TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Craptrain]

3 hours ago, Broxus said:

To be honest both are terrible for their points and suffer the Nurgle tax.  They both should likely have a points decrease.  With the rules of one and the lack of usefulness for summoning wizards are no where near as useful as they once were.  Especially if you have multiple in your army.

The best example of this Nurgle tax is why does a Herald of Nurgle cost the same as a Knight-Azyros, Lord Castellant, Lord Celestant?  At most the Herald should cost 70-points since he lacks any real damage, surviablity, or command ability.  Likely all those Stormcast characters should be 120-points each.

Put differently, you can buy a Knight-Azyros, Lord Castellant, 2x Lord Celestants, and Lord Relictor for the same cost as the Glottkin which are dramatically better.

Agreed wholeheartedly.  My only point was in a one-to-one comparison (mostly because I'm starting a Tamurkhan army and the guy I play against most often runs The Glottkin pretty frequently).  

[b1ackni9htgaming]

For matched play only: Implement some kind of cover system or megative modifier to shooting through friendly and enemy units.

True line of sight, while helping to immerse people more in the game by the act of bending down over to the table, is too lose for a miniatures game. I don't want to have to mess about with laser pointers. I don't want to have to hear from my opponent that they can see the hoof, knuckle, or claw of my miniature, so they can shoot it with a cannon from across the board.

A simple system, whatever GW thinks is best, would go a long way. Borrow from 40k's cover system. Or perhaps a simple -1 dice modifier.

Right now miniatures can trace true line of sight through multiple units (friendly and enemy), woods, and the smallest of gaps through buildings without any penalty. It's things like this that destroy my immersion in the game.

I'm not calling for a complex system to deal with this either, just a simple penalty would suffice. That way when a cannon crew wants to put a cannon ball through the eye of a needle across the board, they absolutely can try, it'll just be harder than giant standing right in front of them with nothing intervening.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[mhsellwood]

On 12/24/2016 at 11:14 AM, TerrorPenguin said:

Unit of 6 Kurnoth Hunters = 360 points. 30 wounds; 18 attacks 3's to hit and wound, rend 2, d3 damage. 50% chance of causing 6 mortal wounds to the unit is in combat with. (I'll give you they won't get the re roll saves often).

Equivalent unit of Morghast Archai is 3, recognising that you can't take this, but for illustration. 18 wounds, 9 attacks, 3's to hit and wound rend 2, damage 3. Extra 4" move and flying. 33% chance of ignoring wounds. 60% chance of being summoned. Chance of summon being dispelled. No options for ranged attacks. No mortal wound output.

Would Sylvaneth players be happy to double the points in exchange for a longer move, more reliable damage and a ward save, but lose the mortal wound output.

Archai should be 240 for three, imvho 

Just a quick note on the maths re. the stomps - it is not a 50% chance of rolling 6 mortal wounds, it is about 1.5% as there are 64 possible outcomes rolling 6 dice with 1-3 doing nothing and 4-6 doing 1 wound, of which precisely one is 6 wounds, or 1/64 or 1.5%. 3 mortal wounds is pretty much it.

My gut feeling though is that Kurnoth Hunters are currently slightly undercosted along with Morghast being slightly overcosted rather than Hunters being right and Morghast massively over costed.

[TerrorPenguin]

2 hours ago, mhsellwood said:

Just a quick note on the maths re. the stomps - it is not a 50% chance of rolling 6 mortal wounds, it is about 1.5% as there are 64 possible outcomes rolling 6 dice with 1-3 doing nothing and 4-6 doing 1 wound, of which precisely one is 6 wounds, or 1/64 or 1.5%. 3 mortal wounds is pretty much it.

My gut feeling though is that Kurnoth Hunters are currently slightly undercosted along with Morghast being slightly overcosted rather than Hunters being right and Morghast massively over costed.

You're right apologies, I meant on average you will do three mortal wounds, but phrased it badly

[buffalozap]

9 hours ago, mhsellwood said:

Kurnoth Hunters are currently slightly undercosted

compared side to side with everything I have ever analyzed (most units) kurnoth hunters are literally an order of magnitude more efficient point for point than anything else in the game. Prove it to yourself by determining the (damage out)*(effective wounds)/(point squared) coefficient for any unit you like.  The numbers don't lie.

 

if you don't like math and don't believe in probability because you think dice are always random so there is no point in doing math then move along and ignore this post.

[daedalus81]

2 hours ago, buffalozap said:

compared side to side with everything I have ever analyzed (most units) kurnoth hunters are literally an order of magnitude more efficient point for point than anything else in the game. Prove it to yourself by determining the (damage out)*(effective wounds)/(point squared) coefficient for any unit you like.  The numbers don't lie.

 

if you don't like math and don't believe in probability because you think dice are always random so there is no point in doing math then move along and ignore this post.

Challenge accepted.

An order of magnitude would mean they are literally ten times better point for point.

A Kurnoth archer averages 0.89 wounds in shooting and 0.38 in melee for a total of 1.27.  That comes to 47.2 points per wound caused.
A Kurnoth with greatsword is 25.3.

Under the same conditions -

Orruk Brutes, 1 Gore Choppa, 3 Gore Hacka, Boss with Choppa & Smasha:
23.1 points per wound caused.

Brutes win.  Full stop.  

*Numbers are averages of 3 round of attacks in ranged (if applicable) and melee against targets wearing 3+,4+, and 5+ armor (most common in the game).  

[buffalozap]

1 hour ago, daedalus81 said:

Brutes win.  Full stop.  

I get Hunters with great swords clocking in at 0.01345 (effective wounds)*(expected damage)/(point squared)

Brutes with gore-hacka pull a 0.00308 respectable relative to most in the game but still order of magnitude off. I think it would be a little closer if I factored for the unit champions and special weapons for each unit but I don't have the time.

 

Pic of calculations.  (assumed enemy rend of -1 and enemy armor of 4+)

 

picture is blurry. my screen cap paint paste crop skills have failed for an unknown reason.

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by buffalozap
picture blurry

[daedalus81]

I'm not confident in that range.  If Kurnoth declared their reroll I would either not charge them or charge them in such a way that they get far fewer models fighting than I do.

Let's have them fight each other.

3 Kurnoth Hunters w/ Greatswords - 180 points - 15 wounds in total.  

Regulars - 8 attacks, 5.3 hits, 3.5 hits, 4.8 total
Leader - 4 attacks, 3.3 hits, 2.2 wounds, 3 total

Orruk Brutes, 1 Gore Choppa, 3 Gore Hacka, Boss with Choppa & Smasha- 180 points - 15 wounds in total

Gore choppa - 3 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.8 wounds, 2.4 total
Two brute choppas - 12 attacks, 10.6 hits, 7.1 wounds, 4.7 total
Boss choppa - 3 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.8 wounds, 2.4 total

9.5 to brutes and 7.8 to Kurnoth without rerolls.  Brutes come to 6.34 if Kurnoth have rerolls.  

I can't see even with rerolls how you would conclude they are better by a factor of four.  25% better - only when rerolls are in effect.

There are many other complexities not represented like when each side might lose a model and who would fight first, but no one should ever expect to be wiped by them unless they've given up every advantage.

 

[Riavan]

I think some form of the ironfist battalion should just be worked into ironjawz baseline.

Maybe cheaper pigs too.

[buffalozap]

8 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

I'm not confident in that range.

The pic is a better shot of the sheet.  Between the rerolling failed saves and mortal wound generating bypassing armor the hunters have a big advantage.  Don't get me wrong though, a score of 0.00308 is two or three times better than a lot of things in the game. 

 

for reference some benchmarks to get a better perspective:

Darkling Coven Executioners: 0.00375

Extremis Chamber Fulminators (charged): 0.00566

Vulkite Berserkers axe shield charged >20 models: 0.005859

Witch Aelves: 0.0017

 

The units are really all over the map, something I didn't expect to see when I started investigating the data.

 

[daedalus81]

So, when people say you can't analyze things in a vacuum this is what they mean.

Fyreslayers are a hero-centric army.
Witch Aelves can get powered up quite considerably.  Executioners slightly less so.

A charging Fulminator does 1.3 shooting, 1.8 rider, and 1 from the mount (4 total) against rerolls for 120.
A Kurnoth does 2 for 60. 

Admittedly, the Fulminator will have a problem once the charge buff is off. If you want to kill Kurnoth then don't fight rock with rock.  Shoot them when the rerolls are off or swamp them.  Retributors would do nicely as well.

Otherwise this is obfuscation with numbers.

To make an example - if I analyze the effectiveness of a single model I can come up with some figure.  Now let's say I want to factor in support.  Saurus Guard are perfect for this.  Typically they are 20 points per model.  Simply adding just a reroll or just mystic shield makes them effectively worse, but when you add both it spikes up massively.

Yet this is a singular analysis and ignores the benefit that the priest can give to ALL units within 8".  Additionally, it doesn't account for these force multipliers across a bigger group.  Look when happens when we have 20 SG getting the same benefit.  Of course now you've created an exploitable weak point that you need to protect and such is the balance of Age of Sigmar.  The same rule applies to Bonesplitta Arrowboyz.

Kurnoth Hunters have no similar degree of force multipliers.  Ignore this at your own peril.

                                              Damage per point                 Durability per point
Kurnoth (rerolls)                  0.0395                                    0.90
Kurnoth                                0.0395                                    0.52

Saurus Guard (3+)                0.0345                                    0.50
Saurus Guard (3+ reroll)      0.0172                                    0.36
Saurus Guard (2+)                0.0172                                    0.47
Saurus Guard (2+ reroll)      0.0115                                    1.63
Saurus Guard (20 2+ reroll) 0.0229                                    3.26

BS Arrowboy                        0.0264                                     0.96
BS Arrowboy (all buffs)       0.0189                                     0.96
BS Arrowboy (40 all buffs)  0.0445                                     0.96
 

 

[buffalozap]

10 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

let's say I want to factor in support

categorize all buffing abilities by effect and either have them increase the bearer unit of that buffing ability by a set amount or increase the points of units with that buffing ability by a fixed scalar. Do the same for buffing command abilities. That's the only way I can see to address that issue. At least that way you'd insure that you were treating buffing abilities uniformly across all units.

Like you pointed out trying to address the "potential buffing" a hypothetical unit could receive is tantamount to madness and wholly unnecessary if you consider what I said in the previous paragraph.

 

I believe there are is lots of room for many opinions on the subject and enough bright people out there with great ideas. Like you @deadalus81

[Shane]

Custom general generator. Table for each four alliances to create your own general for narrative games. Sure, you can make it up. But having a shared baseline really helps buy-in. Put it in PtG or Narrative. Whichever makes it happen.

[Broxus]

I would also like to see them add that any faction specific bonuses are ignored in matched play.  This will help balance games where units get +50% against daemons for example.  RIght not it seems very one sided when facing armies that have these rules and don't pay points for them in matched play.

[Thomas Lyons]

I would suggest a minor tweak to how conditional battleline units function.  Currently, there are many units that say, "Battleline if army has XXX allegiance."  I would suggest changing these abilities to "Battleline if army has a XXX hero as its general."  This would keep these conditional battleline benefits limited (must serve under particular generals) but it allows for forces to bring in secondary subfactions to supplement their force while encouraging utilizing generals with limited application command abilities.  This creates a dynamic composition element where players gain certain benefits for having particular generals while also not allowing other conditional battleline units to be available.  

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Thomas Lyons said:

I would suggest a minor tweak to how conditional battleline units function.  Currently, there are many units that say, "Battleline if army has XXX allegiance."  I would suggest changing these abilities to "Battleline if army has a XXX hero as its general."  This would keep these conditional battleline benefits limited (must serve under particular generals) but it allows for forces to bring in secondary subfactions to supplement their force while encouraging utilizing generals with limited application command abilities.  This creates a dynamic composition element where players gain certain benefits for having particular generals while also not allowing other conditional battleline units to be available.  

Not a fan of replacing all of the allegiance battleline with linking to specific heroes.  The extra battleline option for a specific allegiance is intended to help you build up a mono-faction army, leaving the general to your choice.  However I do think we're seeing a change in how multi-faction allegiances will work (Tzeentch) which could make this mute 

I could see some millage in having some battleline linked to your general's keywords (Mortal Nurgle for example), but it does seem to be adding complexity to this side of things, especially when there are a fair few battleline choices for the newer armies (granted the older armies need some love).

[fartsocks]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

 The extra battleline option for a specific allegiance is intended to help you build up a mono-faction army, leaving the general to your choice.

But if you have a mono faction army, whichever model you pick as your general, it will satisfy the requirements. (Unless you were referring to picking a non hero model as your general)

I think it's an idea that could work, would certainly help out some of the smaller factions, although it may be a bit unfairly balanced to bigger factions who already have a lot of battleline options. I think you'd have to change every battleline unit to a faction specific battleline to make it work.

[RuneBrush]

Just now, fartsocks said:

But if you have a mono faction army, whichever model you pick as your general, it will satisfy the requirements. (Unless you were referring to picking a non hero model as your general)

I think I see what you're saying.  In my head I was probably looking at it the other way round.  Lets say you get Wrathmongers as a battleline if your general is a Skullgrinder (hypothetically as he's not got his own command ability), that works great for a really punchy Khorne army, massive blob of Wrathmongers storming across the board.  But there's nothing stopping you putting in a unit of Stormfiends, suddenly you've gone from something you can justify as a Khorne army to something that isn't.

6 minutes ago, fartsocks said:

I think it's an idea that could work, would certainly help out some of the smaller factions, although it may be a bit unfairly balanced to bigger factions who already have a lot of battleline options. I think you'd have to change every battleline unit to a faction specific battleline to make it work.

In fairness I think if this idea were applied to the smaller factions then it would be pretty good, as you say the larger grand alliances would end up with a massive advantage but being selective would actually add quite a bit of flavour.  In truth there's nothing stopping having a mixture of "becomes battleline" rules across each faction rather than the one or two we've currently got.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Don't know it there's more units that do it but currently the Lord of Khorne on Juggernaut only unlocks Mighty Skullcrushers as battleline if they've got Mortal Khorne Alliegance as well. If anythkng think I'd like to see more Faction specific restrictions like this.  Granted there's nothing particularly unthematic about mixed factions but in many cases there's little downside to them or advantage to taking a pure faction. Of course the new Battletomes do go some way to dealing with that already. 

[fartsocks]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Lets say you get Wrathmongers as a battleline if your general is a Skullgrinder (hypothetically as he's not got his own command ability), that works great for a really punchy Khorne army, massive blob of Wrathmongers storming across the board.  But there's nothing stopping you putting in a unit of Stormfiends, suddenly you've gone from something you can justify as a Khorne army to something that isn't.

I see your point, perhaps the rule could be that you have to have an XXX general, and 50% (or 75% or whatever) of units are XXX to get the battleline, so the army is mainly XXX but with the possibility of a few allies.

[CoffeeGrunt]

1 hour ago, fartsocks said:

I see your point, perhaps the rule could be that you have to have an XXX general, and 50% (or 75% or whatever) of units are XXX to get the battleline, so the army is mainly XXX but with the possibility of a few allies.

Starts to get a little complex at that point, though.

I like the idea of General-based Battleline, though it does leave things a little more open to abuse. 

[Thomas Lyons]

3 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Starts to get a little complex at that point, though.

I like the idea of General-based Battleline, though it does leave things a little more open to abuse. 

Agreed.  It needs to be as simple as possible.  To clarify the concept, what I was thinking was something like this:

• On Spireguard: Battleline if general is a Swifthawk Agent Hero.
• On Ard' Boyz: Battleline if general is a Ironjawz Hero.
• On Putrid Blightkings: Battleline if general is a Mortal Nurgle Hero.

The idea here is that certain troops are more likely to follow certain leaders into battle, hence some units which are rarer in most forces become battleline under certain generals.  You could still maintain faction specific Allegiance abilities and magical items to still incentivize being mono-faction.  Again, we wouldn't be moving the value of mono-faction too dramatically but it would create some flexibility for force building.  This is all with the assumption that we will be getting faction allegiance abilities for many (if not most of the factions) so that mono-faction continues to be incentivized accordingly.

[Dangermouse425]

33 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Agreed.  It needs to be as simple as possible.  To clarify the concept, what I was thinking was something like this:

• On Spireguard: Battleline if general is a Swifthawk Agent Hero.
• On Ard' Boyz: Battleline if general is a Ironjawz Hero.
• On Putrid Blightkings: Battleline if general is a Mortal Nurgle Hero.

The idea here is that certain troops are more likely to follow certain leaders into battle, hence some units which are rarer in most forces become battleline under certain generals.  You could still maintain faction specific Allegiance abilities and magical items to still incentivize being mono-faction.  Again, we wouldn't be moving the value of mono-faction too dramatically but it would create some flexibility for force building.  This is all with the assumption that we will be getting faction allegiance abilities for many (if not most of the factions) so that mono-faction continues to be incentivized accordingly.

This is a much more likely solution to something we recently discussed on the Tales of Sigmar podcast. I suggested that it would be cool to have a way to assign a keyword to a  "generic" Battleline unit across each of the four Grand Alliances, so that you don't break your Allegiance, such as Chaos Warhounds, Dire Wolves, Order Warriors or Snotlings for Destruction.

The rules would be quite poor, just a 5+/5+/-/1 statline or something, but it might have a special ability where one unit of this warscroll would be allowed to be taken within an army and not "break" the Allegiance, for example: if you were to take 2 x Gore Grunta units in your 2k Ironjawz army, you could use the Snotlings as your third Battleline and assign them to Ironjawz keyword, meaning that your other 2 units of Gore Gruntas remained eligible for Batteline.

Not exactly very well thought out, and likely open to abuse, just thought it would be a cool way to add a bit more variety to the factions that don't have a huge amount of choice. I think General-specific Battleline units is probably a better option though.

[Requizen]

I would expect to/be fine with Stormcast going to Prosecutors are Battleline with Allegiance, Judicators maybe Battleline with Allegiance but not baseline. They're just so, so good.

[mmimzie]

Eh i dont like opening up to many generic battle line options. You only need 3 so the restriction is quite small already. 

I like it rewarding sticking to a theme. Opening this up to much would just make chaos and order even crazier.