TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Requizen]

On the subject of units themselves, while points will probably be updated, are there any Warscrolls you'd like to see changed around "patch time"? Most of the discussion in these threads have been about making X or Y cheaper/more expensive, but are there any rules you think just need to be changed to be better or nerfed?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Black Coach needs rethinking from the ground-up, and the Mortis Engine needs to be Nighthaunt.

[Bowlzee]

On 1/6/2017 at 8:56 PM, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

I would like to see a slight change to reinforcement points, they are rarely used to a competitive level, I would like to see them becoming much less restricted. Similar to how SCGT did it with doubling the available points but only to a certain amount. 

Sadly with the release of Disciples of Tzeentch I'm not sure this is a great option. It's already easy for them to summon models, making it easier or doubling the amount of point available will make this army even stronger (of course, this is all from the rumours of the rules.... would need to wait for Battletome to drop first)

[Nico]

Quote

Sadly with the release of Disciples of Tzeentch I'm not sure this is a great option. It's already easy for them to summon models, making it easier or doubling the amount of point available will make this army even stronger (of course, this is all from the rumours of the rules.... would need to wait for Battletome to drop first)

Exactly. There's no reason to buff summoning.

On the other hand, attempts to remove the primary function of summoning (creating a mini-sideboard with potentially all your summonable models to hand) should not be nerfed by TOs (at least not until some months have passed since DoT drops).

It should be a safe bet that DoT will be able to summon any other Daemons as normal and that this will preserve their Tzeentch allegiance (as is currently the case with summoning). It will be interesting to see how many of the synergies in DoT are keyword dependent - probably most or all of them. For example, it would be odd if Destiny Dice could be used on a summoned Khorne Daemon for example (i'm guessing that they cannot be).

Even Deathlords with a new Lore could make summoning a force to be reckoned with again - since Nagash could actually cast most/all of his spells each turn.

[Bowlzee]

I would love a rule that you can only summon from the same Allegiance. For Example, a Chaos Sorcerer with the Mark of Nurgle can only summon Daemon's with the Nurgle keyword. An unmarked Chaos Sorcerer could summon what it likes. It would fit the fluff better.

But then giving Khorne Priests an ability to summon Daemon's with the Mark of Khorne would balance out the not being able to Summon Daemons with the Khorne keyword. Base it off number of models killed in the previous round, a Blood Tally. Every 2/3 models dead = 1 summon point. Make the summon a 2+ on a D6, 1 fails and priest takes a mortal wound, andyou could summon a Bloodthirster if 20/30 models died the previous turn.... Now having lots of Bloodreavers to throw at the enemy lines to increase the Blood Tally would be a good gaming strategy. Fluffy and fun!  

Sadly this last point is a Warscroll change and not a GHB change  (Perhaps in the Disciples of Khorne Battletome!?)

[CoffeeGrunt]

You just described the Blood Tithe system from 40K Khorne Daemonkin, more or less, which is awesome.

[Broxus]

Here are a couple of my changes for some of the Chaos faction GHB2 changes that would be great to see.  Some of these may come in a future Battletome.  However, the points changes and warscroll changes could be changed prior to any Battletomes.  There are many more changes I would recommend and will submit when I get some time.

Points changes:

Tallyband of Nurgle 140pts
Plaguedrones- 180-190pts
Epidemus-110pts
Herald of Nurgle-70pts
Blightkings-160pts
Plaguclaw catapult-130pts
Nurglings-50pts
Beasts of Nurgle-50pts
Harbinger of Decay-130pts
Gurtrot Spume-80pts
Festus the Leechlord-100pts
Morbidex Twiceborn-240pts
Lord of Plagues-80pts
Chaos Warshrine-160pts
Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle-320pts

Soul Grinder- 240pts

Chaos rule changes:
Slaves to Darkness: (Warshrine) ‘Protection of the Dark Gods’ and ‘Favour of the Ruinous Powers’ should work on DAEMON and MORTAL if dedicated to a specific god.
_____________________
Khorne:  Aspiring death bringer bonus attack range increased to 8 inches (the number of Khorne)
_____________________
Nurgle: All Locus skills should work if within a Nurgle Hero (not just Daemon)
Nurgle: (Blightkings) ‘Blighted Weapons’ are changed so they no longer work on hit rolls.  Instead on a wound roll of 6 they  do an additional D6 wounds.
Nurgle:  (Harbinger of Decay) Command ability range increased to 14 inches (should be at 140pts if changed)
Nurgle: (The Glottkin) ‘Horrific Opponent’ should be changed to rolling 2D6 instead of 1D6 to determine if a unit should suffer a -1 to hit if higher than their leadership.
Nurgle: (Nurglings) Should gain Locus skill to gain +1 to their attack and wound rolls if a Nurgle hero is within 7”. (Should increase to 60pts if changed)
Nurgle: (Great Unclean One) ‘Command Ability’ should be if any Nurlge unit rolls a 7 or more  on its charge roll it gains an additional attack. (AND/OR) If any enemy unit charges a Nurgle unit on roll of 7 or less, then the charged suffers a -1 to hit on in the first round of combat.  
Nurgle: (Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle) Should add the key word GREAT UNCLEAN ONE
Nurgle: (Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle) ‘Command Ability’ All Nurgle units can subtract -1 from any  battleshock test rolls. (OR) All Nurgle units within 14” can a +1 to their wound rolls

Nurgle: Give rules for the Nurgle plaguehulk 

-------------------NURGLE SPECIFIC ALLEGIANCE IDEAS----------------------

Battle/Command traits to expand upon:
-You may add +1 to all charge rolls to units within 14” of a NURGLE HERO (synergy with units  above)
-Giving a +1 to wound to all units within 7” of a NURGLE HERO (synergy with units  above)
-Giving a -1 to all Battleshock test rolls within 7” of a NURGLE HERO (synergy with units  above)
-Units shooting at a NURGLE unit within 7” of a NURGLE HERO must subtract -1 from hit rolls
-Any Units within 7” of a NURGLE HERO cause an additional damage for each wound roll of a 6.

Artifacts of Power ideas:
-Hero gains Blubber and Bile rule
-Hero regenerates D3 wounds per turn
-Hero gains the DAEMON or MORTAL keyword (if you don’t add synergy to Daemon/mortal units as above)

 

-----------------------GENERAL CHANGES--------------------------
General rule changes:
-Rules no stacking of the same abilities on the same unit, i.e. No double bloodsecrator attack buff.
-Remove all faction specific bonuses/penalties except in narrative play.  I.e. No longer should something do double damage against CHAOS, DAEMON, ORDER, DEATH, etc.  This throws off balance dramatically in some matched play events since they are no calculated into points

Edited January 12, 2017 by Broxus

[Jamopower]

I think it would be simpler to abstract the Los in sense (like with when you shoot through an unit or through terrain) instead of the True line of sight as it is in the rulea currently, where at worst you have to use laser pointers and peek across the table. But on the other hand, it's easily house ruled.

 

Essentially the True Los vs abstract Los is same kind of thing as measuring from model vs measuring from Base.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Jamopower

[Kaleb Daark]

I'd like to see a "bound monster or behemoth" option.

Much like we used to have scrolls of binding in the Storm of magic.  I'm really thinking of the way that Forge World did it with Monstrous Arcanum in so far that certain factions had a chance / no chance / certainty of having certain monsters bound to them.   So for instance, that guy with his stormcast taking a mornghul could not happen, but for example a chaos dwarf army would certainly work fluff wise with say an incarnate elemental of fire or a magma dragon.

In fact the matrix of what was permissible to whom was very good in Monstrous Arcanum.

The bound unit would give the benefit of not upsetting the faction keyword for players wishing to play more themed and fluff driven armies rather than grand alliances - so in the case of Legion of Azgorh for instance, one could still take a magma dragon and not lose the Fireglaives as battle line as a model in the army had the 'destruction' keyword.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Kaleb Daark

[Broxus]

Something else that needs to be changed in the GHB2.  The battleline concept needs to be removed.  I don't mind having unit type caps to keep lists somewhat balanced.  However, I really don't like being forced to take specific units in my army.  This also changes army balance, since some armies have great battleline units while others have terrible.  To meet this rules requirement people buy 60-100pt units, consisting of of basic troops of models they don't like or really want to play with.  I think this is a concept held over from previous versions of Warhammer.  New AoS players don't feel the need to be forced to take options which is counter to the entire AoS concept.  I think anytime you are forced to take something in any game, players lose some enjoyement from free choice.

[Arkiham]

10 hours ago, Broxus said:

Something else that needs to be changed in the GHB2.  The battleline concept needs to be removed.  I don't mind having unit type caps to keep lists somewhat balanced.  However, I really don't like being forced to take specific units in my army.  This also changes army balance, since some armies have great battleline units while others have terrible.  To meet this rules requirement people buy 60-100pt units, consisting of of basic troops of models they don't like or really want to play with.  I think this is a concept held over from previous versions of Warhammer.  New AoS players don't feel the need to be forced to take options which is counter to the entire AoS concept.  I think anytime you are forced to take something in any game, players lose some enjoyement from free choice.

battleline was put in to stop people taking only the elite troop choices, people with worse battleline get more elite options. 

and typically you tend to get more elite units as battleline if you stay to one allegiance ( ie slaves to darkness/bloodbound/mortal )  

Edited January 11, 2017 by Arkiham

[amysrevenge]

4 hours ago, Arkiham said:

people with worse battleline get more elite options.

Not sure what you mean by this.  Is this something you are saying that they did, or it's something they should have done, or what?  Are there any examples of allegiances with "worse battleline" that have "more elite options" that you can point to?  And counter examples of allegiances with better battleline that have fewer elite options?

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  Is this something you are saying that they did, or it's something they should have done, or what?  Are there any examples of allegiances with "worse battleline" that have "more elite options" that you can point to?  And counter examples of allegiances with better battleline that have fewer elite options?

Well what is classed as bad battleline, typically weaker units in terms of stats get bonuses for larger units,

Ones which are stronger don't get these bonuses as much, (or to a lesser extent) and cost more, thus removing from your pool of resources allowing you to take more elite options 

[Requizen]

What do you guys think of buffing Summoning by changing it so anything Battleline is free to summon (also keeping Faction Battlelines with that, so Seraphon could summon Knights or Guard)?

To me it seems that the big scary thing from free Summoning was the fact that you could get some of the more terrifying things in the game for no issue. 60 extra points of Skeletons (especially with the Rule of One making it only one unit per turn) isn't going to break the game like summoning, say, a Mourngul for free.

Or even further limited, like up to 300 points of Battleline can be summoned for free. Restricted, but without making Summoning DOA.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Requizen

[Nico]

Any "free" points from summoning are just unnecessary and hurt balance with the benefit of hindsight.

Summoning isn't weak, as I'm guessing we'll see in about a week's time from DoT. It's Deathlords and Seraphon that are on the weak side.

Here's a prediction - people will be complaining about summoning under the current rules being utterly broken in a few months time (probably because they haven't played sufficient games vs DoT to understand their weakspots).

Edited January 13, 2017 by Nico

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Any "free" points from summoning are just unnecessary and hurt balance with the benefit of hindsight.
Summoning isn't weak, as I'm guessing we'll see in about a week's time from DoT. It's Deathlords and Seraphon that are on the weak side.
Here's a prediction - people will be complaining about summoning under the current rules being utterly broken in a few months time (probably because they haven't played sufficient games vs DoT to understand their weakspots).

Maybe not "free" points but I certainly think summoning needs a slight rework. At the moment it's a bit too much of a bonus to powerful casters and quite pointless in any meaningful way on weak casters as it's just not reliable enough.

I would love to see reinforcement points become a lot more varied, for more armies and become widely used as I think it's a great mechanic. I haven't played one competitive game against an army with them yet.

[StealthKnightSteg]

A thought on Pile-in

Maybe lock models in combat when they are in weapon range-only allow them to shuffle more into base-to base contact in a straight line. While others outside of weapon range can move around friendly models till them meet the weapon range criteria.

[Thomas Lyons]

On January 10, 2017 at 0:55 AM, Broxus said:

Here are a couple of my changes for some of the Chaos faction GHB2 changes that would be great to see.  

Points changes:

<snip>

Your points suggestions are problematic.  98% of the unit point values are in multiple of 20.  

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, StealthKnightSteg said:

A thought on Pile-in

Maybe lock models in combat when they are in weapon range-only allow them to shuffle more into base-to base contact in a straight line. While others outside of weapon range can move around friendly models till them meet the weapon range criteria.

That would make it cumbersome to have to measure every model to see if they are on the cusp or not.

[StealthKnightSteg]

1 hour ago, daedalus81 said:

That would make it cumbersome to have to measure every model to see if they are on the cusp or not.

but you have to anyway to count attacking models

[Bjarni St.]

6 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Your points suggestions are problematic.  98% of the unit point values are in multiple of 20.  

I really don't think multiples of 10 are too much to ask of the community.

[Thomas Lyons]

5 hours ago, Bjarni St. said:

I really don't think multiples of 10 are too much to ask of the community.

Then you need to overhaul the entire point system.  

[Bjarni St.]

You're gonna have to explain to me how you're reaching that conclusion, if you're being serious.

[Broxus]

On 1/13/2017 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Lyons said:

Your points suggestions are problematic.  98% of the unit point values are in multiple of 20.  

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or even mean with this post.  I was recommending the changes based on minimum unit sizes as they already are in GHB

[Squirrelmaster]

Regarding battleline, you could remove the required minimum on battleline, but provide a discount on the first "X" battleline units taken, possibly dependant on faction.

For example, in 2000pts, Death players could get a 40pt discount on each of the first 3 battleline units they chose, if they included any in the army.

It would allow players to take an army with no battleline, but would provide them with an incentive not to.