TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[#SteveJames]

Heres a couple of things I would like to see in GHB 2 just my ideas but they've all be discussed a club a one time or the other.

1 Measure base to base seems to be pretty fairly widely accepted already.

2 Command traits and artifacts, spells etc for factions with books that don't already have them eg Stormcast, Bloodbound etc

3 Some points re-balancing putting OP stuff up and under preforming stuff down will mean tournaments scene  stays fresh, as new options open up and other list become less viable.

4 More Allegiance specific battle-line so people can play more themed armies

5 Maybe 6 new scenarios the old ones are fine but a few more options would add some variety.

6 Maybe a base size guide nothing too restrictive/indepth but just a guide

 

 

 

 

[Thomas Lyons]

1 hour ago, mmimzie said:

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. 

But would it?  Really?  It would unlock 1-3 additional battleline total.  That really isn't a lot.  

[AkumaKaze]

So I have been talking to some folks about changes they would like to see.  By changes I mean minor or a few adjustments.  One of my biggest annoyances is Sudden Death Victories.  Now that we have a points system it doesn't make sense that a rule is still there that allows people with an elite army to get a free win condition "just because".  I would like to hear what everyone else thinks.  Do you have anything you would like to see tweaked a bit?

[wayniac]

Doesn't Sudden Death only apply to default (i.e. no battleplan) AOS?

[Attackmack]

There are no Sudden Death in matches play as far as I know.

[Broxus]

7 hours ago, Requizen said:

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.

I could handle prosecutors being a battleline.  It is absolutely stupid to the n'th degree that Judicators are a battleline option.  There is no way that should have happened.  It complelty breaks the battleline purpose and gives a massive advantage to stormcast.  

[arnoldrew]

21 minutes ago, Attackmack said:

There are no Sudden Death in matches play as far as I know.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I read the above...

[rokapoke]

8 minutes ago, Broxus said:

It is absolutely stupid to the n'th degree that Judicators are a battleline option.  There is no way that should have happened.  It complelty breaks the battleline purpose and gives a massive advantage to stormcast.  

Sorry, you seem to have misspelled Thundertusks/Stonehorns and Beastclaw Raiders in your post. 

[Broxus]

18 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Sorry, you seem to have misspelled Thundertusks/Stonehorns and Beastclaw Raiders in your post. 

No I didn't misspell but should have added those also.

 

[rokapoke]

9 minutes ago, Broxus said:

No I didn't misspell .

 

I know, I just thought I would sarcastically point out the even more ridiculous example. I agree about the Judicators, but the two monsters are absolutely outrageous as battleline units. 

[mmimzie]

FAQ says you throw out all other coniditions in a battle plan. So the victory conditions for the matched play scenarios ignore the core rule victory conditions. 

[AkumaKaze]

Ah so we never saw this when we played and the TO at the last event was allowing it.  It seemed very off to me that it would be allowed in a matched game.  

[HobbyHammer]

Sudden Death rules come in to play when the battleplan says Victory Condition are as per the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rulesheet. 

[Nevvermore]

11 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I know, I just thought I would sarcastically point out the even more ridiculous example. I agree about the Judicators, but the two monsters are absolutely outrageous as battleline units. 

Honestly the problem isn't that it's outrageous to have Monsters as Battleline... it's that those two particular monsters are so incredibly good. They need to be nerfed slightly and I think it would be ok.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Nevvermore

[Cerlin]

Yep so you can win a matched play game on points even if you are board wiped. 

Its just like how there are different triumphs for pitched battles and you do not use the standard rules ones. 

[Dave Fraser]

I'd like to see piling in tweaked.  As it currently stands it can stop you from maximising the number of models in a unit from getting into combat from a unit, it would make more sense that you had to maximise the models in your unit fighting if you pile in (just your unit not your opponents, they can sort that in their pile in).

No idea how to word that rule though, possibly just change it to must pile in towards the nearest enemy unit not model?

[DeadlySarcasm]

Im going to merge this with the larger generals handbook thread, we dont need 2 threads on the same topic

 

EDIT: Threads merged

Edited January 6, 2017 by DeadlySarcasm

[Ollie Grimwood]

I'd quite like to see a bit work done on how the reinforcement pool works. It's a nice mechanic but not particularly viable at the moment. Maybe a reduction in points for units in it or perhaps releasing summoning spells from the rules of one. Just to make it a bit more viable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Falandris]

30 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I'd quite like to see a bit work done on how the reinforcement pool works. It's a nice mechanic but not particularly viable at the moment. Maybe a reduction in points for units in it or perhaps releasing summoning spells from the rules of one. Just to make it a bit more viable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed

[Ratamaplata]

2 hours ago, Dave Fraser said:

I'd like to see piling in tweaked.  As it currently stands it can stop you from maximising the number of models in a unit from getting into combat from a unit, it would make more sense that you had to maximise the models in your unit fighting if you pile in (just your unit not your opponents, they can sort that in their pile in).

No idea how to word that rule though, possibly just change it to must pile in towards the nearest enemy unit not model?

Wouldn't that drastically reduce the cool tactics available though? Locking units in position to minimise attacks etc. I think the pile in rules are the best part of the game.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

3 hours ago, Dave Fraser said:

I'd like to see piling in tweaked.  As it currently stands it can stop you from maximising the number of models in a unit from getting into combat from a unit, it would make more sense that you had to maximise the models in your unit fighting if you pile in (just your unit not your opponents, they can sort that in their pile in).

No idea how to word that rule though, possibly just change it to must pile in towards the nearest enemy unit not model?

Bear in mind this is the Generals Handbook update and Piling in is a main game rule so it's highly unlikely it will be changed. Going off what they have done previously there would be an additional rule (like the rules of one) to cause a change. 

Also I agree with Ratamaplata the pile in rules are pretty good in my opinion. 

 

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. 

[Jamopower]

On 26.12.2016 at 4:21 AM, b1ackni9htgaming said:

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
 

 

This would be nice, and wouldn't need to be matched play only. True Los is the only big thing I don't like in AoS. It can be easily house ruled, like cover that we usually elaborate bit more (stuff like rivers halving the move and forests and hills blocking the Los), but it would make the rules lot more solid if there was some penalty for shooting through stuff. It just feels so wrong. A -1 to hit from each intervening unit would be good.

[Dave Fraser]

11 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Bear in mind this is the Generals Handbook update and Piling in is a main game rule so it's highly unlikely it will be changed. Going off what they have done previously there would be an additional rule (like the rules of one) to cause a change. 

Also I agree with Ratamaplata the pile in rules are pretty good in my opinion. 

I originally didn't post this to GH, it was a rules change thread that got 'tidied'. 

 

I kinda agree that PI is tactical but not sure my proposal prevents the pinning of units from both sides etc that are the tactical part. 

Keep the rule that base to base means you can't move, keep you must stay in unit coherency and actually it's how I've seen a lot of casual people play it where you just mush stuff into the unit rather than worrying about the odd couple of mm here and there for who's closest.

i saw it as a way of reducing potential conflict not removing a tactical option  

 

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

34 minutes ago, Dave Fraser said:

I originally didn't post this to GH, it was a rules change thread that got 'tidied'. 

 

I kinda agree that PI is tactical but not sure my proposal prevents the pinning of units from both sides etc that are the tactical part. 

Keep the rule that base to base means you can't move, keep you must stay in unit coherency and actually it's how I've seen a lot of casual people play it where you just mush stuff into the unit rather than worrying about the odd couple of mm here and there for who's closest.

i saw it as a way of reducing potential conflict not removing a tactical option  

 

 

I see where you're coming from, so models can move around others locked in combat to reach ones further away rather than being stuck to the closest enemy model. 

I feel that might reduce the tactics in unit "formations" though and how you position your unit to recieve charge etc as models will just be able to circle round you with ease. 

[Lysandestolpe]

I think adding too many rules such as true line of sight and shooting through enemy or friendly units may make the game more realistic and add more layers to it, but its a slippery slope to add more stuff as it complicated the game as well. It feel very nice to play such simplistic rules as "if you're in range, you got it" and then make the damn rolls. Too much more "stuff" and the game moves back to the 40k cheese I personally left GW games for back in 2013.

I hope they stay true to the concept of "fun" as they move forward with this GH2. Having more "stuff" is for 40k players.

I do however, agree, in addition to making Aleguzzler Gargants more available to destruction and Chaos allegiances (as I mentioned earlier) that adding better and tighter rules existing factions. The choice of randomizing Artifacts and Command Traits is very fun and adds more funky feeling to the game. But having more faction specific stuff would make it even more exotic for me.

Small changes, is all I say, rather than game changers.