Changes for the second generals handbook.

[hobgoblinclub]

6 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

My problem with Wizards as they stand is that they exist to cast one spell. For example, running two Necromancers is normally a waste of points, and the Collegia Arcanum is the most worthless Faction going.

I get only allowing a Wizard to cast a certain spell once per turn, and I get not allowing spells to stack, but I don't get the army-wide Rule of One. It makes Wizards pointless in large games as you can't scale how many you take in comparison to the units you're taking them with.

Every wizard has their own spell though. I get that the rule of one damaged pink horrors usefulness, as they don't have a unique spell, but there's plenty of variation. If one wizard casts arcane bolt and the next casts mystic shield, you'd need at least three wizards before you got into having to use anything else. 

[Nico]

I think they could except arcane bolt (but emphatically not mystic shield) from the Rule of One.

[hobgoblinclub]

9 minutes ago, Nico said:

I think they could except arcane bolt (but emphatically not mystic shield) from the Rule of One.

Then it starts getting clumsy though. Rule that deal with all possibilities in a single rule are preferable. A list with 6 wizards in your leader allowance and a few units of pink horrors wild quickly become very dull if you could roll one arcane bolt after another. 

[Bjarni St.]

That's not any worse than shooting. On principle I understand where you're coming from with it becoming clumsy but in practice it just isn't. It's one spell, it's in the 4 pages and this is how it normally works. There's miles of space before this one exception turns that rule clumsy. AB isn't even a bother to resolve. Roll 2d6, maybe try to unbind, measure 18" and roll a d3 for MWs - it's even less hassle than firing from a unit of archers.

Yeah a list with 6 wizards and X units of 10 Horrors is going to be dull but that's true of every monotonous spam list.

[Byro]

So my biggest change (aside from adjusting points and working on tweaking some of the points values/adding points for newer warscroll battalions) would be seeing an overhaul of the "Allies System".

 

In my humble oppinion, there should be two sets of allegiance/artifact/traits - one for "general allegiance" (i.e. mixed order, destruction, etc) and one for "single faction" (bonesplitterz, Bloodbound, etc).

 

I believe that mixed alliance spells and such should be added, but they should be toned down to offer less overall power than single alliance abilities. In other words - focusing on a pure Bonesplitterz force should reward you with stronger, more specific abilities and tactics, while going general destruction gives you a more "jack of all trads - master of none" stratagem.

[Dangermouse425]

@Ben, can we merge the two topics to avoid any of the points raised here being missed from your thead?

[KHHaunts]

May as well merge these topics since @Ben has started the same one.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I did post on the FB 

which was simply they should have a look at the points and tweak them accordingly, expand The Path to Glory tables and provide hew battleplans for all 3 play types. 

I do however really like the suggestions others have made regarding Allegiance abilities/traits/artifacts and expanding them for each faction. If done sensibly they could be used to provide balance by buffing up weaker factions or making it equally beneficial to take individual factions rather than just Grand Alliances 

[Double Misfire]

Anyone fancy starting a friendly betting pool on what Stormfiends are going to be repriced at? My money's on 400 for three.  

[Nico]

I love how Stormfiends get so much hate when Dracoths Knights are plainly better. Vexillor 6 Fulminators into the enemy - unlike the Stormfiends - they will not melt under any volume of rend dash attacks.

[Veterannoob]

On 11/23/2016 at 10:43 AM, AAL said:

I think a tweaking in mortal wounds should be involved. Right now that seems to be the way most people plan on playing is just acquiring the most mortal wounds for their army. Obviously some costs can be tweaked to change up play but that is more of a direction in play style change than a necessary one.  I think Keywords should also get looked at more clearly. Right now it seems like somethings that make sense together don't really get used because of a lack in keywords.

 

I would also like to see something done with gryph hounds to make them have a universal aspect. They are uniquely helpful for redirection etc but, no other similar models have been implemented so that all armies can use them.

hmm...I haven't encountered that scene where the players build to maximize MW output. Sucks, sounds harsh.

[AAL]

2 hours ago, Veterannoob said:

hmm...I haven't encountered that scene where the players build to maximize MW output. Sucks, sounds harsh.

You learn to play around it but initially it really hurts. Some armies counter it but that doesn't mean its balanced in my mind.

[Nico]

Quote

I think a tweaking in mortal wounds should be involved. Right now that seems to be the way most people plan on playing is just acquiring the most mortal wounds for their army. Obviously some costs can be tweaked to change up play but that is more of a direction in play style change than a necessary one.  I think Keywords should also get looked at more clearly. Right now it seems like somethings that make sense together don't really get used because of a lack in keywords.

However, if they do this, they then lose to many Death armies (Archai, Nagash - just try doing more than 38 mortal wounds to him, especially Flesh Eater Courts) or Nurgle or Phoenix Guard or worst of all Bonesplitterz - "So your army has 360 wounds on the table... right". 

The units that do this tend to be expensive and blatant (Sayl plus Stormfiends, Retributor plus Vexillor) or squishy (Bloodletters).

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, this isn't something we've ever had a problem with. The worst spammer of Mortal Wounds is probably me with my Settra-buffed Spirit Hosts, but that's more of a guided missile deal.

[Squirrelmaster]

I'd be in favour of making it so you can only attempt each spell against a given target once per turn, and spells that have no target (eg. summoning) can only be cast, rather than attempted, once per turn regardless.

I don't see arcane bolt/mystic shield spam as a huge problem, for starters you've already eliminated mystic shield stacking, and once a spell has been attempted on the highest-priority target target, you have to move on to lower-priority targets. If it's one attempt instead of one casting then you still need a lot of casting bonuses to make Mystic Shield reliable, you can't just spam attempts against a single target until one of them gets through.

You could add a "double-one to cast auto-fails" rule, maybe a "double-six to unbind auto-succeeds" as well.

Maybe increase the casting value of a spell by 1 for each time it has already been attempted that turn.

Partly I want to see multiples of the "same" wizard be viable in larger games. In 3000pts it would not be unreasonable to run 6 canon, or 6 units of archers, why should 6 necromancers be different? Honestly, though, it's also that I want Nagash to be playable in less than 4000pts, with armies other than Tomb Kings.

I suppose the other option would be additional lores of magic for every faction, that might be more fun. Trouble is, I can easily imagine a lot of duplication creeping in. Already I look at most damage spells as just variations on Arcane Bolt. Still, even a little variety could be enough.

[Squirrelmaster]

Another thought:

Each faction gets 6 new spells. Before the battle, you need to assign each spell to one of your wizards. So, if you only have one wizard, they will know all six. If you have two wizards, you can choose to split them 3/3, 2/4, 1/5, 0/6. That way, if there's one spell your opponent is worried about, there's only one wizard they need to target / avoid.

[CyderPirate]

Only thing I'd like to see is a Dogs-of-War style group of monsters and mercenaries that could be used by any of the Grand Alliance.

[Matjb2512]

Perhaps again a slightly more rules issue, but the thing I find that bothers me most when actually playing a game is wound allocation. In CC one unit has charge into another, swings all it's weapons, and then models 10" away at the back of the unit suddenly start falling down dead. It bothers me a lot from a thematic view, and the system seems to be a bit unclear anyway. I've only ever known players to choose where to allocate wounds within their own units, however one of the FAQ's answered a question along the lines of 'can I choose to damage my opponents models in such a way as to split the unit in half' (in order to break coherency). 

I just think it'd make a lot more sense to allocate wounds based on the closest modes, the player that owns the unit choosing which when more than one model is within the same range.

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, Matjb2512 said:

Perhaps again a slightly more rules issue, but the thing I find that bothers me most when actually playing a game is wound allocation. In CC one unit has charge into another, swings all it's weapons, and then models 10" away at the back of the unit suddenly start falling down dead. It bothers me a lot from a thematic view, and the system seems to be a bit unclear anyway. I've only ever known players to choose where to allocate wounds within their own units, however one of the FAQ's answered a question along the lines of 'can I choose to damage my opponents models in such a way as to split the unit in half' (in order to break coherency). 

I just think it'd make a lot more sense to allocate wounds based on the closest modes, the player that owns the unit choosing which when more than one model is within the same range.

That would be more messy than you realize.  Just imagine the guys out front die and the ones behind move into their spots.

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, Matjb2512 said:

Perhaps again a slightly more rules issue, but the thing I find that bothers me most when actually playing a game is wound allocation. In CC one unit has charge into another, swings all it's weapons, and then models 10" away at the back of the unit suddenly start falling down dead. It bothers me a lot from a thematic view, and the system seems to be a bit unclear anyway. I've only ever known players to choose where to allocate wounds within their own units, however one of the FAQ's answered a question along the lines of 'can I choose to damage my opponents models in such a way as to split the unit in half' (in order to break coherency). 

I just think it'd make a lot more sense to allocate wounds based on the closest modes, the player that owns the unit choosing which when more than one model is within the same range.

The first problem there is with banners, champions, and musicians — the game is designed with the notion that it's not really possible to single out or kill these models without clearing the rest of the unit first. Same with different/special weapons.

The second problem is with casualty removal putting a unit outside 3" — the game is not designed so that a single monster can charge into a horde, kill a couple of models, then be out of pile-in range (unless the horde unit's controller decides for it to be). Removing closest first would have just that effect.

There might be some other problems I haven't thought of, but the gist of it is that this would be a massive change to how the game works on a fundamental level, to the point where you would have to basically re-design the whole thing.

The FAQ in question doesn't say anything about choosing wound allocation on your opponent's units, btw. It just says that you can choose to break coherency when choosing how wounds are allocated (to your own units). The rules are very clear that players choose how wounds are allocated to their own models.

[PJetski]

There are ways to single out models in a unit but it requires a specific spell or ability. I think the game could use more things like that, as it would add a layer of tactical depth without increasing the complexity of the game.

The bigger problem is that RAW units can have more than 1 musician/banner/etc. which makes those kinds of abilities pointless. There needs to be a limit of 1 musician and 1 banner for each unit (with some exceptions, like plague monks) and something that states a unit champion cannot be a musician/banner because it makes some death units a little bit stronger than they need to be.

 

Also how could would this be?

Standard Bearers should have different customization options for your army, similar a the spell lore.

[Squirrelmaster]

26 minutes ago, PJetski said:

There are ways to single out models in a unit but it requires a specific spell or ability. I think the game could use more things like that, as it would add a layer of tactical depth without increasing the complexity of the game.

The bigger problem is that RAW units can have more than 1 musician/banner/etc. which makes those kinds of abilities pointless. There needs to be a limit of 1 musician and 1 banner for each unit (with some exceptions, like plague monks) and something that states a unit champion cannot be a musician/banner because it makes some death units a little bit stronger than they need to be.

Out of interest, can you give any specific examples of such abilities?

I was under the impression that GW pretty much intended for every unit to just have the banner/musician bonus built-in, and for specific command models to never be removed. I pretty much assumed all the points and balances were written with that in mind.

[PJetski]

I can't think of any off the top of my head but I believe I have seen abilities and effects that target specific models rather than units

[daedalus81]

One thing I don't like much -- 

An army with a large unit count that all fit in one battalion setting up in one go and then "stealing" pick of first turn.  It has it's ups and down, but something about it bugs me.  I'm not quite sure why though.

[Matjb2512]

4 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

The first problem there is with banners, champions, and musicians — the game is designed with the notion that it's not really possible to single out or kill these models without clearing the rest of the unit first. Same with different/special weapons.

The second problem is with casualty removal putting a unit outside 3" — the game is not designed so that a single monster can charge into a horde, kill a couple of models, then be out of pile-in range (unless the horde unit's controller decides for it to be). Removing closest first would have just that effect.

There might be some other problems I haven't thought of, but the gist of it is that this would be a massive change to how the game works on a fundamental level, to the point where you would have to basically re-design the whole thing.

The FAQ in question doesn't say anything about choosing wound allocation on your opponent's units, btw. It just says that you can choose to break coherency when choosing how wounds are allocated (to your own units). The rules are very clear that players choose how wounds are allocated to their own models.

It would be a nerf to both sides of the combat too in most situations of monster vs large unit, since usually a monster will have multiple weapons it might not be able to use all its attacks if it wipes out the first rank or two of models.

I do see your point, but it just irks me the way that it works. And I also feel that if the rule was the wounds were allocated to the closest models then players would start having to think a lot more carefully about charges and manouvering in such a way as to capitalise on CC. Players would also have to think about how to protect a units resources, it's banner and musician, and utilising the champion whilst not overextending it (although I agree as well that there should be a 1 of each limit on banners/musicians). 

It might also reduce a bit of emphasis on turn 2, in a lot of games the outcome is pretty clear by the end of turn 2 and the subsequent turns can seem almost insignificant. 

It would be a massive change to the system which I can't imagine ever happening, but something I'd like to see in my ideal world.