TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Squirrelmaster]

Regarding summoning, I think the main problem is that you have to go all-or-nothing. If you only take 1 or 2 fragile summoners, you risk losing them before your first turn even starts, causing all your reinforcement points to be wasted.

What if you had some guaranteed (but not especially useful) option to bring reinforcements on, even if your casters were dead? For example, you could rule that each player is allowed to bring on up to 10% of their total points as reinforcements, minus anything they've summoned that turn, and only if they have the points set aside, anywhere within 6" of their own table edge, in each of their movement phases. Maybe with the added restriction that you have to note down in advance what unit(s) you want to bring on, and when.

Or maybe a cheap, indestructible terrain feature (like an obelisk or something) that sets up in your own deployment zone and has the sole purpose of casting up to one "summoning" spell per turn, as if it were a wizard. Available to all armies, limited to whatever grand alliance you are using.

[mmimzie]

20 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Regarding summoning, I think the main problem is that you have to go all-or-nothing. If you only take 1 or 2 fragile summoners, you risk losing them before your first turn even starts, causing all your reinforcement points to be wasted.

What if you had some guaranteed (but not especially useful) option to bring reinforcements on, even if your casters were dead? For example, you could rule that each player is allowed to bring on up to 10% of their total points as reinforcements, minus anything they've summoned that turn, and only if they have the points set aside, anywhere within 6" of their own table edge, in each of their movement phases. Maybe with the added restriction that you have to note down in advance what unit(s) you want to bring on, and when.

Or maybe a cheap, indestructible terrain feature (like an obelisk or something) that sets up in your own deployment zone and has the sole purpose of casting up to one "summoning" spell per turn, as if it were a wizard. Available to all armies, limited to whatever grand alliance you are using.

If summoning is going to be a thing. I think it will depend on faction bonuses to aid it and as you say garenteed summoning. 

 

FEC could very easily get an alliengce ability where thier models can just walk on from the tabl edge using reinforcement points but it has to be FEC alliegance units. Would be thematic.

 

Death mages could get double summoning and maybe a command trait for quaduple summoning so they coule set up full power horde units.  With spells that let them buff and move said newly summoned units.

 

Khorne could get something similar to blood tithe points where dead units give you tokens that  let you summon stuff. 

Tzneech right now is in a great spot summoning wize as every hero is a strong wizard and summon can cast multiple spells. They also have a large selection of models that can be summoned, and once summoned usually have a shooting attack or spell they can use. Destiny points make summoninf stuff like a lord of change realistic for any caster. 

 

So i think we are on the way. We just need the faction bonuses to get there.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, the reason I don't use Summoning is that when you take into account Casting Rolls, etc it's simply not very reliable. If your Wizards die then you've got no ability to use those points.

[Jamopower]

About battleline units. It would be nice if there would be some choices that you could take once as battleline and further units wouldn't count. It would allow some variation for battleline units without the possibility of just taking three times the best. Also this way you could maybe tone down some bit too good battleline units without messing up them totally.

[roberto]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but Ardboyz really should have a minimm unit size of 5, for 90 points.  180 per every Ironjawz unit is really restrictive, especially in smaller point games.  Plus, you know, variety.

[Ratamaplata]

I still think wording of 'to wound' and damage etc should be changed. Just look at the rules questions sub forum... probably over 50% of questions relate to people misunderstanding the order of wound/save/damage/ability saves and/or if saves are allowed vs. abilities which say they cause wounds etc.

Definitely should be cleared up and could be done easily without any change to game mechanics.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

20 minutes ago, Ratamaplata said:

I still think wording of 'to wound' and damage etc should be changed. Just look at the rules questions sub forum... probably over 50% of questions relate to people misunderstanding the order of wound/save/damage/ability saves and/or if saves are allowed vs. abilities which say they cause wounds etc.

Definitely should be cleared up and could be done easily without any change to game mechanics.

I really feel like the people who get this rule wrong, will always get it wrong because the problem isn't how the rules are written. 

Its that people skim the four pages and don't read it properly. 

Look at the FAQ, and most answers in the rules forum, generally they can be answered by either "yes, you can do that" or "read para. # from the four page rules" 

[RuneBrush]

9 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

I really feel like the people who get this rule wrong, will always get it wrong because the problem isn't how the rules are written. 

Its that people skim the four pages and don't read it properly. 

Look at the FAQ, and most answers in the rules forum, generally they can be answered by either "yes, you can do that" or "read para. # from the four page rules" 

I agree to a certain extent.  I think where the biggest amount of confusion lies is that wounds become damage which then become wounds again.  It would have been clearer to stick to damage - e.g. "If any damage is suffered roll a...".  But we're far too far down that path to change things now  and as you say a large portion is cleared up by spending a bit more time reading the rules & abilities rather than skimming.  I also think that our knowledge of the game is continuously being expanded on by watching streamed events - it's so much easier to learn when you watch people play.  But I'm now waffling and have gone vastly off topic  

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

I agree to a certain extent.  I think where the biggest amount of confusion lies is that wounds become damage which then become wounds again.  It would have been clearer to stick to damage - e.g. "If any damage is suffered roll a...".  But we're far too far down that path to change things now  and as you say a large portion is cleared up by spending a bit more time reading the rules & abilities rather than skimming.  I also think that our knowledge of the game is continuously being expanded on by watching streamed events - it's so much easier to learn when you watch people play.  But I'm now waffling and have gone vastly off topic  

Yeah it's definitely not perfect, and never will be for everyone. But this rule in particular, even though it doesn't use perfectly clear terminology, it's still layed out step by step format that if followed, you can't really go wrong.

I honestly think that people assume a lot without actually confirming whether it's right or wrong(which is fine in a closed environment), but then it becomes an issue when they go online or to a tournament.  

But I digress. 

[wanderingrogue1]

ok i dont know if this has been said before... probably but then at least to emphasis the point...

after going to heat 1 and it feeling like i was visiting a nature reserve... for all that is holy make kurnoth hunters more points!!!!

 

honestly theres load of lovely stuff in the book

 

 

and all you see is unit after unit...after unit of the poxxy things. remarkably dull

[wanderingrogue1]

also im not a massive fan of batallions giving the stealth buffs :

the extra artifact (which at the very least should be unduplicatable) to the point so cheap ones are only taken for the item

the ability to deploy in one go therby getting choice of 1st or 2nd...(a great mechanic made near obsolete due to battalions)

 

[Bjarni St.]

Is the decision of first turn order based on number of unit entries (as opposed to single dropping the lot) really a great mechanic?

[Requizen]

18 minutes ago, Bjarni St. said:

Is the decision of first turn order based on number of unit entries (as opposed to single dropping the lot) really a great mechanic?

I sorta like the deployment race mechanic, but as more armies get full-force battalions it probably needs to be looked at. 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Bear in mind that dropping your army in a few drops to get the choice of first turn also mean your opponent can completely outdeploy you at will. 

You normally know early on if that's what's happening so you can deploy further back to avoid alpha strike for example. 

[wanderingrogue1]

when they are in "the celestial realm" and can gie you the first turn to waste that means nothing

when they can take the first turn redeploy and shoot you with 30 inch bows... again...it means nothing

[Ratamaplata]

How about this... something I don't think anyone has said and I think would clear up a lot of rule misunderstanding or conflicts...

The rules should define the basic actions first;

"move" = move up to etc...

"run" = roll a d6 etc...

"charge", "shoot" etc...

Then define each phase separately using reference to that glossary. I.e. 'Movement phase' allows every unit to move and run once. This should remove any need to say "as if in the X phase". It would also make it obvious as to when you just make a move or can also run.

When you include "set up" as well it should clear up special deployment rules/do they count as a move etc questions?

 

[Praecautus]

I appreciate most people are providing input on rules, but I assume other aspects of play are up for discussion.

from a narrative perspective I think a short guide on do and do nots for designing battleplans and campaigns would be nice for new players.

A master list / matrix of all battle plans by army that shows which book had which plans for which armies would be a simple addition.

warbands for all armies or generic rules and tables for use with those not included e.g. If I want to make a seraphon warband I don't have rules in current book.

from a rules perspective I would like some risk vs reward for range attacks. For example more damage if shooting at close range but harder to hit the target at longer range. However being at short range means if my ranged unit ends up in h 2 h it can't shoot or takes more damage. That is my reward is more damage but my risk is my unit being crushed by madmen with axes  but I mitigate by staying away but have a drop in damage output.

However, I think this is easier done through warscrolls with tables similar to the damage tables for the monsters. So when shooting consult that units warscroll and depending on range the required numbers change. This allows a simple model of damage and accuracy decreasing over range but can be adjusted by race and or weapon

Edited January 26, 2017 by Praecautus

[buffalozap]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 9:07 AM, Praecautus said:

if my ranged unit ends up in h 2 h it can't shoot

You can have this when I get to shoot in your shooting phase just like you get to attack during my combat phase.

 

That's why shooting is balanced the way it is, it happens half as often as the combat phase.

[wanderingrogue1]

also if shooting seems to be getting too good /predominant (which i think it is)

a new rule of one: when shooting over half your max range. its at minus one.

 

it could also be capped so that it only occurs over 12 inches. meaning v short range shooting actually has a benefit (when was the last time you saw storm cast cross bows over "normal" bow judicators)

[Nico]

Quote

also if shooting seems to be getting too good /predominant (which i think it is)

a new rule of one: when shooting over half your max range. its at minus one.

Making global rules changes for the sake of balance is very likely to have unintended consequences. Nudging up the cost of certain pew pew units is a much.

-1 to hit for pew pew is absolutely massive - 1/3 damage reduction for many units (even Kurnoth Hunters other than the Champion only hit on 4+). That's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Even the most exceptional pew pew in the game (Husktusks and Kunning Rukk Arrer Boyz) while plainly still top tier strong is not looking as undercosted if we assume that Destruction don't get any new toys for the next 6 months whereas Chaos and especially Stormcast (and possibly Duardin?) are about to get a massive shot in the arm.

It may be that we look back in a few months and think that Battle Brew, Destruction Move (Rampaging Destroyers) and Husktusks are the crutch that kept Destruction competitive (just as the Ward Save kept Grand Alliance Death (i.e. non-TK) competitive despite having fewer units than Order have Battalions).  

[Blitzel]

Just a quick question. Will this make the first AoS general's handbook obselete? I just ordered it ;).

[Bjarni St.]

Yeah, more or less. There's stuff in it that might not get reprinted/replaced but I wouldn't expect it to be leaving the shelf much.

[Squirrelmaster]

On 20/01/2017 at 0:07 PM, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Yeah it's definitely not perfect, and never will be for everyone. But this rule in particular, even though it doesn't use perfectly clear terminology, it's still layed out step by step format that if followed, you can't really go wrong.

Except for stuff like the Spirit of Durthu's "Solemn Guardian" rule, or the "Black Amulet" Death Artefact. At least one GW author seems to think you can make saves against wounds, even though the core rules disagree.

[Krieger]

1.  Don't allow stacking duplicate abilities (for example double warchanter or triple Mourngul).

2.  A natural roll of 6 always succeeds

3.  If at any moment one side has no models on the table the game ends.

4. Sylvaneth woods and other warscroll terrain must be placed at least 6 inches away from objectives.

5.  Teleporting stormcast should have the same 9" restriction as summoning.

6. Units in combat shouldn't be able to shoot at units outside of their own current combat.

7.  Please improve summoning

8.  Please lower the points cost of sub par behemoths like Glotttkin and the Maw-Krusha

[broche]

I hope they just hire some mathematicien to fix the point. Then we would need to point here all the point that do not work lol!