TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Broxus]

I would be happy if they would just of they allowed me to buy a warscroll as many times as I want then give me the ability to make units.  For example if I purchased 50 Plaguebearers I could have the option to make a two units of 25.  

 

Also the battleline requirements should be off how many times you buy the scroll not how many units you have are.  For example, a 30 plaguebearers unit would count as three battline choices.  This would balance out the disadvantages of units requiring large numbers to gain advantages when compared to small units of same cost that get all advantages.  An example of this is stormcast liberators (5+ to get benefit) vs plaguebearers (20+ to get benefits).   This currently forces a Nurgle player to spend almost 3x as many points in battleline when compared to Stormsast. 

[ElectricPaladin]

4 hours ago, Broxus said:

I would be happy if they would just of they allowed me to buy a warscroll as many times as I want then give me the ability to make units.  For example if I purchased 50 Plaguebearers I could have the option to make a two units of 25.  

Ad-hoc unit creation would be interesting, though they'd have to change the way Battleline requirements work.

[RuneBrush]

7 hours ago, Broxus said:

This currently forces a Nurgle player to spend almost 3x as many points in battleline when compared to Stormsast.

This is the same for pretty much any Daemon army, there is a whole host of Mortal battleline units that you can use though.

[Baardah]

On 23.11.2016 at 7:59 PM, Hotdropmartin said:

Battleine combine! keep 

I would really like to see a character creation system done for narrative play using a set number of 'hero' points to spend on stats, abilities , keywords etc.

 

 

This one I really like. One of the things I miss most from older versions of the game is the ability to customize heroes..the trick is to keep it from enabling creating "unbeatable"  and therefore in-fun heroes...

[ElectricPaladin]

2 hours ago, Baardah said:

One of the things I miss most from older versions of the game is the ability to customize heroes..

Fair, but on the other hand, I don't miss the irritation of wanting options that there's no model for, or the stress of worrying that I've spent a bunch of time/energy/money on a "bad" heroes. It's kind of nice not to have to worry about all that.

[Squirrelmaster]

2 hours ago, Baardah said:

This one I really like. One of the things I miss most from older versions of the game is the ability to customize heroes..the trick is to keep it from enabling creating "unbeatable"  and therefore in-fun heroes...

Improving the balance of the existing command traits and artefacts would be a start.

[Broxus]

On 12/9/2016 at 2:03 AM, RuneBrush said:

This is the same for pretty much any Daemon army, there is a whole host of Mortal battleline units that you can use though.

Yes but you can't use mortal battline (they lose battline trait) units if you take any daemons.  This is what really annoys me.  

Edited December 11, 2016 by Broxus

[Arkiham]

Add a passive save bonus for units with Shields against shooting.

It's completely illogical to suggest they wouldn't try defend themselves with their Shields

A stormcast or chaos warrior with a shield almost as big as they are, who are most definitely strong enough to lift it a over their heads have the same armour save against shooting as their mates running about with two swords in their hands. What the hell? 

 

[Broxus]

10 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Add a passive save bonus for units with Shields against shooting.

It's completely illogical to suggest they wouldn't try defend themselves with their Shields

A stormcast or chaos warrior with a shield almost as big as they are, who are most definitely strong enough to lift it a over their heads have the same armour save against shooting as their mates running about with two swords in their hands. What the hell? 

 

So long as thier points increase I am fine with this.  Liberators are already likely the best 100 point battleline unit in AOS.  They don't need to become even better for free. 

[Bjarni St.]

11 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Add a passive save bonus for units with Shields against shooting.

As much as I agree, that's really a Warscroll change and not something they're likely to ever do via GHB. They gave shields all kinds of different rules in AoS (for whatever reason) so it's extra hard to do compared to WHFB.

[Arkiham]

50 minutes ago, Bjarni St. said:

As much as I agree, that's really a Warscroll change and not something they're likely to ever do via GHB. They gave shields all kinds of different rules in AoS (for whatever reason) so it's extra hard to do compared to WHFB.

Not really, a sentence saying

"Shields: non mounted units equipped with a shield use it to try and block ranged attacks, add +1 to the units save against shooting if not in melee combat"

Would be enough 

Edited December 11, 2016 by Arkiham

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

Not really, a sentence saying

"Shields: non mounted units equipped with a shield use it to try and block ranged attacks, add +1 to the units save against shooting if not in melee combat"

Would be enough 

Would that include bucklers? What about Iron Fists? You do realise Elven Shields already give a bigger bonus against shooting than combat, right?

I think by the time they'd gone through and re-pointed everything to take this rule into account (and clarified any special cases), it wouldn't be worth it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's how Crypt Shields work for Death, though only against attacks with Rend - .

[shinros]

1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

That's how Crypt Shields work for Death, though only against attacks with Rend - .

Yeah I was terrified to face someone with two kunnin ruks but my 40 skeletons took all the shots like champs. I do think shields having a rule like this across all models would be helpful with the shooting situation. Those who already have rules for their shields they should state for them it only applies to shooting attacks in my opinion.

Edited December 12, 2016 by shinros

[CoffeeGrunt]

Personally I think the variety in how shields work adds flavour though.

[Malakithe]

Not fully a GHB thing but the Ironjawz Weirdnob Shaman needs to be able to cast 2 spells to justify his cost. As it stands in matched play everyone usually rolls Ironfist cuz it's the only useful one. People bring a Shaman for mystic shields but not much else. The Weirdfist is random at best and the shamans spell are too random to justify his cost. 

Lower his cost or beef him up to 2 spell casts.

[Broxus]

At SCGT (many would argue the most balanced point system AoS had) I came in sixth place with a pure Nurgle list.  Since the GHB I struggle to beat my 11yr old son (he usually wins now).  This is due to a massive points increase on almost every Nurgle unit.  I call this the Nurgle tax for no reason:

Great Unclean One increased by 20pts

Epidemus increased by 80pts

Herald of Nurgle increased by 40pts

3x Beasts of Nurgle increased by 40pts

3x Plague Drones increased by 40pts

Plagueclaw catapults increased by 60pts

3x Nurglings increased by 40pts

5x Blightkings increased by 20pts

If you were just taking one of each these units your list increase by a total of 340points!!! Which is almost a 33% point hike on my Nurgle list for absoulely no reason since SCGT.  Please note this didn't impact many other factions and actually helped some such as Stormcast and Khorne.  I mean right now the Herald of Nurgle costs as much as a Lord Celestant/Castellant????  Does this make any sense to anyone?

[GorbadIronClaw]

Let named characters to be able to use the generic ones command abilities. I find pretty absurd that Gorbad or Grimgor can´t declare a Waaagh!!! while a generic Orc Warboss can. And give legacy some love!

[Craptrain]

Just another addition I've noticed in putting together my current project.

Comparing The Glottkin to Tamurkhan, Tamurkhan is 20 points more but The Glottkin is simply a better unit.  Glottkin has a better command ability, higher damage potential, and is a wizard.  I would like to see Tamurkhan's point cost reduced to about 20 points less than The Glottkin in order to better reflect his value.

[Strength_Hammer]

Another thought.  I would like to see points for individual models to help fill the occasional point gap when building an Army.  However,  I would only like to see this on Battleline scrolls.

[TerrorPenguin]

 Morghasts need to come down dramatically, they are slightly better than melee Kurnoth Hunters with no option for range.

Kurnoth Hunters are 60 points per model, morghasts are 120 points per mode

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, TerrorPenguin said:

 Morghasts need to come down dramatically, they are slightly better than melee Kurnoth Hunters with no option for range.

Kurnoth Hunters are 60 points per model, morghasts are 120 points per mode

Harbingers - +1 Wound, +4 Move, +3 Bravery, +1 Attack, Fly, 3 dice charge and 18" threat, can be summoned.
Archai - everything above except no extra attack (against scythe kurnoth), but their damage is D3 instead of 3 and the charge is replace with a mortal wound save.

Melee Kurnoth won't benefit from armor rerolls very often and otherwise just bounce command abilities. 

Morghasts need to come down, but not dramatically.

[TerrorPenguin]

Unit of 6 Kurnoth Hunters = 360 points. 30 wounds; 18 attacks 3's to hit and wound, rend 2, d3 damage. 50% chance of causing 6 mortal wounds to the unit is in combat with. (I'll give you they won't get the re roll saves often).

Equivalent unit of Morghast Archai is 3, recognising that you can't take this, but for illustration. 18 wounds, 9 attacks, 3's to hit and wound rend 2, damage 3. Extra 4" move and flying. 33% chance of ignoring wounds. 60% chance of being summoned. Chance of summon being dispelled. No options for ranged attacks. No mortal wound output.

Would Sylvaneth players be happy to double the points in exchange for a longer move, more reliable damage and a ward save, but lose the mortal wound output.

Archai should be 240 for three, imvho 

[Broxus]

9 hours ago, Craptrain said:

Just another addition I've noticed in putting together my current project.

Comparing The Glottkin to Tamurkhan, Tamurkhan is 20 points more but The Glottkin is simply a better unit.  Glottkin has a better command ability, higher damage potential, and is a wizard.  I would like to see Tamurkhan's point cost reduced to about 20 points less than The Glottkin in order to better reflect his value.

To be honest both are terrible for their points and suffer the Nurgle tax.  They both should likely have a points decrease.  With the rules of one and the lack of usefulness for summoning wizards are no where near as useful as they once were.  Especially if you have multiple in your army.

The best example of this Nurgle tax is why does a Herald of Nurgle cost the same as a Knight-Azyros, Lord Castellant, Lord Celestant?  At most the Herald should cost 70-points since he lacks any real damage, surviablity, or command ability.  Likely all those Stormcast characters should be 120-points each.

Put differently, you can buy a Knight-Azyros, Lord Castellant, 2x Lord Celestants, and Lord Relictor for the same cost as the Glottkin which are dramatically better.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Broxus

[Lord Veshnakar]

Fyreslayers need a serious addressing of their point values across the board for everything maybe barring the Auric Hearthguard and some of the foot characters. From what I can tell their points are based off of the original SCGT points pack that had them substantially over-costed. They significantly adjusted the pool cost for them in future SCGT pool docs, but this reduction occurred after the GHB was written. 

Also it would be great to see units with the "Priest" keyword gain the ability to unbind.