General's Handbook - Is it good enough?

[Kurrilino]

4 hours ago, GrimDork said:

I'm interested in playing some meeting engagements. I didn't pick up GHB 2019.

Does anyone know if just buying the GHB 2020 will be enough?

Are the rules for meeting engagements fully repeated in GHB 2020 or will I need GHB 2019 as well?

They look exactly the same to me. But you better ask for a 2nd opinion since i don't really play this mode

[Shmaravoz]

Check out first impression and review of the GHB 2020
 

 

[SerialMoM]

9 hours ago, GrimDork said:

I'm interested in playing some meeting engagements. I didn't pick up GHB 2019.

Does anyone know if just buying the GHB 2020 will be enough?

Are the rules for meeting engagements fully repeated in GHB 2020 or will I need GHB 2019 as well?

You only Need GHB 2020. I personaly like the Meeting Engagement rules.

 

Where can I download the points from the newer battletomes? I did not find the document. Thanks

[Landohammer]

15 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

This is not true at all. The Generals Handbook is for all 3 types of play (Open, Narrative and Matched) and always has been. This misconception is why they started putting points in a separate booklet starting with ghb19.

The GHB was introduced in 2016 as a means to convey point changes and standard battleplans for matched play.  Of course it has since had additional content added but its entire purpose was to help balance competitive play. The relatively recent booklet separation was so the book you need for actual games isn't clogged up with (often outdated) points. If the booklet was intended to be separate then it would have been sold separately. 

also, the content from Generals Handbook doesn’t get removed by the new version unless It specifically says so (eg the battleplans and points). Everything else is still 100% usable unless stated otherwise. They’ve even said this when they released the ghb17, because they can’t reprint everything in the new version or it’d be bigger than the core book.

Thats a fair point. I really hope this is the case because I really want to keep using mercenaries. There just really isn't a precedent in prior GHBs since they aren't typically used to introduce new units. 

now, some of the content may over time no longer be valid (siege rules from the original GHB, have since been updated in Wrath Of The Everchosen) but just because ghb20 is out doesn’t mean the content from ghb19, 18, 17 or the original is no longer valid

 

15 hours ago, Beliman said:

People should stop building a wall between all three ways of play.

I mean, when I play Narrative games, I'm still playing with Matched play rules too. Narrative/open games are just a new layer of rules that you can incorporate to your Matched Play games.

Use a Narrative battleplan in a Matched play game, upgrade one unit to "veterans" instead of using triumph (or give it to an underused unit, Vanguard-hunters are a good target), Set-up 2-4 chests and any hero within 1" can flip a card (from GHB2019) and see if there is anything...

All this things can be used in Matched play, just need a bit more work from both players. You need to know how many layers you want to play with and enjoy your games with a little extra flavour.

I don't really consider using matched play rules with narrative or custom scenarios to be "narrative play".  That would be more of a league or custom scenario situation and would still be under the "umbrella" of matched play. I consider true Narrative play to be recreating specific battles with very specific army composition. 

But, you have a point:  Narrative and Matched do intermingle some and I think that is cool. That is why we get stuff like leagues, campaigns and wacky tournaments scenarios and I enjoy those.

Open play is a different animal entirely though. Its function is to specifically build a wall around itself.  By choosing Open play,  players are essentially saying "i want to field my models without any kind of oversight or regard for balance".  

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, though I can't imagine there is a wide field of opponents interested in that sort of experience.  So in my opinion Open play represents a very small percentage of players. 

 

[Sedraxis]

I think the 3 types of play are very well named:

Matched play focuses on playing an actual match where the aim is to win the game and defeat your opponent.

Narrative play focuses on building a narrative and the aim is to create or recreate an interesting story. Winning is not the main goal and the rules aren't as strict because balance isn't important anymore. The narrative dictates who wins/has the advantage/uses which rules etc.

Open play is literally anything goes. We are here to play with our miniatures and enjoy the hobby in whatever way we want. The game is open to any number of models of any kind and anyone can add their own fun in their own way. It's basically a sandbox mode.

Now these 3 can overlap in any way shape or form but what seperates them is the main goal you want to accomplish:

Do you want to play a match to decide a winner, do you want to create a story together, or do you want to leave it all out in the open?

Edited July 13, 2020 by Sedraxis

[Ravinsild]

On 7/10/2020 at 4:35 PM, Kramer said:

Where you from? 

I'm currently playing a narrative campaign... no don't switch off. In which you just play a tournament with a set amount of rounds in your local club. The only change is you track progress on a campaign map. That way you can still tournament prepping, balls to the wall, competitive games. But you add a narrative element that's basically there to track who's winning. 

If it's a succes you can maybe reward players with a small advantage in game as a narrative result, and slowly after a few years, you have the narrative group that will scoff at netlists. muwhaahaha 😈

 

I'm from Tennessee, and honestly this sounds like a ton of fun! In fact we had a Path to Glory campaign started in early February...but unfortunately Covid hit and it died. We even got bonus points from writing Narratives of the battles and such. Short stories for our armies and having a backstory.

[Kramer]

48 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

I'm from Tennessee, and honestly this sounds like a ton of fun! In fact we had a Path to Glory campaign started in early February...but unfortunately Covid hit and it died. We even got bonus points from writing Narratives of the battles and such. Short stories for our armies and having a backstory.

Oh nice! 
sorry can’t join you in Tennessee as much as I’d like to. 
but path to glory is always awesome. Quite hard to get into for competitive players imo but hey it’s a classic for a reason! Hope you pick it up again  

this is our map. An old map from the city we both studied in. territories relate to our university years. 
Today we played game two. so I need to update his second territory and starting next game I’m not pulling anymore punches because this is embarrassing losing 2 out of 2 😂

if you want all gladly send you our rules and help you with a map etc. 

[Joseph Mackay]

On 7/12/2020 at 9:33 AM, Landohammer said:

The GHB was introduced in 2016 as a means to convey point changes and standard battleplans for matched play.  Of course it has since had additional content added but its entire purpose was to help balance competitive play. The relatively recent booklet separation was so the book you need for actual games isn't clogged up with (often outdated) points. If the booklet was intended to be separate then it would have been sold separately.

This is not entirely true either. The 2016 GHB introduced the whole Open, Narrative and Matched Play concepts to the game, as before that it was just the 4-page core rules, with what we now call Narrative battleplans available through The Realmgates War campaign books

[Iradekhorne]

In my opinion, this is one of the best generals handbook in terms of rules (but waiting for some aclarations of malign sorcery spells on te realms).

For example, the anvils of apotheosis is awesome, but need some fixes, you can do aberrations because some of the upgrades of the mounts are so cheap.

But it also is the worst generals handbook in terms of points. Is like for some reason the book was writted in november or some. Nurgle is pushed up, but is like they don't count with the wrath of the everchosen sub-factions.

And what happens with Nighaunt, Beastmen and Gloomspite? They need a push like Nurgle. I think GW stopped of listen the community or some, why they push stormcast and nurgle, but not this 3?

And why they dont touch the heatguard berzerkers, they are cleary broken for 120.

I feel like GW isn't taking seriusly AOS. They are clesry happy with AOS bcause they are throwing new awesome armies, but in term of balance.... is like they are a bit coward to touch the points proprely and Age of sigmar is cleary a secondary game behind 40k. We are getting 0 love or impact right now.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Iradekhorne

[NinthMusketeer]

If you are primarily focused on matched play and/or balance then I wholeheartedly agree this GHB is a disappointment. Several years back I decided to actively change my expectations for Matched Play; I expect it to be an utter crapshow of imbalanced nonsense that needs to be self-policed for anything resembling fair play. Tournaments I look at as much a 'showcase' of how hard one can break the game as I do a contest of skill. That perspective has really helped me enjoy AoS more and I highly recommend it.

That said, the new GHB has a massive overhaul to realm rules to make them palatable for Matched Play, which I feel they very much do in a manner that is reasonably well-balanced. A big improvement over the Malign Sorcery rules which are clearly intended for narrative gaming. But even in a casual sense I see players who are not super experienced often struggle to compensate for crazy realm rules and remember all the different spell options during a game. And the 12-artifacts-per-realm tables are a joke with only the handful of OP options ever being taken, the vast majority so poor as to be beneath consideration even for narrative play. The GHB artifacts may be 1-per-realm but they are all reasonably useful without being exploitative.

Narrative-wise the GHB has the hero builder, which is mentioned a lot and justifiably so. Bottle wrote it, and it shows. It is very well designed and a ton of fun. Sure it has imbalances but the only ways to fully bypass that would be excessively complex or excessively bland. And for every OP or UP design there are a dozen that are reasonable, it is better balanced than the actual points while still providing the framework to customize a suitably unique character. It also leaves room for potential expansion with new options in the future, by fans or by GW.

Meeting Engagements still exist, I suppose. I found them to be extra hoops to jump through for 1000-point games that make things less balanced and much less fun than just using the normal pitched battle rules. Open play has some nifty-looking rules for sky battles that I am hoping to try out eventually, could be fun to use as an encounter in a campaign (be it AoS proper or Soulbound).

[Tropical Ghost General]

In answer to the original question of the thread: No

[Landohammer]

 

17 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

This is not entirely true either. The 2016 GHB introduced the whole Open, Narrative and Matched Play concepts to the game, as before that it was just the 4-page core rules, with what we now call Narrative battleplans available through The Realmgates War campaign books

I think that is a bit semantic. Prior to the 2016 GHB the game was functionally Open and Narrative play only. With Narrative being recreating the limited provided scenarios and Open being everything else. 

The GHB  added Matched play (and points) and simply gave titles to those two prior game types. 

I am willing to argue what the relative population of Narrative, Open, and Matched games played are.  I still believe its 95%+ matched play but maybe I am wrong. But the primary purpose of GHB is indisputable. 

[SerialMoM]

I personally really like the Meeting Engagement rules. It is played often  within our club. We even had a very fun  tournament and will repeat it.

[Maddpainting]

Nah, i actually really like this one. Sure some point changes wasn't as what was needed but there were a lot of very important changed to the core rules, added custom heroes, and mission balances. So making large point changes at the same time isn't really a good idea.  

[Mcthew]

On 7/14/2020 at 1:36 PM, NinthMusketeer said:

If you are primarily focused on matched play and/or balance then I wholeheartedly agree this GHB is a disappointment. Several years back I decided to actively change my expectations for Matched Play; I expect it to be an utter crapshow of imbalanced nonsense that needs to be self-policed for anything resembling fair play. Tournaments I look at as much a 'showcase' of how hard one can break the game as I do a contest of skill. That perspective has really helped me enjoy AoS more and I highly recommend it.

That said, the new GHB has a massive overhaul to realm rules to make them palatable for Matched Play, which I feel they very much do in a manner that is reasonably well-balanced. A big improvement over the Malign Sorcery rules which are clearly intended for narrative gaming. But even in a casual sense I see players who are not super experienced often struggle to compensate for crazy realm rules and remember all the different spell options during a game. And the 12-artifacts-per-realm tables are a joke with only the handful of OP options ever being taken, the vast majority so poor as to be beneath consideration even for narrative play. The GHB artifacts may be 1-per-realm but they are all reasonably useful without being exploitative.

Narrative-wise the GHB has the hero builder, which is mentioned a lot and justifiably so. Bottle wrote it, and it shows. It is very well designed and a ton of fun. Sure it has imbalances but the only ways to fully bypass that would be excessively complex or excessively bland. And for every OP or UP design there are a dozen that are reasonable, it is better balanced than the actual points while still providing the framework to customize a suitably unique character. It also leaves room for potential expansion with new options in the future, by fans or by GW.

Meeting Engagements still exist, I suppose. I found them to be extra hoops to jump through for 1000-point games that make things less balanced and much less fun than just using the normal pitched battle rules. Open play has some nifty-looking rules for sky battles that I am hoping to try out eventually, could be fun to use as an encounter in a campaign (be it AoS proper or Soulbound).

Agree. Played a game this weekend with new realm rules, and it was so much better. Other rules have been safely tweaked and points adjustments are better than before. Having said that, the air combat rules are a reprint from White Dwarf and the loss of mercs is unfortunate. A good GHB but not one of my faves. Still, worth getting unless you are purely a competitive matched player with no interest in any other flavours of AoS. But then this book hasn't been written for those players in mind anyway.