TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Veterannoob]

still fond of units getting prices for solo faction then for GA. ex. vulkite berzerkers 60/80 if GA.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Unit Size Increments:

The increment in which you upgrade units should be separate to the minimum number of models you need in the unit. If you buy something with a minimum model count of 10, maybe you should be able to upgrade in 5's. I get the feeling this won't change, because GW want to see a box and you have a unit (or the next increment of a unit). But it's probably not really that fair that Grots need to upgrade in 20's, just because they're sold in 20's (Although strangely Skaven get to upgrade in 10's, consistency anyone).

I generally disagree as I like people not being able to squeeze every ... last ... drop out of things,  but I do have a specific reason to support it.  

I bought two boxes of 10 sisters of slaughter.  Two models I had painted just plain went missing at Adepticon. Now,  even though I bought boxes,  I have to play 2 sisters down.  To replace them, I have to buy another box ... of 10.

[wayniac]

Honestly, I think they should have gone with the approach from Kings of War instead of this Battleline ******:  You can take 1 artillery/behemoth for each regular unit you take.  No muss, no fuss.  Allows for themed armies without forcing taking X or Y unit to "meet Battleline requirements".  Thus far (beyond shooting being so strong and summoning) is my main bugbear with AOS right now: I find Battleline to be restrictive to the point where I have to adjust themes because I'd have to take something else to fill battleline, or for example with my FEC having that grossly unfluffy IMHO "must take Courtier as general" rule.

[Sleboda]

@wayniac

Isn't  that what we have open play for? 

[wayniac]

Just now, Sleboda said:

@wayniac

Isn't  that what we have open play for? 

In theory, but then you run into people not wanting do to anything other than Matched Play.  So it's a double-edged sword.  Don't want to rehash this argument again, but a fat lot of good "three ways to play" does if most people only want to use one of them.

I'm more or less talking about "Points Only" being the typical way to play (maybe keep leader/behemoth/artillery restrictions), since that gives you IMHO all the benefits of Matched Play without arbitrary and seemingly random restrictions just because.

[Captain Marius]

4 hours ago, Veterannoob said:

still fond of units getting prices for solo faction then for GA. ex. vulkite berzerkers 60/80 if GA.

Im not sure, its not like 10 liberators with just a prime is worth thecsame as 10 libs with a prime and 2 grandweapons even tho they cost the same... i dont think theyll go into that much detail. Might be cool if they did tho!

[Dotification]

Rather than keeping a strict allegiance in order to unlock additional BattleLine units, it would be nice if GW leaned more towards specific Generals doing as such (e.g. Grot Boss on Gigantic Spider allowing Spider Riders as BattleLine, Orruk Megaboss for 'Ardboyz, etc. etc.)

I also agree with pretty much everything "someone2040" posted further up-thread, particularly them re-balancing the basic allegiances, traits, & artefacts.  Oh, & more granularity in adding on models past the unit minimum (at least let me take grots in units of 10, greatswords in groups of 5, & so on.)

[Let's 'ere it for da boyz!]

Re: the issues a lot of us seem to have with shooting.  We (my small gaming group) have disallowed an engaged unit from shooting OUT of combat.  So, if your unit A is engaged with my unit A (which has a missile attack on its Warscroll), my unit can't fire at another of your units somewhere else on the board.  Period.  It's an easy way to tone shooting down a bit and removes something from the game that, thematically, never made much sense to me.

The second tweak we made introduced an element of tactical decision-making into the shooting phase that wasn't there before.  If your unit that is not engaged in melee fires its missile weapons into a melee that another of your units is involved in, any hit rolls of 1 inflict a wound on your unit.  We thought this represented the crazy scrum that a fight between two units would be on the battlefield.

Maybe your Warp Lightning Cannon doesn't mind sizzling a few Clan Rats if it means it might take out your opponent's buffing hero.  But you might think twice about having half a dozen Raptors fire into that combat your Retributors are in against Archaon.

Just a thought, take it for what it's worth.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Let's 'ere it for da boyz!

[wayniac]

15 hours ago, Let's 'ere it for da boyz! said:

Re: the issues a lot of us seem to have with shooting.  We (my small gaming group) have disallowed an engaged unit from shooting OUT of combat.  So, if your unit A is engaged with my unit A (which has a missile attack on its Warscroll), my unit can't fire at another of your units somewhere else on the board.  Period.  It's an easy way to tone shooting down a bit and removes something from the game that, thematically, never made much sense to me.

The second tweak we made introduced an element of tactical decision-making into the shooting phase that wasn't there before.  If your unit that is not engaged in melee fires its missile weapons into a melee that another of your units is involved in, any hit rolls of 1 inflict a wound on your unit.  We thought this represented the crazy scrum that a fight between two units would be on the battlefield.

Maybe your Warp Lightning Cannon doesn't mind sizzling a few Clan Rats if it means it might take out your opponent's buffing hero.  But you might think twice about having half a dozen Raptors fire into that combat your Retributors are in against Archaon.

Just a thought, take it for what it's worth.

That sounds like a good idea.  The usual argument I see is that historically archers were trained to shoot over their friendly units to hit enemy units, so you should be allowed to do that in-game.  But this seems like a good, clean way to fix a lot of the issues and keep shooting strong, but tone down the nonsense of being engaged with Unit A and shooting across the board at Hero B.

[chord]

I think all shooting issues can be resolved with better LOS rules.    It would make the available targets lower and more practical instead of shooting through everything.

[Let's 'ere it for da boyz!]

55 minutes ago, wayniac said:

That sounds like a good idea.  The usual argument I see is that historically archers were trained to shoot over their friendly units to hit enemy units, so you should be allowed to do that in-game.  But this seems like a good, clean way to fix a lot of the issues and keep shooting strong, but tone down the nonsense of being engaged with Unit A and shooting across the board at Hero B.

It works for us.  Everyone in our group agrees that shooting is powerful if you build your list around it, but nobody cries cheese either.

Also, our rules are cut and dry.  No wiggle room for subjectivity or perspective like LOS rules would necessarily create.

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

That sounds like a good idea.  The usual argument I see is that historically archers were trained to shoot over their friendly units to hit enemy units, so you should be allowed to do that in-game.  But this seems like a good, clean way to fix a lot of the issues and keep shooting strong, but tone down the nonsense of being engaged with Unit A and shooting across the board at Hero B.

or perhaps we say that if unit A is involved in melee, then any troops in unit A NOT engaged in melee are free to shoot over at hero B, otherwise, they cannot shoot at all unless their warscroll says otherwise, and even then, only at the unit they are in melee with  - like chaos dwarf fireglaives, who's melee weapon is also their firearm.

[Guest]

How would people feel about the GHB2 including allegiance abilities for armies with.... no allegiance at all. Hear me out!

Sometimes for reasons of theme I think there's some justification for mixing units from different Grand Alliances. However, even though this isn't forbidden by the rules they don't specifically say that this is allowed either, and there's a general (incorrect) assumption amongst players that doing so is 'illegal'. Providing allegiance abilities for mixed alliance armies would tacitly confirm that it is a viable option.

Now, since mixing alliances in this way should probably only be encouraged for cool thematic reasons, and certainly not for advantage, the allegiance abilities should be considerably less attractive and effective than those available for each Grand Alliance. In fact, it would be totally acceptable for them to be complete garbage or even just silly, quirky and fun. They could even have detrimental effects on the army rather than conveying bonuses - theme-conscious players won't mind this, but competitive players will. The purpose wouldn't be to provide advantages for mixing the Grand Alliances, but to explicitly demonstrate that this is an option that is allowed by the rules and open up the possibilities that AoS offers even further.

Thoughts?

[rokapoke]

10 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Sometimes for reasons of theme I think there's some justification for mixing units from different Grand Alliances. However, even though this isn't forbidden by the rules they don't specifically say that this is allowed either, and there's a general (incorrect) assumption amongst players that doing so is 'illegal'. Providing allegiance abilities for mixed alliance armies would tacitly confirm that it is a viable option.

In matched play you can't mix -- even in the FAQ for reinforcement points you have to maintain one single grand alliance.

Narrative or open, sure. Let's see some.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

In matched play you can't mix -- even in the FAQ for reinforcement points you have to maintain one single grand alliance.

Narrative or open, sure. Let's see some.

Good point, I'd forgotten that. But if they were to implement these weak/detrimental cross-alliance abilities they could easily allow it for matched play too - because if done right no competitive player would ever use it! 

[Azlak the Damned]

I apologise in advance if this has been said but I couldn't see it when I skimmed through...

It seems the community prefers base to base measuring so I think that any points lists in the GHB v2 should also have a column listing the size of the base each model should be based on. Some people base their models on smaller bases but some base them on larger ones thus gaining an advantage throughout the game.

This should be a standard column wherever a points list is released.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Galas]

GW will not impose a full round-base rule before they rebox ALL the models in their store. And if they do it before, well... that will be a d*ck move from their part.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Azlak the Damned said:

 I think that any points lists in the GHB v2 should also have a column listing the size of the base each model should be based on. Some people base their models on smaller bases but some base them on larger ones thus gaining an advantage throughout the game.

This should be a standard column...

I would go a step further and say that of they require bases to base, they are obligated to mandate base sizes. 

@Auticus 3rd ed had mandated, listed bases for all models.  It sucked when that went away. 

I would superlike this if I could. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Sleboda

[daedalus81]

GW won't enforce it.  Tournaments will.  Draw your lines in the sand based on that.

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

some minute advantage.

Id err on the side of caution about things like that 

 

I wouldn't call some advantages you gain "minute"

50% more attacks from bloodletters isn't small.

Receiving less attacks isn't small, doing more on a smaller base isn't small.

 

Movement isn't an issue. Giving people the assumption that its negligible is not the way to go

Edited April 14, 2017 by Arkiham

[Galas]

I just magnetized my square bases, as AoS do the change from a size up: 25mm square to 32mm round, 40mm square to 50mm round, etc... so I have 0 problems with the base thing. Maybe someday I'll paint the round bases behind the painted and decorated squares ones. For now I just pain all them black  like the borders of the squares ones, so it looks like a big pedestal.

I can see the outrage in a ultra competitive setting of someone getting 1-2 attacks more (or X) for having different sized bases. But as I'm no competitive player and don't play in a competitive setting, I take it easy.

I'm just a little tired of people on the internet bashing people with square bases. Stop discriminating me man! You are gonna push me into the 9th age crowd!  

Edited April 14, 2017 by Galas

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

 

You're basically at that point telling people not to spend any time on their bases since at any time GW could decide to sell them on a different base, and then you'd be obliged to tear apart your model to rebase it.  

 

Sorta.

That's a natural consequence of all this.  They could have stayed in squares, but they didn't.  They are at the very lest implying a change is in the offing.  The largest US event, one endorsed strongly by GW, has declared that rounds are required next year. 

GW is taking a soft approach, but the tea leaves say rounds are a comin".

 

If that's the case, and their own events are going base to base,  it's easy to add up that the game is moving to a "bases matter in some ways" state. 

If so, then yes,  one should consider not ding anything too fancy with bases.

 

Edit - 3rd ed reference was to WFB, bit 40K.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Sleboda

[Nevvermore]

25mm square instead of 32mm round is a huge advantage as you can attack with two ranks instead of one, meaning double the number of attacks. That's the only case where base size makes such a big difference though that I know of.

 

edit: oh yeah cavalry going to big ovals, that's probably the biggest issue since the 25mm<32mm can easily be houseruled to 25mm=1".

Edited April 14, 2017 by Nevvermore

[Kaleb Daark]

So where does it stop?

we already have guys that will argue that the second rank always attacks because they squeeze in the gap in the middle of two other models, who when moving a wood out of the way will park models on where the tree was. So this dude makes the fact that a 32mm base shouldn't let him hit a bit academic.

today it's minutiae of bases, tomorrow it'll be that and the next day it'll be another thing.

until you have a game with one build and one cheese to rule them all as 8th became, and them those same people who brought it to that will decry the game/faction/colour of cheese as being broken and what a rubbish game its become.

@Auticus I agree, and like you won't rebase on somebody's say so. One day I will rebase, but it will be a long way off.

theres a lot of great stuff in this thread but there's also a lot of "I'd win if the rules were like this" bs.  Let's not turn it into what was left behind or go down the road of the CCG's.  everything here in this thread should enrich the gaming and the model ownership experience, not the scoresheet of rank chasers. War gaming and role playing was around long before tournaments and I don't recall struggling to have a great time back then..  but then you just had to use common sense rather than be spoon fed.

...and calm.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Kaleb Daark

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, Kaleb Daark said:

So where does it stop?

we already have guys that will argue that the second rank always attacks because they squeeze in the gap in the middle of two other models, who when moving a wood out of the way will park models on where the tree was. So this dude makes the fact that a 32mm base shouldn't let him hit a bit academic.

It stops at a consistent application that affects everyone equally.  Planning your unit positioning to get extra attacks out of 32s is a tactical move within the universal expectations of fairness - not a basing standard.

Tournaments will go this way.  Everyone else is free to do whatever they want guided by the communities they play in.  You will not get a consensus for freedom of basing here, ever.

Some models on rounds and some models on squares will not be consistent.  Ever.  
And for the very same reasons measuring from models instead of bases will not be consistent.  Ever.