost of a single foot hero, and the GHB improves what I get out of the game far more than a single model like that does.

  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be more worth it if the anvil became a new way to make legit heroes for matched play. The return of old hero building is much needed.

perhaps they will rethink and amend the ruling if there is enough poor reception.

otherwise it’s just another set of gimmicky rules that fade away when the next ghb is released and a new ploy to get people to buy things comes out.

yall remember mercs and how quickly some of those instantly went away? Lol

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

My short answer is yes, it's good enough.

Longer answer:

I think most of the highest value content for me personally could probably be given away for free. The matched play updates are honestly what I get the most mileage out of by far. Points changes, battleplan changes and the occasional rules tweak could easily be pushed out for free. In fact, GW is already doing this in the Winter update.

That said, I also value the content in the rest of the book. I like that they put effort into Narrative and Open play content even though the playerbase for those modes is smaller. If there were more Open and Narrative players then I'd pay a lot more attention to that content. I expect if my kids ever get into the hobby I'll probably start them there and will care more about that content then. When that time comes (if it comes), I will be thrilled to have years of GHB battleplans, scenarios, and weird rules to delve back into.

Would it be nice if this were just published for free every year? Yeah.

Is it worth $35 to me? Absolutely. That's the cost of a single foot hero, and the GHB improves what I get out of the game far more than a single model like that does.

Reading some of the comments I feel like some people dont get my point. I dont think the GHB should be free or Im advocating for getting stuff for free in the future in general. I really dont mind throwing money at GW if I feel like Im getting something for my money. Im also not talking about that they should stop making a GHB - My point is that it could be better and of better quality. Imo they should seperate the playstyles within AoS and give them much more dedication and love. Sell 3 different copies each costing what the GHB currently costs and people will buy all 3 if the quality is there and the game systems are fun enough. Make 3 times the bank but have consumers 3 times as happy too. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

2 hours ago, Mandzak-Miniatures said:

I think it would be more worth it if the anvil became a new way to make legit heroes for matched play. The return of old hero building is much needed.

perhaps they will rethink and amend the ruling if there is enough poor reception.

otherwise it’s just another set of gimmicky rules that fade away when the next ghb is released and a new ploy to get people to buy things comes out.

yall remember mercs and how quickly some of those instantly went away? Lol

This is what I fear too. It smells like Meeting Engagements in GHB19. It needed more effort to be properly implemented into matched play. Im fairly certain people will have fun making their own heroes, but in a month from now the majority in matched play will have shelved the custom hero rules and move forward just like the majority played ME for a month and never touched it again.

There will obviously be people that love this due to WHFB wibes and keep playing with it, just like there are people really dedicated to ME, but it will be the vast minority that does this. 

Again - Had they put in more effort and implemented it properly into matched play Everyone would be so much more happy. Scale it properly, and then have a slider for narrative/open play where you crank the combinations to 11 but keep it reasonable within matched play.

Missed opportunity.

Edited by Kasper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The battleplans are very good. You need battlelines in most of them, you can't win only with elite or heroes.

I think GH20 is way better than  GH19.

My only point is the rebalance of the armies. The points reductions seems more oriented to sell than balance worse armies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Im also not talking about that the GHB is completely worthless

It kind of feels you do in your original post.  Your main question is: ‘is it good enough. ‘
followed by calling the 2019 version a complete ****** show and a comparison to McDonald’s burgers wondering why you inflict them upon yourself.

Maybe you’re not calling it completely worthless, but you definitely call it worth less😂 
But I realise you nuanced most of it. 
 

50 minutes ago, Kasper said:

My point is that it could be better and of better quality. Imo they should seperate the playstyles within AoS and give them much more dedication and love. Sell 3 different copies each costing what the GHB currently costs and people will buy all 3 if the quality is there and the game systems are fun enough. Make 3 times the bank but have consumers 3 times as happy too. It seems like a win-win for everyone

I would be against this. I see two main disadvantages and one missed opportunity. 
For one you said yourself you want to throw your money at GW. But not every player has that kind of bank. I known didnt when I started out. That would invalidate two out of three playstyles depending which is more prominent. That’s a portion of the community that won’t broaden its horizons  

secondly there are more production costs to making three 33 page books vs one 99 page book. Costs which will end up going to be included in the price. 

lastly I feel it’s a missed chance if it’s separated more. Not only is it good to have options and ‘educate’ all gamers on different ways to enjoy the hobby, it also makes things unavailable. For example the mercenary rules were a fun matched play addition that shook things up for some factions. But they were in the narrative sections. Would have been a shame if wasn’t a matched play option because they separated it in 3 books. 
 

but yeah, better quality and higher quantity. Always a proponent for that :) 

Edited by Kramer
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the GHB isn’t all about matched play. But as someone who plays more competitively I always feel like the GHB outside of the new battle plans is always a bit of a let down. I think in the current age there is no excuse at all for taking nine months to publish a points change, I don’t even think twice a year is good enough personally, they could easily do regular points updates to address key offenders like every other game on the planet. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jackroks981 said:

I know the GHB isn’t all about matched play. But as someone who plays more competitively I always feel like the GHB outside of the new battle plans is always a bit of a let down. I think in the current age there is no excuse at all for taking nine months to publish a points change, I don’t even think twice a year is good enough personally, they could easily do regular points updates to address key offenders like every other game on the planet. 

That I get. But if you only like Star Wars for jar jar binks. You should only judge it for 1/3 of the movies. Same for the three ways to play ;) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kasper said:

Reading some of the comments I feel like some people dont get my point ... Imo they should seperate the playstyles within AoS and give them much more dedication and love. Sell 3 different copies each costing what the GHB currently costs and people will buy all 3 if the quality is there and the game systems are fun enough. Make 3 times the bank but have consumers 3 times as happy too. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

This is what I fear too. It smells like Meeting Engagements in GHB19. It needed more effort to be properly implemented into matched play. Im fairly certain people will have fun making their own heroes, but in a month from now the majority in matched play will have shelved the custom hero rules and move forward just like the majority played ME for a month and never touched it again.

Again - Had they put in more effort and implemented it properly into matched play Everyone would be so much more happy. Scale it properly, and then have a slider for narrative/open play where you crank the combinations to 11 but keep it reasonable within matched play.

Missed opportunity.

I was responding to the question you asked, not the specific points you raised in your post, hence why I didn't quote you. You asked whether the GHB is good enough, and I responded to that question. I don't think the GHB should be free either, but I do think that it's plausible that the parts of the GHB which I personally value most could be released for free. I don't at all mind paying for it though.

Now I'll respond to a few of your arguments, though. It would be great if GW would put out three books a year, one for each style of play. The problem is that developing a full book for each playstyle takes resources. Where are those resources going to come from? It would obviously be great for players if GW tripled or quadrupled its investment in rules and game development for AOS but I doubt that is going to happen (at least not overnight).

You cite ME as being half baked, and perhaps you are right. But to be honest the pitched battle battleplans in the original GHB were equally half baked and have improved immensely each year. If GW keeps iterating on ME we could have a really robust way of playing at lower point levels as early as this year, or maybe in another year or two. Sounds great to me and well worth the time. Would I like that product sooner? Yeah, of course. But I don't begrudge it taking time to iron out the kinks.

As for the hero creation system, I strongly disagree that it would be better if it had been "implemented properly" in matched play. If we could snap our fingers and have it be "reasonable within matched play" then sure that would be fun I guess, but it would really upend game balance quite violently even if the system itself is balanced. I don't think it's possible though that they would have implemented it in a way that is both useful in matched play and reasonable in matched play. I've written about this elsewhere in more depth but suffice to say that I think that it's just too complicated a problem. Any hero creator with enough depth to be useful and interesting would be an absolute nightmare to balance between existing battletomes not to mention future battletomes. Fully supporting such a thing in matched play would be a lodestone for GW's future design. Everything would need to be balanced based on whatever can be done with the hero creator. As we saw with the realm artefacts, such a demand can be really problematic and severely restricts future design.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed the editions of the General's Handbook that I've purchased - especially the updated battleplans. 

However, I enjoyed the Gaming Book that was released last year a lot more. That was a lot more user friendly during games. I wonder if a new version of that will be released. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the idea of splitting out the different rule sets from the book and having everything separate. I've literally never used anything that isn't in the Matched Play section, and I'm not even a regular tournament player. I just don't have a group of people even remotely interested in anything that isn't Matched Play, so in the end it's just a waste of money to be paying for Open and Narrative stuff. It's too bad because I really would like to at least try out Narrative, but at this point it just feels like a tease more than anything. 

To be honest though, I don't think splitting things out would really increase the quality for anything. The Matched Play section is lacking because... well there really isn't much you can do for Matched Play without it becoming an edition change. Meeting Engagements were a surprise to be sure, but you can't really get zany or introduce anything too off the wall because that would surely unbalance the game and defeat the entire point of Matched Play to begin with. Realistically, maybe the best way forward would be to drop the Matched Play section from the GHB entirely and let it focus on the things it actually does well. Release the point changes along with it online so you don't have any printing issues and if there are any rule tweaks or changes just do them in an errata. Release the mission pack online just like Privateer Press does for Steamroller every year. Then if they want to release something like Meeting Engagements or brand new systems they can do it in a separate release like Malign Sorcery and just incorporate them into the main rules in the next edition change. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kramer said:

I would be against this. I see two main disadvantages and one missed opportunity. 
For one you said yourself you want to throw your money at GW. But not every player has that kind of bank. I known didnt when I started out. That would invalidate two out of three playstyles depending which is more prominent. That’s a portion of the community that won’t broaden its horizons  

secondly there are more production costs to making three 33 page books vs one 99 page book. Costs which will end up going to be included in the price. 

lastly I feel it’s a missed chance if it’s separated more. Not only is it good to have options and ‘educate’ all gamers on different ways to enjoy the hobby, it also makes things unavailable. For example the mercenary rules were a fun matched play addition that shook things up for some factions. But they were in the narrative sections. Would have been a shame if wasn’t a matched play option because they separated it in 3 books.

This hobby is expensive. The GHB isnt THAT bad though - It is basically what a normal foot hero costs money-wise. The thing is though, imagine if you wanted to play narrative games and could buy this 100ish page book dedicated entirely to indepth narrative play with proper campaigns/missions where systems were truely developed instead of halfassed as they currently are. I think it would be a huge win for everyone and if players felt they really got some bang for their buck, I think most people could and would find the money for it. 

The point wasnt to just split the GHB into 3 books and call it a day, that is pointless - It was to split it into 3 books but go DEEPER and develop the different systems properly. The hero system is obviously rushed and halfassed - There are tons of obvious broken things that even half an hour of tinkering clearly shows. The fact they keep missing the magical little sentence "a unit cant benefit more than once from this command ability" is a pretty clear sign to me that they didnt put as much time into it as they should. The fact people can find such absurd combos in a matter of days after the leaks clearly shows to me that the system isnt fleshed out and playtested at all.  

Effectively I want 3 books each at 100 pages (or whatever) that all go into detail and provide worthwhile and useful systems to play around with. If players liked all the systems and were tempted to play them, they would have to pay 3x the GHB price but get an actual good product that you might play around with for more than 1 month.

8 hours ago, Jackroks981 said:

I think in the current age there is no excuse at all for taking nine months to publish a points change, I don’t even think twice a year is good enough personally, they could easily do regular points updates to address key offenders like every other game on the planet. 

There is a big difference between an online game and AoS though. For many even looking up an online FAQ is a burden and too much trouble - Which can be seen on various FB groups. Even reading the warhammer community articles is too much work for many players. If they had to keep track of point changes every 3 months I think you are gonna drown a lot of players. I want solid changes but not THAT often.

7 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

If GW keeps iterating on ME we could have a really robust way of playing at lower point levels as early as this year, or maybe in another year or two.

But that is the point isnt it - Why isnt the system fleshed out and done properly from day 1 rather than releasing a halfassed product that players have to betatest for you for years in order to get it right. To me this is a huge loss - If the system is so bad at launch Im not gonna step into it at all. I dont care if ME is actually decent right now, the terrible release has scared me and I wont bother with it again.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kasper said:

But that is the point isnt it - Why isnt the system fleshed out and done properly from day 1 rather than releasing a halfassed product that players have to betatest for you for years in order to get it right. To me this is a huge loss - If the system is so bad at launch Im not gonna step into it at all. I dont care if ME is actually decent right now, the terrible release has scared me and I wont bother with it again.

Because balancing games (and especially games that are as complex as AOS) is really hard. I'd love GW to do better, sure, but it's really not that simple. Your loss re: ME.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is so bad about ME anyway? I know people have complained about summoning being too powerful, but aside from that?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

Because balancing games (and especially games that are as complex as AOS) is really hard. I'd love GW to do better, sure, but it's really not that simple. Your loss re: ME.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is so bad about ME anyway? I know people have complained about summoning being too powerful, but aside from that?

Alas I dont really bother with ME anymore, but off the top of my head: 1) Summoning was incredible broken. 2) People were alphastriking you just to prevent you from being able to deploy units in future turns due to fixed positions. 3) Stuff like Morathi made impossible/frustrating games.

 

4 hours ago, Grimrock said:

To be honest though, I don't think splitting things out would really increase the quality for anything. The Matched Play section is lacking because... well there really isn't much you can do for Matched Play without it becoming an edition change.

I disagree. I feel like there are plently of points that could be focused upon and fleshed out.

  • Updating/refining battleplans and introducing new ones to keep things fresh - They already do this and I think they are doing an OK job at this.
  • You have the obvious point adjustments, but they are simply too subtle and dont have any real impact on the game outside of a couple of situations. Dare I say rushed? I feel like if they put in more effort into this we could actually see meaingingful changes. Decreasing the points on a monster by 10 points isnt doing anything to the game.
  • As I wrote in my initial post many units wont ever be fixed by points - They require warscroll changes. Get those things in there. It is absurd for some units to have to wait 3-5 years for an updated tome to get their time in the spotlight.
  • They do small updates for Matched Play rules in general - The introduction of more terrain effects was welcome, but I dont get why we have things like Arcane and Commanding in the pool when almost every other effect is super lackluster. There is noway anyone sat down and thought "yeah these are all pretty much ok and have similar impact on the game". I feel like they should think up more meaingful terrain effects to make terrain matter more in general - If this huge piece is Volcanic right in front of me, I should have a damn good reason to move my units right through it. As is, I dont care one bit. You can pretty much ignore everything outside of Arcane, Commanding, Entangling and Overgrown. The last two are very situational and the first two are so impactful they will alter what side of the board you pick every time. Anything else has zero impact.
  • Realm rules were again rushed IMO - They are super bland now and lost a lot of what made them interesting. I understand the wish from GW to streamline them and ensure they are used more frequently in "normal" Matched Play (i.e outside of tournaments). Personally we never really bothered with Realms because there were so many things to keep track of and many tournaments (at least around here) even decided to say "no thanks, we wont run with realms). The new rules have an unfortunate impact on Malign Sorcery and I really think this massive impact was terribly implemented. It also seems absurd there are no changes to some of the Endless Spells that have an absurd empowered effect. Most tournaments had fixed realms, so you couldnt choose and from my experience many people outside of tournaments never bothered with realms, so it had little impact on the Endless Spells. Now it is so streamlined that you are likely always gonna have a 50/50 on having your spells empowered.

There are a lot of things a dedicated Matched Play tome could improve upon and flesh out. These (imo) halfassed attempts just create this odd situations where people might just opt out of it. Just like last year where the terrain rules were so poorly implemented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2020 at 5:59 AM, Kasper said:

Is anyone else kind of disappointed with the General's Handbook yet again?

Nope.  I don't think, aside from points issues not being fairly balanced it's an issue because this is a luxury hobby that I chose to spend my money on.  

If you feel your points are valid and you didn't email the GW AoS but instead posted here was your intent not to voice change? 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nezzhil said:

The battleplans are very good. You need battlelines in most of them, you can't win only with elite or heroes.

I think GH20 is way better than  GH19.

My only point is the rebalance of the armies. The points reductions seems more oriented to sell than balance worse armies.

That's good to know, they are the one thing that has barely been leaked yet, but the single biggest impact on the game that we'll be playing for the next 6 months (well those of us who focus on Matched Play at least).

We played that one that was leaked last weekend (with the 6 objectives, and you nominate the key one).  It was fantastic.  Really interested to see the full suite tomorrow.

I'm not rapt with the points changes personally (Acolytes down?  20 Spider Riders still cost the same as 20 Hearthguard? Nothing but nerfs to the Destruction FW units?).  But a good set of missions will be remembered long after that is forgotten.

On 7/9/2020 at 1:44 PM, Mandzak-Miniatures said:

I think it would be more worth it if the anvil became a new way to make legit heroes for matched play. The return of old hero building is much needed.

perhaps they will rethink and amend the ruling if there is enough poor reception.

otherwise it’s just another set of gimmicky rules that fade away when the next ghb is released and a new ploy to get people to buy things comes out.

TBF out of all the things GW promotes, the Anvil is the least directly related to selling you more stuff.  You might buy new GW kits to kitbash, but you might also use 3rd party minis (like this Tyrant https://www.sciborminiatures.com/en_,shop.php?art=1276#i/2012/big/rhino_02.jpg), raid the bits box to tack stuff onto things you already own, scratch build and so on. 

I've honestly got loads of ideas for this, none of which involve buying new models from GW.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2020 at 6:57 AM, JackStreicher said:

I am just feeling bad for mercenaries being gone. I bought models to play as mercs and now this... I am feeling really screwed over.

It’s actually a risky strategy of GW, I think. People quickly get suspicious toward everything new if it gets ended after a short time.  People learn from experiences, especially bad ones.
As far as I remember, the whole idea of the last GHB was that it would last for years and only the booklet with the points would get updated annually? Wasn’t this even officially stated?

Edited by Beastmaster
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...