Changes for the second generals handbook.

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, Matjb2512 said:

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.

Honestly I think it would just mean players would stick their banners and musicians at the back instead of the front. I don't see it impacting the game all that much, except to slow things down as players took time to position each model with quarter-inch precision to get the casualty removal they wanted. For me, that breaks the immersion too much.

[Squirrelmaster]

3 hours ago, PJetski said:

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

Yes, but they generally work along the lines of "every unit within 6" of target model takes a mortal wound", or something like that. I haven't encountered anything in AoS yet that can force wound allocation onto a specific model.

[Andreas]

29 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Yes, but they generally work along the lines of "every unit within 6" of target model takes a mortal wound", or something like that. I haven't encountered anything in AoS yet that can force wound allocation onto a specific model.

There are some. The stardrakes jaws is the first one that comes to mind. 

I think the biggest problem with this rule (allocate to closest model) would be dealing with multiwound models. To have severel different models in the same unit having wound markers on them floating around is such a unnecessary mess IMO. This one gets thumbs down from me.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If you had to remove the closest, then pulling from the front rank is going to get fiddly with horde units without toppling models all over the place. Removing from the back is nice and easy in that you can access those models easier.

[ElectricPaladin]

16 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

If you had to remove the closest, then pulling from the front rank is going to get fiddly with horde units without toppling models all over the place. Removing from the back is nice and easy in that you can access those models easier.

There actually is a game where you pull from the front. It's called Shieldwall and features species who look like muppets whaling on each other. Really strange game. Anyway, part of the fun is trying to maintain your battlelines as dudes die in the front and having to decide to either press forward or give ground. I don't think it's right for Age of Sigmar, but it is possible.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm mainly talking about the crush of carefully extracting 20 Zombies at a time when inevitably they'll be tangled up with my opponent's dynamically-posed minis.

[RuneBrush]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I'm mainly talking about the crush of carefully extracting 20 Zombies at a time when inevitably they'll be tangled up with my opponent's dynamically-posed minis.

Agreed - it's bad enough removing a Bloodletter from the back of a unit with their ridiculous claws, tongues and oversized swords, let alone trying to yoink it out from the middle of a crush of models!

Though I know there is a certain "reality" issue with the way the rules currently work, I think that it actually works a lot more sensibly.  Multi-wound models could mean that by carefully placing models you could almost become invulnerable (certainly in the case of Nurglings).

[CoffeeGrunt]

Plus it would make retreating easier. Currently my opponents quite shrewdly try and crowd out my banners to stop me pulling out in order to regen, but if they kill the closest then I'd just keep the banner far back, kill anything they crowd out, and retreat.

Tbh based on 40K it doesn't really change much. I get a 3" Pile-In, so that's plenty to get a new rank or two into the fight.

[Squirrelmaster]

22 hours ago, Matjb2512 said:

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.

Under the current rules, you resolve all the attacks a unit is going to make (from all its different weapons) before allocating wounds or removing any casualties.

You also have to allocate all your attacks to units before resolving any of them.

[wayniac]

My main suggestions would be:

1. Redo points to enable buying individual models, not just set amounts (e.g. should be possible to start at 10 and buy 5 more without paying for 20), maybe re-evaluate some things that are Battleline for no discernible reason (e.g. Stormfiends); I really want to say Battleline should not exist (leave leader/behemoth/war machine restrictions though) but I think that might open the floodgates.

2. Some ways to mitigate shooting; you should not be able to shoot past a forest, through an entire unit to snipe out a character standing behind 3 rows of guys.  Also, being in melee should have a penalty or just outright prevent shooting, to give armies with little or no shooting a way to survive when they close in.  This might be as simple as changing the core rules so forest block line of sight, I'm not sure.

3. Summoning: A unit that's destroyed should go back into the reserve pool, while a brand new unit should still cost points.  For example, if I have a unit of 10 Ghouls that I bought, and they get wiped out, then I should be able to summon a unit of 10 ghouls back to the board if I am able to summon ghouls, at no extra points cost (because I already bought a unit of 10).  Also, if it's not already a rule (i think the Rule of One takes care of it) you can't summon off of a summon, so no chain summoning guys who then summon guys who then summon guys etc.  Also, you cannot summon monsters (so no summoning a Terrorgheist).

Really that's my only real suggestions, I like most everything else about how GHB handled things.

[hobgoblinclub]

17 hours ago, wayniac said:

2. Some ways to mitigate shooting; you should not be able to shoot past a forest, through an entire unit to snipe out a character standing behind 3 rows of guys.  Also, being in melee should have a penalty or just outright prevent shooting, to give armies with little or no shooting a way to survive when they close in.  This might be as simple as changing the core rules so forest block line of sight, I'm not sure. 

This has been suggested a number of times on a number of threads. It's such a massive change, it'd be like playing a different game. Half the fun of AoS is the fact that everything dies. If you could hide characters behind units, forests, buffs would become almost impossible to remove, massively more powerful, and the game would ruined. 

 

17 hours ago, wayniac said:

3. Summoning: A unit that's destroyed should go back into the reserve pool, while a brand new unit should still cost points.  For example, if I have a unit of 10 Ghouls that I bought, and they get wiped out, then I should be able to summon a unit of 10 ghouls back to the board if I am able to summon ghouls, at no extra points cost (because I already bought a unit of 10).

This'd also be a game breaker. Players would very quickly learn to fight entirely with their summoned units, which would be completely expendable. Other units would sit at the back, unscathed, constantly summoning unending waves of troops to overwhelm the enemy. Death would rule the world. 

[Kaleb Daark]

for campaign play I'd lake to draw some inspiration from 3rd edition fantasy.

there was a couple of really fun rules which would be great in narratives or campaigns.

Capture the standard (beastmen would love this).  So it went like this, after a round of combat, you could declare to capture the standard. if you did, then you immediately fought another round of combat (although this time you didn't count kills) and if you won, you placed the losers standard bearer into your unit.  As a result they gained a penalty until they either destroyed the unit or rescued him.

 

Warmachine hunting

So, we all know war machines have crew.  well there was a hilarious rule that should a crew be war machine-less, or were and engineer say, you could go and attempt to commandeer your opponent's warmachine and turn it on the enemy.  The caveat was that the models doing the deed had to know how to use the warmachine i.e warmachine crew themselves or an engineer character such as a dwarf engineer or daemonsmith.

 

Imagine a campaign where a player has to see that trebuchet or organ gun sitting behind his opponents line every battle and turned on his own army until he finds a way to grab it back.

[bull.jat]

On 12/7/2016 at 0:28 AM, Kaleb Daark said:

Imagine a campaign where a player has to see that trebuchet or organ gun sitting behind his opponents line every battle and turned on his own army until he finds a way to grab it back.

I'm kinda liking the idea of a goblin crew trying to take over a Hellcannon.... It would certainly put a little bit of humour into the game! 

[Sleboda]

On 12/1/2016 at 6:35 PM, wayniac said:

My main suggestions would be:

1. Redo points to enable buying individual models, not just set amounts (e.g. should be possible to start at 10 and buy 5 more without paying for 20), maybe re-evaluate some things that are Battleline for no discernible reason (e.g. Stormfiends); I really want to say Battleline should not exist (leave leader/behemoth/war machine restrictions though) but I think that might open the floodgates.

Won't happen.  They really wanted to do it this way back in 4th ed, but didn't have the guts.  Now they do and the horse is out of the barn. Why do it this way? Well, my most recent purchase shows why.  I was getting a Daughters of Khaine force and noticed that the only possible Battleline is witch elves. I only wanted one unit of them in the army, but I doubled my purchase of them so I could have the required two units.  This rule made them money.

[Squirrelmaster]

But surely if there were no battleline, you'd be taking something else to fill the points you want to play at, and spending money on that instead?

Coupled with GW going to such lengths to promote open play, narrative play, and even points-only play, I'm really inclined to believe that battleline restrictions are there to give competitive players at least the illusion of a balanced game, and not to promote the sale of specific units.

[wayniac]

I think all of matched play is to give the illusion of balance since open failed completely when people have to talk about fairness

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[daedalus81]

22 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think all of matched play is to give the illusion of balance since open failed completely when people have to talk about fairness

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 

Mathematically the points show a largely level playing field across similar units.  So, it is not an illusion.  The application of units on the field is where advantages are made.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed. As factions get rounded-out we should see things get more even for different forces. Some do better by simply having more options to field, for example.