TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[VBS]

Probably already mentioned but flexible unit size would make life much easier. Reduce the minimum size for certain units (like from 10 to 5) and implement the possibility of adding individual minis. I know the understrength concept is to sell more minis, but the whole unit size restrictions are particularly annoying (like, I'd be ace to field my 8 dryads for 96 points).

I'd also make some changes to army building, as the previous point could lead to battleline tax abuse. So instead of +2, 0-1, etc... I'd go back to percentages. I think they help to balance army compositions instead of min-maxing everything to fit as much as possible on heroes, behemoths, etc...

Last point, prevent units from shooting when engaged in cc and add some form of friendly-fire. It makes sense from a logical point of view and would tone down the shooting domination. Possibly adjust point cost of certain units.

[rokapoke]

I think it would be nice to see an army composition rule that no non-battleline unit can be taken more than your most populous battleline unit...

This could prevent "spamming" of units that are perceived as "broken" by many in the community (e.g., Kurnoth Hunters, Savage Orruk Arrowboys), merely by making the Battleline units actual forming the battleline in your army. 

Examples:

With 4x basic units of 5 Liberators (Battleline) [in any combination, so 4 units of 5 Liberators, or 2 units of 10 Liberators, or 1 unit of 10 Liberators and 2 units of 5 Liberators, etc.] I can take as many as 4x basic units of 5 Retributors, in any combination [so I could run 4x 5-man Liberator units and one 20-man Retributor unit, as an example]. 

With 4x basic units of 10 Dryads (Battleline) [in any combination], I can take as many as 4x units of 3 Kurnoth Hunters [in any combination].

With 2x basic units of 10 Dryads (Battleline) and 2x basic units of 5 Tree Revenants (Battleline), I can take as many as 2x basic units of 3 Kurnoth Hunters.

[Arkiham]

14 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I think it would be nice to see an army composition rule that no non-battleline unit can be taken more than your most populous battleline unit...

This could prevent "spamming" of units that are perceived as "broken" by many in the community (e.g., Kurnoth Hunters, Savage Orruk Arrowboys), merely by making the Battleline units actual forming the battleline in your army. 

Examples:

With 4x basic units of 5 Liberators (Battleline) [in any combination, so 4 units of 5 Liberators, or 2 units of 10 Liberators, or 1 unit of 10 Liberators and 2 units of 5 Liberators, etc.] I can take as many as 4x basic units of 5 Retributors, in any combination [so I could run 4x 5-man Liberator units and one 20-man Retributor unit, as an example]. 

With 4x basic units of 10 Dryads (Battleline) [in any combination], I can take as many as 4x units of 3 Kurnoth Hunters [in any combination].

With 2x basic units of 10 Dryads (Battleline) and 2x basic units of 5 Tree Revenants (Battleline), I can take as many as 2x basic units of 3 Kurnoth Hunters.

only really works this if youve good battleline. iron jawz would wreck some armies completely, as would beastclaw

[Captain Marius]

I dont think percentages are needed - if you want to max out on heroes/behemoths you should be able to. Its a theme.

Same with shooting - if shooting is too strong it should be repointed. Kairic Acolytes and Pink Horrors are well expensive for what you get - maybe other shooty stuff should be increased in points cost to match?

The scenarios themselves are also good balancing mechanisms as they ensure that a balanced army should have a good mix of troops and heroes. A scenario where only BL score could be useful as it would increase the value of the basic stuff.

Similarly more deployment zone shenanigans like in Escalation would prevent players using their optimal setup all the time and add further considerations to list-building.

None of this is very revolutionary, i think we can expect point tweaks and new scenarios as a given!

The only sticking point for me is a simple way to get a Gargant etc into an Ironjaws army (or Mutalith into Tzeentch army etc) without losing allegiance... I think maybe factions should be classified as Core and Auxiliary, so if you took models from two Core factions youd default to your basic Alliance abilities, but you could add models from one (or more) Aux factions without losing it.

Aleguzzlers, Thunderscorn, Masterclan, Deathlords, Soulblight(?), Chaos Monsters, Ironweld, Eldritch Council etc i think could all fit in this category (and more besides). 

Some could be Core AND Aux (Eldritch Council, Deathlords etc).

Hmm i might try this out! Need more allegiance abilities for races, united daemons, united free peoples etc first tho to make it more worthwhile!

[Dan.Ford]

Reduce Nagash, Archaon, Skarrac, Chaos Trolls, 

[Thain]

Change the terminology used for describing the blocks of models units are purchased in, to distinguish them from whole units. I suggest using "section" and "unit."

"This unit of Ironjawz Brutes consists of two sections; These two units of Ironjawz Brutes consist of one section each; and this unit of Gitmob Grots consists of four sections."

[rokapoke]

I'd love to see, if not necessarily full allegiance abilities, spells, and artifacts, etc, at least provide different command traits for the different factions (e.g., Seraphon get next to nothing from the existing Order trait about rerolling battleshock, but the generic artifacts are fine). 

[Hollow]

I'd really like to see more Wargear and general gubbins for factions. I really miss that aspect of fantasy, lots of cool magical trinkets and weapons to sift through and equip your warriors with. The added so much flavor and allowed for some interesting gaming combo's. 

[Fr0]

There are a few things, but only one thing on my mind at the current moment. Sorry if someone already posted it but I'd like to see a little clarification on Reinforcement Points. Which unit's ability require reinforcement points ie. Lord of Chaos Glory or Damnation; conditionally killing a enemy general causes him to ascend into daemonhood and becomes a DP, whereas when slain he's bring brought back as a Spawn. I argue no need for RP for the DP however being destroyed is clear under the current RP rules. Skarr's Slaughterborn requires a roll, rather than a guaranteed rez. If he requires RP, then he's not really worth taking as he's pretty expensive as far as Bloodbound heroes go.

I know the Ring of Immortality was FAQ'd for this, and the Ardfist formation clearly follows the rule but either consistency or clarification would be great. Not sure if this would be a task for GH2, or just a footnote in the respective unit's entry.

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I don't know that the reinforcements need clarification so much as people just hate not getting the free points that those abilities would normally give (and why you'd take them to begin with).

Wouldn't have necessarily said that, I think there is a genuine confusion over some wascrolls such as Skarr.  Considering it's a major part of matched play, the very small paragraph doesn't set it in stone quite as much as it ought to.  A short RP FAQ would actually clear any confusion up.

[wayniac]

43 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Perhaps an appendum to the sentence that says if you add anything to the table at all you pay reinforcement points for it *to include resurrection abilities* or something like that.

My original comment stems from seeing the same basic statements in a myriad of forums where a poster states that they don't think that you should pay points for the ability because then it makes that model "useless".  

Lest we forget matched play is supposed to focus entirely on balance and getting free points is the opposite of balance.  (not forgetting that we have two other ways to play - narrative and open - where you don't pay points for these abilities)

So the argument of "not everything is meant for every type of play" which is what this really boils down to.  I really hate that from a design standpoint because A) It's lazy and B) it further divides how things work.  I think half of the problem is not people who want "free points" but people who are against any sort of free points because "it's not fair" (I'm sure you are intimately familiar with this type) and anything that isn't equal points is immediately bad.

[Captain Marius]

I think drawing the distinction is the tricky bit. I think reinforcements is quite a broad spectrum in AoS and effects-wise even includes saving throws!

- saving throws stop models in a unit taking damage

- some special abilities allow you to ignore the effects of a failed saving throw (eg 'ward saves') further preventing damage.

ok these seem fine.

- many models can heal wounds

ok so we have to redo unsaved damage weve already done there

- some units can have models returned to them, eg ghouls, daemons, some of these are noted as being resurrected while some specifically refer to new models joining the unit

right now we're having to re-kill entire models ok

- the GHB specifically prevents units having models added past their starting size

that seems fair, but ultimately devalues those model-adding abilities

- some single model units can be resurrected, eg death hero with Carstein Ring, flamespyre phoenix, Skarr Bloodwrath

they have to pay full points to do this and dont necessarily get all their wounds back! Seems a tad unfair when some single models can regenerate wounds or be healed with much the same effect as a resurrection

- some units can be returned to the board eg Hammers of Sigmar Liberators

im not sure of this one, the rule reads like its the same unit being restored rather than a new unit being summoned...

- many units can be summoned by magic or otherwise arrive as reinforcements, eg most death and daemon units, Flesh Eaters, Ardboyz in an Ardfist etc

well yes we can see how this could get out of hand, play against Nagash or Tzeentch daemons in Open for an example!

where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to having to deal the same damage to a unit more than once?

Personally i like the theory of only being able to summon units which have already been destroyed in the game (and no chain summoning!), ive not tried this though and it doesnt fix everything (ill level with you, i just read Khorne armies will have a Blood Tithe that culminates in a Bloodthirster being summoned and I really want this to work in matched play!)

[RuneBrush]

40 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Perhaps an appendum to the sentence that says if you add anything to the table at all you pay reinforcement points for it *to include resurrection abilities* or something like that.

My original comment stems from seeing the same basic statements in a myriad of forums where a poster states that they don't think that you should pay points for the ability because then it makes that model "useless".  

Lest we forget matched play is supposed to focus entirely on balance and getting free points is the opposite of balance.  (not forgetting that we have two other ways to play - narrative and open - where you don't pay points for these abilities)

This is where the problem really lies though, you can resurrect slain models in a unit for free, up to the starting size of the unit, death and wanderers both include mechanics to handle this, as do daemonic icons.  Skarr is technically a resurrection - it's the same model (he's a unique character so has to be), so why should he cost points?

I do see where you're coming from though on the statement that a model/item is useless, though I don't think that's really what @Fr0 was saying, more that Skarr needs to drop in points to justify wanting to allocate RP's for him - bearing in mind Khorne has no other summoning abilities so to allocate 140 points on the off-chance Skarr will die, 8 models will die and then roll a 4+ to resurrect is quite steep for a Khorne player!

[Requizen]

I was chatting with someone and the discussion of Summoning came up again. What would you guys think if there was no Summoning Pool, but instead you just could not summon over the agreed point limit? So, if you start at 1500 points in a 2000 point game, you can summon 500 points right off the bat, but for armies that start at 2000 points, you can only Summon things once you have already lost units. That way, you don't get into the situation where one army is suddenly 2x larger than their opponent, but it can be used as a reinforcement tool (and therefore shut down by killing the Wizards before killing units for them to replace).

I think something needs to change, but unsure at this point.

[Nico]

Quote

Kairic Acolytes and Pink Horrors are well expensive for what you get - maybe other shooty stuff should be increased in points cost to match?

Kairics are maybe a tad expensive. 6++ ward saves are easy to underestimate though.

Pink Horrors are not expensive at all*.

*If the Split rule is FAQed in a manner that makes Pink Horrors junk, then I would revisit my views on this.

 

[Nico]

We've covered some of these points in our FAQ's for London's #Calling 2017:

For example, we've ruled that the costs of Skarr and the Phoenix (i.e. more than the Frosty) must have been taken to include the cost of the chance of bringing them back.

The event is taking place this weekend and we'll consolidate the feedback for the purposes of the GH v 2.0. 

 

[Sleboda]

On 3/29/2017 at 6:47 AM, Auticus said:

Lest we forget matched play is supposed to focus entirely on balance and getting free points is the opposite of balance.

It's a tough line to draw, though.  Some things have reinforcement-linked abilities that can't be separated from the model and they do still have matched points. While some might decry the "free" points summoning gives, it's fair to also say these things are overcosted for matched play.

My example works be Morghasts. Their Herald ability increases the power of summoners. One would think this ability has a cost built in.  If you do not set aside points in your army for summoning (a highly risky and discouraging prospect in matched play), the Herald ability, and its point cost, are wasted. 

I think there needs to be a better way to cost this sort of thing in matched play. 

[Captain Marius]

If you could summon back stuff that died during a game, what are the most insane examples you could think of? That Ardboyz one from an Ardfist might be pretty good...

[PJetski]

Every Seraphon unit

[Jamopower]

I think a limitation, that shooting while within 3" of enemy would only be allowed to enemies within 3" could be good for the game, looking at the amount of skyfires and kurnoth hunters in the tournament reports. This would give more tactical choices to shooting and prevention of it. This could be taken model per model, so by forming your units right, the front warriors could slow down the offenders, while the back ranks could still fire further, but also would allow fast cavalry and such to be able to harrass the shooters better. But to be clear, I wouldn't want to stop shooting totally when engaged.

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Jamopower said:

I think a limitation, that shooting while within 3" of enemy would only be allowed to enemies within 3" could be good for the game

I disagree.

I feel like that would present a subtle shift in the style of the game.  Right now everything feels, I duuno, bold. Decisive. Action-packed.

All this wild, caution to the wind stuff is going on.  TBH, it feels like the best action scenes of the Lord of the Rings movies.  Swords and arrows twirling and zinging about impossibly, but awesomely.

Put in that buffer and you make it feel more cautious and calculated. Not a fan of the idea. 

[Requizen]

I personally think that the less restrictive the ruleset, the better. No one likes being told "you can't do that because x". Having minuses is ok, debuffs/buffs/etc makes things more dramatic, but being told that you can't shoot because someone is close by just makes people unable to use their models, and that's less fun in my mind. I hope 40k allows shooting into/out of combat as well.

[Jamopower]

I said I don't want to stop it totally, but just limit the shooting into those enemies that are engaging the shooting unit. At least I feel it would increase both the immersion and the tactical options. The elves in the Lord of the rings were alo shooting their opponnts from point blank, not some other advancing orcs from the distance.

[chord]

Shooting is not as powerful in Triumph and Treachery games just due to the number of players and the combat phase. Changing rules has a large impact.  Maybe just something for matched play if anything at all

[Jamopower]

Yes, I meant for matched play. As it is the only one that has any restrictions, I thought that it would be obvious.