TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Nico]

Quote

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

Surely still an unnecessary buff to special characters. Nagash with a GKoTG next to him with either the 5+ ward aura or Red Reaper plus Tomb Blade would be horrific (Nagash would cast the GKoTG's ward save spell onto the GKoTG on probably a 2 - autocast).

[kozokus]

I will copy past what i suggested on the FB page.

Rules for each 8 realms : By Sigmar, where are we fighting? We need rules for every realms !

Random turns in matched play : It seems that the random turn order in matched play is both fun and unfun depending on the situation. It is also a strategic factor to take in mind and has a huge impact on the flow of the game. There is currently very few way to interact with that rule and if it is kept, there should be a choice in your army list that can authorise you to manipulate the turn order.

Alert for warscroll updates  : Some warscrolls are updated for the best and there is currently no alert and no tracks of the warscroll patchnote. We need to know what has changed rather than reload the complete warscroll collection in the app.

alleigeances rules : Alleigeances rules are formidable customisation tools and offers great personnality to some armies. We would enjoy more alleigeances rules for more sub-factions, items, spells and so on.

Dispel : Currently, Dispell magic is difficult to put in place as it is very restrictive to use : LOS + 18" AND rolling higher than your opponent. Some ideas are : augment rangent, remove the LOS restriction, give a bonus to dispell roll or a malus to the ennemy casting roll

points for every formation : some formation in the "realmgate wars" are so glamourous that it is a shame we cannot use them in matched play.

"engagement step" : Currently the engagement step could pose problems as players are encouraged to not makes his units go bases to bases to be able to manipulate the formation in combat. Maybe also rework the concept of "closest ennemy model"

Measures should be between bases in Matched play.

Summoning : allow a more liberal use of summoning, rather than beeing just a deepstriking toolbox. Maybe allowi a player to go over the point limit of his army but allow the dispelling of summoned units by wizards (&others)

 

Theses are just ideas... not very well developped.

Edited November 24, 2016 by kozokus

[Taketheskull]

In matched play, a summoning spell is always successfully cast on a 6, given the relative strength of a summoned unit is accounted for by its points cost.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Taketheskull

[Nico]

Quote

Rules for each 8 realms : By Sigmar, where are we fighting? We need rules for every realms ! 

Random turns in matched play : It seems that the random turn order in matched play is both fun and unfun depending on the situation. It is also a strategic factor to take in mind and has a huge impact on the flow of the game. There is currently very few way to interact with that rule and if it is kept, there should be a choice in your army list that can authorise you to manipulate the turn order.

Alert for warscroll updates  : Some warscrolls are updated for the best and there is currently no alert and no tracks of the warscroll patchnote. We need to know what has changed rather than reload the complete warscroll collection in the app.

alleigeances rules : Alleigeances rules are formidable customisation tools and offers great personnality to some armies. We would enjoy more alleigeances rules for more sub-factions, items, spells and so on.

Dispel : Currently, Dispell magic is difficult to put in place as it is very restrictive to use : LOS + 18" AND rolling higher than your opponent. Some ideas are : augment rangent, remove the LOS restriction, give a bonus to dispell roll or a malus to the ennemy casting roll

points for every formation : some formation in the "realmgate wars" are so glamourous that it is a shame we cannot use them in matched play.

There are a few units that get buffs due to the choice of Realm (and you do technically pick a Realm at the start of the game - thanks @ben.

The GH is not the place to meddle with the initiative rolls anyway. I also think the current system is at the heart of the game.

Magic is very weak in the GH at the moment - especially compared to pew pew. One of the few virtues of magic and getting dumped with the first turn is that you'll get to fail that game-changing roll for mystic shield without the possibility of it being unbound. Making unbinding better would literally put wizards in the bin.

[RuneBrush]

Apologies - this became a lot longer than I anticipated!

Specific to GHb (i.e. not the core rules!)

• +1 - hex based map campaigns - and bringing back the Mighty Empires set too
• +1 - Traits and artefacts for all pre-GHb armies
• +1 - Path to Glory for all armies & races
• +1 - Clarification of "what is my allegiance" - it's a bit fuzzy currently
• +1 - extra battleplans across the board
• Pointing some of the Battalions in boxes (though not all)
• Alternative Path to Glory that is points based rather than random (would then factor in new factions)
• Pull traits/artefacts into it's own section rather than poked at the back with points
• Tweak to GA artefacts to make them more generic (e.g. Chaos Runeblade but giving it to a hero with a mace)
• Prevent GA artefacts being given to named characters
• Add in a 0~750 point bracket (1 battleline, 1 behemoth, 1 artillery)
• Points tweak (lower): Mighty Skullcrushers; Bloodcrushers
• Turn time guideline for matched play (which could be enforced)
• State to "use the latest version of the warscroll" - though this would require a version number/date to be added and the app & website to have the same warscroll

My big "long shot" - don't have points as part of the GHb, have them as a separate (and free) supplement, but keep all of the three-style-of-play rules, battleplans, artefacts, traits contained within the GHb.

Of the items I don't personally think are needed

• -1 points per model
• -1 changes/removal of battleline (sorry, I think it works fine)

[BaldoBeardo]

Changing the rule of one for magic from "attempted" to "successfully cast".
I don't want them to 'fix' points, either - encourages people to start playing their own way.
I don't think this has been done either, but I'd like to see an 'official' scenario based around the idea of two boards linked by realmgates to give people the idea.
Accompanying re-release of an AoSified Mighty Empires.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Sprueless]

I would like to see support for 1,500 pt games in matched play, e.g number of leaders/battleline etc. 

 

Also varanguard are overcosted without archaon on the field! 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Sprueless

[kozokus]

34 minutes ago, Nico said:

The GH is not the place to meddle with the initiative rolls anyway. I also think the current system is at the heart of the game.

Don't misundesrtand me, i really love the initiative roll, but i think it is too important strategically to stay in a 50/50 state. and no way to interact. If you rely on this you are either brutal or a sitting duck.

 

[Rogue Explorator]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

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.

It is only a reward for armies with Mages. Kunning Rukk needs a number of adjustments. Still, I can see how making allegiance spells always available has to much potential for unexpected and overpowered combos.

But then we need Grand Alliance allegiance spells. Having an extra Spell known on every wizard, makes a huge difference. Taking Grand Alliance allegiance shouldn't be a punishment and it certainly shouldn't be a greater punishment for armies with mages than it is for everyone else.

[Caffran101]

1. Rework the forgettable chaos passive command trait. Could do with being more thematic.

2. New scenarios that aren't simply "hold this objective"

3. Generic simple formations - as long as they provide a variety of play styles.

4. Resist kneejerk reaction to changing points cost (unless it is incredibly broken).

5. Remove "ignores rend", replace with "reduce the effectiveness of rend by 1 or 2 or w/e".

6. More interesting scenery rules.

7. Remove behemoth restriction on certain monsters

8. Allegiance specific spells (or update those armies that are missing them)

Edited November 24, 2016 by Caffran101

[the_prophecy]

More "One-Book-to-rules-them-all" so Artifacts and Allegiance Abilities for all factions in one single book. Fixing Scenario 1 of matched Play (its boring). 

Rebalancing Points Values

Skirmish Rules for 200-300 Pts. Games

more detailed Downbreak of the Army/Points Size, so 1000 Pts Vanguard, 1500 Pts. 2000 Pts., 2500 Pts.

[Hairojin]

The sylvaneth book seems to be a little bit off in internal balance, I'm especially thinking about Tree/Spite Revenants and Branchwraiths cost too much for what they do and Kurnoth Hunters might cost too little.

I would like to see a discount for taking larger battle line units. Having a base cost that goes down when the unit gets larger. Example,  Tree revenants cost 100p for 5 today, make the unit size 5/10/15/20 and cost 100/180/250/310

[cb_rex]

Make the book physically smaller i.e. A5 so it fits better on the table, maybe use smaller print or even separate it into a pack of mini handbooks for each type of play.

More varied Battleplans including ones for smaller games and multiplayer games.  

Varied gameplay: have objectives that have to activated on particular turns or in a sequence and require maybe require models not to attack or run/charge whilst completing objectives, maybe even make them more vulnerable or have an item that is picked up by an individual model making them more powerful (bonus attacks/wounds/save) allowing a model from a unit to act independently while they have the item.

Most importantly; have a giant Orruk on the front cover stomping all over the tabletop, stomping all over your opponents hopes and dreams.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

AOS Skirmish/Mordheim-lite/Old Path to Glory.  These formats have always been my favorite way to play GW games and are critical to recruiting new players.

[BrAiKo]

1. Fix heroes that have unique summoning spells with random results like Branchwraith, Ogroid Thaumaturge.  We shouldn't be paying maximum unit points for these summons.  Likewise for models that have a small chance of summoning a unit, like Coven Throne, Screaming Bell etc.

2. Allow units with mimimum size 10 to have more flexible model numbers (eg. 15, 25 models).  I like how elegant the current solution is by just multiplying by the minimum, but sometimes you only own 15 models, or sometimes you don't have the points for another 10 models and it would be nice to have the flexibility.  I can understand that dropping the minimum to 5 for many units (especially battleline) is not a good solution.

3. More allegiance spell lores.

4. Redo (or at least rename) the Chaos Allegiance battle trait.  Whoever decided to call the Chaos trait Unpredictable Destruction needs to be fired.

5. Include all pointed units, including Forgeworld.  

Edited November 24, 2016 by BrAiKo

[jamierk]

Spell lores would be nice. So would fixing some of the balance issues around battle line units. Cost the mourngul appropriately. Other than that, don't change too much as it's a great game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mikosan]

My suggestions:

-Base to Base measurement

-More battle plans for narrative and multiplayer games

-Keep up the great work.  This is the most important.  The past year has been the most fun I have ever had actually playing the game.  Too much of the previous editions was army list  design and hero load outs in my opinion, the game seemed to be on rails from that point on.  I like this much better

-Please don't go back to points per model.  

-Please don't change shooting, though I could easily compromise and only allow a unit to target the enemy it's in combat with if shooting while engaged.

[Rogue Explorator]

Something that has come up a few times, though it would also require reviewing some Warscrolls:

Fix allegiance and keyword confusion.

By all Rules we have, wether a unit has allegiance depends on its keywords. However, not all units have the keywords of their faction. A few factions don't have keywords at all (rotbringers, bloodbound). And then, some Warscrolls have keywords that give them allegiances that are a bit questionable (both the Harbinger of Decay and Verminlord Corruptor are technically Nurgle Demons).

And then there are the support unit Warscrolls and factions that can only be taken in grand alliances, that many seem to wish could be taken without breaking allegiance (looking at you, Monsters of Chaos).

 

Basically, take a good hard look at allegiance, because it is very messy and in some cases, unplayable by RAW.

[ADDriot]

I'd like to see non-behemoth units take a -1 to wound rolls against behemoths. 

I'd like to see a revision on some points costs. For example, Varanguard are amazing models but should cost a bit less in my opinion. They don't seem to offer enough for what they cost. I'd like to see them in more lists. Likewise, Big Archaon and Nagash seem lackluster for the amount of points you sink into them.

[kozokus]

Currently there is two tier of formations/alleigeance :

Thoses who manipulate the movement and thoses who don't

[Andreas]

48 minutes ago, ADDriot said:

I'd like to see non-behemoth units take a -1 to wound rolls against behemoths. 

 

 That could potentially make some behemoth crazy hard to kill. Might be a simpler (and therefore better) solution just to give behemoth that are considered a little bit to weak more wounds. They gave for example the Ghorgon 2 more wounds when they released the grand alliance chaos book (And if we want behemonths to hit harder than grots you give them higher damage, also a simpler solution IMO.) So I dont like this suggestion.

My favorite suggestion is adding secondary objectives (or other win condition modifications) that make kill points irrelevant. I dont like the idea of hiding wounded heroes, wounded behemoths or depleated units to conserv points to get a minor victory.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Andreas

[Nico]

Quote

4. Redo (or at least rename) the Chaos Allegiance battle trait.  Whoever decided to call the Chaos trait Unpredictable Destruction needs to be fired.

Unforgettable Destruction surely....

[Shane]

The following suggestions are based around the core idea of fun (i.e. what I don't find fun in AoS):

1. Reconsider battleline and how it is implemented by default. Why is being forced to take units I don't want to fun? Why is it fun to lose out on a bonus for XX number of models due to trying to hit a predefined limit of units?
2. Spells/abilities per faction. They'll come, but please hurry it up.
3. Rule of one on spells is reactionary to an open play issue. Massively impacts some factions (Tzeentch) whilst others get around it with loopholes (keyword changes ((Stormcast)). If you're then writing rules to get around your own rules - i.e. Tzeentch suddenly cast changes rather than spells - it doesn't fix the problem (the original rule). And at least change to successful attempts.
4. Avoid at all costs using different keywords to get around your own rules. 40k has rules stacked on rules just so one army seems a bit cooler at the expense of rule bloat and the other player being annoyed (i.e. it's not fun). 
5. Vary the missions. Hold the objective is over used.
6. Keep it simple as they have done so far!
7. Allow all chaos monsters to have marks of chaos to get around allegiance issues (like the Vortex Beast, for example).
8. Rather than increase any point costs, instead look at the units no one uses and ask why. Are those too expensive? Do they need an ability/combo tweak? Don't immediately punish the good units. Improve the bad ones.

On top of that, it'd be neat if GW conducted usability testing at events. That can give you real insight as to what the pain points actually are. Asking directly what to improve, from a product perspective, isn't always wise. 

 

[mmimzie]

Most importantly to me. I think the game the way it is right now is really great, and simply needs abit of a rules polish than any real changes.

Base to Base should be a thing. Offer standard match play base sizes next to each profile.

Make a GW basing kit. It'd be like printing money to be honest.

add more battle plan. Maybe enough so you can roll d6/d6 for them like mission 1-1 or mission 4-3 what have you.

Everything blow is take it or leave

The only change would be to make shooting suck a bit when you get em in combat. I say if they ahve something within 3" they can only shoot that target.

Drop a big book of allegiances and battalions. IF they just drop a bunch fo simple not ridiculous battalions and allegiances would be pretty sick and go a long way to making the game feel complete.

Edited November 24, 2016 by mmimzie

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, Shane said:

The following suggestions are based around the core idea of fun (i.e. what I don't find fun in AoS):

1. Reconsider battleline and how it is implemented by default. Why is being forced to take units I don't want to fun? Why is it fun to lose out on a bonus for XX number of models due to trying to hit a predefined limit of units?
2. Spells/abilities per faction. They'll come, but please hurry it up.
3. Rule of one on spells is reactionary to an open play issue. Massively impacts some factions (Tzeentch) whilst others get around it with loopholes (keyword changes ((Stormcast)). If you're then writing rules to get around your own rules - i.e. Tzeentch suddenly cast changes rather than spells - it doesn't fix the problem (the original rule). And at least change to successful attempts.
4. Avoid at all costs using different keywords to get around your own rules. 40k has rules stacked on rules just so one army seems a bit cooler at the expense of rule bloat and the other player being annoyed (i.e. it's not fun). 
5. Vary the missions. Hold the objective is over used.
6. Keep it simple as they have done so far!
7. Allow all chaos monsters to have marks of chaos to get around allegiance issues (like the Vortex Beast, for example).
8. Rather than increase any point costs, instead look at the units no one uses and ask why. Are those too expensive? Do they need an ability/combo tweak? Don't immediately punish the good units. Improve the bad ones.

On top of that, it'd be neat if GW conducted usability testing at events. That can give you real insight as to what the pain points actually are. Asking directly what to improve, from a product perspective, isn't always wise. 

 

3. Could easily be fixed on a per warscroll bases. They could do it like they fixed bale wind. Update thier war scroll and your done. Either add "these can ignore the rules of 1 for arcane bolt" Or don't make it a spell and instead make it an ability they use in the hero phase.