The Generals Handbook

[scrubyandwells]

7 hours ago, Motley said:

Is a side board strictly necessary I wonder? Could it not be bring what you like in the same Grand Alliance but only deploy up X pool choices? With pools begin simpler that points do lists need to be checked in advance? Just tally up as you deploy.

If I'm following ya, the organized-play scene could say, "Create a 2,500 pt list, and deploy 2,000 pts each game," or something like that. In general, that could work. 

[mhsellwood]

10 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Nah mate we've all just been conditioned to look at fluff in a very limiting way in the past, and it's a way that's not accurate anymore.

In the past, if a new armybook came out, it completely 100% invalidated/negated anything that was out there before.  In classic Warhammer, something like Grand Alliance: Death would absolutely mean that there are exactly 0 Sphinxes in the whole Mortal Realms - if it's not in the book, doesn't exist.

The setup for Age of Sigmar is something different.  These books are explicitly, by stated design, non-prescriptive.  Grand Alliance: Death doesn't have any Sphinxes in it, and yet the fluff contains scattered references to Sphinxes to this day.  Sphinxes are a thing, and yet they are not in the book.

The Battletomes and Grand Alliances are no longer self-contained complete lists of models acceptable to play in the Age of Sigmar paradigm.  They are catalogues of model kits currently for sale at the time of printing.  Nothing more.  Nobody at GW is claiming, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Dispossessed of Azyr (ie. the faction of Duardin described in the Grand Alliance: Order book) only use Cannons and Organ Guns now, and Flame Cannons, Bolt Throwers, and Grudge Throwers don't exist.  They are only telling us that Cannons and Organ Guns are the only ones still available for sale here on Earth.

Absolutely agreed.

The Mortal Realms are by definition infinitely big. So, if you can imagine it and it takes your fancy, you can do it and play it and it as valid and fluff appropriate as anything else.

You want a mega-dungeon with endless night, endless death, cannibals in the shadows and petty armies centred on vampires consisting of ghouls and zombies? Great, make up some battle plans, maybe a time of war with rules to represent the dark and the claustrophobia, and only ghouls / vampires / necromancers / zombies to be fielded. Same goes for any setting you can imagine. 

The last thing GW seems to want to do is to tell us what the 'official' way to play is, and what Warhammer must be for us all. Maybe time to start spitballing Mortal Realm settings?

[Elliot]

I'm really excited to see points in AOS, on whatever guise they end up being....I'm concerned about restrictions they may put in.

The beauty of AOS is the freedom to build themed armies, if you want to take 5 Stardrakes and A Prime (looking at you Ben Johnson) you should be allowed to do that, assuming the points limit isn't exceeded. A force org type system would be a little disappointing. I'm expected in general for the direction that AOS is going! ??

[DeadlySarcasm]

1 hour ago, Elliot said:

I'm really excited to see points in AOS, on whatever guise they end up being....I'm concerned about restrictions they may put in.

The beauty of AOS is the freedom to build themed armies, if you want to take 5 Stardrakes and A Prime (looking at you Ben Johnson) you should be allowed to do that, assuming the points limit isn't exceeded. A force org type system would be a little disappointing. I'm expected in general for the direction that AOS is going! ??

Don't forget, matched play is just one way to play! You'll still have open play and narrative play if they do put restrictions on choices (similar to 8th, 25% lords etc.).

If you don't like one way of playing, you simply play in a different way, which is just awesome

[Elliot]

Exactly why I love AOS!

[hobgoblinclub]

2 hours ago, DeadlySarcasm said:

Don't forget, matched play is just one way to play! You'll still have open play and narrative play if they do put restrictions on choices (similar to 8th, 25% lords etc.).

If you don't like one way of playing, you simply play in a different way, which is just awesome

At the same time, I think the majority of people who play points will want to use the official system.  It'll be really disappointing to me if they restrict the types of unit you can take.  We're playing SCGT pools but have ignored the restrictions on 'core' choices as we want to take whatever we have.  We're pretty casual players too.  AoS should be about freedom, even with a points structure.  Even though I own eighty clanrats, I don't want to have to paint them. 

[Garxia]

I agree with all of you, the beauty of AoS is getting what you want.

The freedom made possible some fresh and new armies instead of the old cookie cutter tournaments builds.

GW will nail it if these points don't have any other limitations in army building (just get X points of what you want).

?

[DeadlySarcasm]

@Garxia and I think that's what they will do. Look at what they did with end times, they removed all limitations outside of points

[One angry dwarf]

I'm really looking forward to the General's Handbook, and I think that if it's done well it could really do wonders for AoS. It'll maintain the freedom to play AoS the way you like and to build themed armies however you want (the bit I love most about AoS), while also providing a useful structure for balancing armies. 

One thing that worries me though are the rumours going round that the points will only correlate to the minimum size of the warscroll, and intentionally do not scale up with the number of models in a unit (some people are reporting that store managers have said this, which also correlates with that dubious pic doing the rounds). I mean, obviously the community can just multiply accordingly (or just continue using community comps), but I think many people will be turned off by an official structure that values 5 models the same as 20. If that rumour is true, it could be a disaster and turn people off coming back as they'll see it as a sign that GW hasn't really taken seriously concerns that it's hard to find balance. 

But if not, then this is going to be a massive win for the game. I guess we can take confidence from all the podcasters' enthusiasm for the points system - surely if the above were true they'd have relayed the problem  

Carry on!

[Carnelian]

i cant see them releasing a points system like that. it would make no sense. 

[mhsellwood]

3 hours ago, Carnelian said:

i cant see them releasing a points system like that. it would make no sense. 

Yeah agreed. They specifically say that it is intended to provide balanced play for tournaments and competitive games. If the points enable you to field a warscroll of any number of models what on earth would stop you fielding all of the models you physically can?

Seems to me more likely that someone has the wrong end of the stick (maybe intentionally...) and is misunderstanding the points system - which I think will probably look a lot like SCGT / Clash comp i.e. field 5 models of unit x for every y points spent.

[Shane]

Aye, I expect a min/max unit size with the points per min (like SCGT).

What I'm cautious about is force restrictions (i.e. any unit type tax).

 

[hobgoblinclub]

5 hours ago, Shane said:

Aye, I expect a min/max unit size with the points per min (like SCGT).

What I'm cautious about is force restrictions (i.e. any unit type tax).

 

I'd have loved them to just adopt SCGT but it seems we're getting a system that builds armies of around 2000 points.  I'm guessing that's partially to make it seem familiar to get some of the old school players back, who don't like this new-fangled 100 points an army lark.

Restricting us isn't the way to go for me either.  I just want points, no other limitations.  The only thing is, SGCT saw fit to create a 'core' category and limit the number of duplicates you could take. If GW have consulted the SCGT guys, they might see fit to limit something.  Otherwise the tournament community will probably just do it anyway.

[Veterannoob]

I can see these positions and I expect with points and I expect the default Game type with people I don't now will probably be points but I still think that I will get plenty of open match games and that it won't really change from how it is now. And then maybe after you play with somebody once or twice switch over to doing an open match or narrative match . 

[Darth Alec]

Considering how GW laxed up on heroes during the End Times, and eventually on all restrictions, it seems they are going a very specific direction. I'm not expecting any heavy limitations from GW here.  Or at least, I'm hoping not.

 

I hope the new Path to Glory includes all the grand alliances. That looked very cool.

[Painted by G]

All very good points (pun intended I guess).

I also hope they don't bring back core.. taking an army of Giants might be the most exciting thing that's ever happened in my life... maybe..

I just hope there is a place for troops though, warhammer has always been about the massed troops with swords and shields.. for me anyway.

I'm more interested to see what they do with summoning. I really like how SCGT have handled that.. oh and the extra 10% for Destruction! 

[BobTheKnight]

I think the extra 10% could have applied to any army that wasn't summoning, so more like a summoning tax of 10 points to put units into the summoning pool.

Let's armies like full khorne join in.

[Veterannoob]

10 hours ago, Painted by G said:

All very good points (pun intended I guess).

I also hope they don't bring back core.. taking an army of Giants might be the most exciting thing that's ever happened in my life... maybe..

I just hope there is a place for troops though, warhammer has always been about the massed troops with swords and shields.. for me anyway.

I'm more interested to see what they do with summoning. I really like how SCGT have handled that.. oh and the extra 10% for Destruction! 

I'm so running that Giant formation with my Bonegrinder giant leading them. It shall be glorious, and a bit tipsy. 

[Motley]

On 2016-05-07 at 10:14 PM, scrubyandwells said:

If I'm following ya, the organized-play scene could say, "Create a 2,500 pt list, and deploy 2,000 pts each game," or something like that. In general, that could work. 

Actually what I was thinking is bring whatever you like/can carry to the organized-play (as long as it is in the same GA — but if you are doing something narrative that supports it even that is not a big issue really). But you can only deploy 2000pts (or whatever) each game.

Hopefully the balancing system is simple enough that you can keep track of it as it is being deployed. There could of course be requirements that for the paint side of the competition all models judged have to have been deployed at some point.

I know it would not be for everyone but it would keep some of the ideas — bring what you want and play with it — of AoS as currently written.

 

[amysrevenge]

10 hours ago, Veterannoob said:

I'm so running that Giant formation with my Bonegrinder giant leading them. It shall be glorious, and a bit tipsy. 

Just be careful with your opponents - it's technically illegal in SCGT comp (you can put 6 of the same warscroll in your army, but only put 3 units down in your warband).  Most cool people won't have a problem with it.

[Chinhampster]

He'll be playing me with it at some point early on and I'm far from cool...