TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[TerrorPenguin]

10 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Well if you think of it, instead of using the old-edition terminology of "fleeing", as the current "retreat", and consider that tactical withdrawal is a real tactic, it's less wrong maybe.

I think this could be fixed with warscrolls, so that say humans can make a strategic withdrawal from a combat but that a khorgaroth can't. With adjustments in points to reflect. 

[fartsocks]

24 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Well if you think of it, instead of using the old-edition terminology of "fleeing", as the current "retreat", and consider that tactical withdrawal is a real tactic, it's less wrong maybe.

Agreed. Fleeing was something you were forced to do. It's been replaced by battleshock. Retreating is your choice.

[Liam]

 

 1) Would like to see rules and maybe specific scenario's for smaller size games, playing 700pt games was fantastic and would like to see this level rolled out more.

 2) Match Play Army Construction - Give each faction a list of "allies" it can group with, allow players to take one of the ally specific battleline units as a battleline unit in their army providing they also take a hero along for the ride. For example, Skaven currently have to play with one of the clans or take 3 Clanrat Units. Would be good to be allowed to take one unit of Plague Monks if I took a Plague Priest, or a Unit of Giant Rats if I took a packmaster for example.

 3) I'd personally change the spell casting rule of one to be successfully cast once rather than attempted once.

 4) Rules for a more fleshed out Map Campaign.

 5) 4th way to play, T&T to make a return, complete with a Deck of Cards.

 6) Minor Points rebalacing using actual tournament feedback - points all based online. Can be tweaked very easilly by GW at any point, maybe even once every 3 months in case anything slips though the net of a system which seems pretty robust at the moment bar a couple of examples (Ruk etc).

 

 Think that covers it from my PoV

[rokapoke]

Incorporate the FAQs and clarifications into the rules printed in the book. There's no better time to go to the v1.1 rules that can clear up so many questions that continue cropping up. 

[tuorgustavo]

My wishlist:

• Base to base measure for Matched Play
• Cost reduction for some characters (i.e. Gordrak / Archaon)
• New faction related spells
• New artefacts and command traits for older factions
• Mix Command traits and artefacts on generals / heroes when using two different factions Warscrolls Batalltion within same Allegiance
• Some kind of penallity for 3" or less shotting
• Less penallities for mixing factions
• Better clarification on a unit´s weapon of choice (i.e. Arboyz longlasting dual wield/2hand/shield discussion)
• Better buff stacking up clarification
• More Matched Play Battleplans

[BaldoBeardo]

Campaign stuff, a kill-team style mod, a random scenario generator would also be pretty neat.

I'm not actually that bothered with the current GHB, although if pages 100-153 mysteriously disappeared in a fire along with the backups and anyone who remembered what was written on them it wouldn't be too bad.

I'd far rather GW went back and nailed down the rules as they are. Clear, consistent semantics, terminology & phrasing, etc.
It's becoming clearer and clearer that the ruleset just isn't up to the rigours of competitive loopholers.
So no GHB2 for me please. Just AoS kill-team and a review of all existing materials. Ta!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Blackflag760]

1. More battleline options within sub factions. I Would like to see Gutbuster grots be made battleline for Gutbustets considering matched play revolves around capturing objectives.

2. Make base-to-base measuring the rule.

3. Don't adjust points to make good units bad, add synergies to make bad units better. Example: bloodreavers are jank but with some synergies they're a good, cheap unit. 

Love the initiative roll, rules of one and shooting out of combat. I hope they remain unchanged.

Keep up the good work. General's Handbook brought our dieing AOS community back life.

 

[Ratatatata]

I'm sure GW can do the maths and figure out that "simple" rules equates more people getting in to the hobby. I am a bit worried though that matched play/pitched battles will develop into the rules-lawyering of old times in an effort to please the supposed "old crowd". Looking at the Facebook replies it was 0,1 seconds before the first angry post about re-introducing ranks, changing the shooting rules etc etc. Putting my trust in your GW connections @Ben

Only thing I´d really like to see is point-adjustments and possibly a few new scenarios. That would be enough for me at least. There's plenty of feedback out there about points so no need on my part to repeat it. 

Aside from that, here´s hoping they also take the opportunity to fix the rules where there was a need for an FAQ. 

[Carnelian]

I would say make fyreslayers cheaper across the board

Make monsters slightly cheaper

Have some battleplans for narrative play which use unbalanced points on each side

Make stormcast prosecutors with javelins the same cost as hammer prosecutors

Make judicators more expensive or not battleline

Take feedback from the thread about ironjawz points

Do not get rid of legacy warscrolls points

Keep summoning as it is

More expensive savage orruks - 20 wounds for 100/120 points is too cheap! 

Give some negative to shooting whilst in combat 

Make orion cheaper - hes so squishy 

Include allegiance abilities for all pre sylvaneth battletomes

 

[KhaosZand3r]

What I suggested on the original posted is removing the Rule of One for spells, and allowing summoning spells to heal existing units for free. Also, summoning a unit that has to be undersized (looking at you, Bloodcrushers) shouldn't have to spend the full cost.

Or, just make it points per model again!

Edited November 23, 2016 by KhaosZand3r

[Bjarni St.]

Points values need a looking over again obviously, but particularly monsters and some more elite units and characters do (it's tempting to start rattling off units but that would just end up tldr).

Battleline units are a little too inflexible. Both the base requirements and the variety of actual battleline units could be looked at. Certain units requiring a particular general to become battleline seems too limiting (Skullcrushers, Hearthguard).

We should be able to buy additional (on top of the min.) models for units individually (at base points cost / # of models base). The maths aren't hard (round up) and besides simplicity I really cannot see a benefit to the rigid system of having to pay for multiples of the base cost. This wasn't a problem in Fantasy and isn't a problem in 40k.

Allegiance abilities, command traits and Artefacts need a fair amount of work. Particularly the Destruction movement bonus is extremely and disproportionately good, especially as it combines with the many other 'free movement' abilities available to Destruction armies. The Order allegiance ability meanwhile is very underwhelming. Order should also probably not have 3 artefacts that all minorly affect one of a hero's weapons and the items Beguiling Gem and Talisman of Blinding Light meanwhile are too restricted in what they do e.g.

Microfactions should be bundled into larger conglomorates of similar factions (not necessarily the old army books, but bigger than what a lot of the successor factions are now) and given some additional rules support. Firebellies, Thunderscorn and Shadowblades, to name a few, are just a waste of everyone's time at the moment.

Compendium warscrolls need a looking over, particularly the pointed battalions, some of which do not work with updated versions of relevant warscrolls. The current FAQ discussing them has not proven quite sufficient.

Arcane Bolt should probably be exempt from the Ro1. Magic is overall weak in the current rules (for most Wizards) and if any edge abuse cases remain for this generic spell they should rather be addressed more surgically.

The rules for summoned or otherwise generated units are currently a bit too draconian for most of them to be viable in matched play.

[chord]

keep things simple.

make stormcast prosecutors battleline

[polarbear]

More than the handbook, I hope they revisit the 4 pages at some point. A lot of space is wasted in there and some things aren't clear, such as piling in.

For the handbook, more battleline options and making allegiances a bit looser would be nice.

[Brunel.Richard]

My two cents:

- Mordheim-style more detailed skirmish rules.

-More Path To Glory factions.

-Triumph and Treachery rules like the 8th edition ones. Most fun Warhammer ever!

-A random scenario idea generator table like in Rogue Trader. A D66 table of crazy ideas that are stepping off points for narrative games.

 

[Nico]

Quote

Either make allegiance spells independent of actual allegiance or add allegiance spells to the Grand Alliance allegiances, otherwhise breaking allegiance with a wizard heavy army becomes way too punishing.

This would be a disaster - it's the main reward for sticking to allegiance.

More particularly Kunning Rukk with the +1 to hit from Bellowing Shout and the +1 to hit from the Bonesplitterz spell would be game over turn one - except that shooting phase would take an entire hour.

Sylvaneth with Order armies would be broken with their spells.

Quote

make stormcast prosecutors battleline

The Javelin ones are extremely strong - this would be very unfair.

[Undead4Life]

Simple is better, if you ask me. That appears to be the whole philosophy of AoS to begin with.

I would only really like 6 new scenarios, points tweaking, battleline option tweaking, and Grand Alliance spell lores. I want Nagash to not suck, dammit!

[Nico]

Quote

2. Command Traits can be given to any model with a Command Ability, rather than just the general

Please think this through - Red Reaper Spam on all the FEC monsters, Red Reaper on Nagash. +6 to hit as Destruction or Chaos. 

Quote

3. Only scenery generated as per the AOS Rules can grant a Cover bonus - scenery generated by player abilities (such as Balewind Vortex and Sylvaneth Wildwood) does not grant cover

Please stop with the ridiculous nerfs to Sylvaneth - it's bad enough that they are a monster dependent army and they lost their cover. This is probably why Oaken Armour exists.

Cover on Dryads is integral to the viability of the army.

They are not an overpowered army or even a top tier army.

Quote

5. The following units should cost less: Hellpit Abomination (240), Megaboss on Maw-Krusha (420), Gore-Gruntas (160), Ripperdactyl Riders (120), Engine of the Gods (200),  Nagash (800), Skink Handlers (20)

6. The following units should cost more: Stormfiends (360), Necropolis Knights (180), Savage Orruk Arrowboyz (120)

I agree Maw Krusha probably 460.

Nagash presumably fixed when he gets a Lore Spell set - he should know the entire Lote.

Stormfiends aren't worth as much as Fulminators. They have average armour and bad bravery - stand outside the 26 inch effective range with Sayl and shoot them off. Even Judicators have effective range of 29. Or just use a chaff wall.

Clan Skryre should be either deleted or upped to 400 points. It adds no worthwhile experiences to either player.

Necropolis Knights are a lot weaker than they were pre GH. Shoot the Liche Priest, shoot the Tomb Herald and then shoot them (5+ save vs shooting). Again - chaff wall. They also cannot fly on the charge itself.

Kunning Rukk should also be more expensive.

To various people's suggestions - keep Battleline as it is. It rewards people for keeping allegiance. Otherwise every list will be Kunking Rukk plus Savage Orruk Arrer Boyz, a Dread Maw, 3 Thundertusks with healing and a Stonelord. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Nico

[AGPO]

• No to standardised bases. It punishes those of us who rebased our armies early and those with legacy armies who still play WFB or other systems.
• Keep the points system quite restrictive and keep some options out of matched play as it stops this from becoming the 'only' way to play. Perhaps introducing things like character customisation only for free and narrative play.
• Abilities and battleline units for armies with multiple factions but that share a keyword or something else in common. For example, some abilities are available if your army all have the highborn or aelf keyword. Swordmasters are battleline if your army is led by a mage etc.
• Put The Most Important Rule and the Other Most Important Rule in big, friendly letters on the cover.

[Nico]

Quote

2. Command Traits can be given to any model with a Command Ability, rather than just the general

Please think this through - Red Reaper Spam on all the FEC monsters, Red Reaper on Nagash. +6 to hit as Destruction or Chaos.

[hobgoblinclub]

5 hours ago, Rogue Explorator said:

Turn the point lists into an online living document. Don't just add points for new releases, but regularly review all point costs. This doesn't just allow the fixing of overcosted and undercosted units, but also keeps the meta fluid, though, without doubt, at the cost of great Nerdrage.

I think it's been confirmed, or at least hinted at, that this is happening. 

 

4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Well if you think of it, instead of using the old-edition terminology of "fleeing", as the current "retreat", and consider that tactical withdrawal is a real tactic, it's less wrong maybe.

Yep. And if they stopped you being able to retreat and grab an objective, it'd remove a big reason for retreating at all. It's a tactical option and up to you prevent an opponent using it. 

[Nico]

Quote

4. Battleline! Those damn battlelines are good for some factions, but rly bad for others and destroying lists, e.g. the Stormcast have rly good options, but fyreslayers have to stick with Vulkite Berserkers or make a useless model (Runemaster) their general.

5. Allegiance abilities: Not balanced. While Death and Chaos are ok, Destruction is too powerful and Order just useless.

A few more like Ardboyz could be inherent Battleline or even Spider Riders (Bloodketters are inherent Battleline).

The Order allegiance pack should be the worst as they are the biggest and best Grand Alliance. That said - it's particularly bad and should be buffed a little.

Battlebrew has got to be counterbalanced - suggest doubling effect of relic blade and obstinate blade or allowing mount to use or both. Master of Defence should be a 5+ ward against wounds and mortal wounds.

Thundertusks with Huskards should be 60 points more. So incredibly broken.

Retreating onto an objective to score is a big part of the game. Otherwise the game becomes much more about Killy; and also pew pew, which doesn't need to move off objectives, fight and then scramble back to them or around an enemy unit onto them.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Nico

[James McPherson]

#MakePestilensGreatAgain

[Taketheskull]

I would like to see Nurglings to become battleline in a Rotbringers army if you take Morbidex Twiceborn - fits in nicely with his rules and the fluff.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Taketheskull

[ElectricPaladin]

14 minutes ago, James McPherson said:

#MakePestilensGreatAgain

[PJetski]

7 hours ago, Nico said:

Please think this through - Red Reaper Spam on all the FEC monsters, Red Reaper on Nagash. +6 to hit as Destruction or Chaos.

The usual restrictions would still apply: 1 Command Trait per army and named characters can't take them.