TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

The elves in the Lord of the rings were alo shooting their opponnts from point blank, not some other advancing orcs from the distance.

They did both, iirc. Shoot close and also save that clumsy ranger way over there.  ☺

Not that LotR has to influence this game. 

It just seems to me that the design of this game, from the ground up, is cinematic and loose.

Tightened/restricted systems are also fun, but there are lots of other games like that.  Do we really need to remove some of the uniqueness of AoS just to make it more like so many others? 

Gimme my crazy fun here, and I'll play tighter games elsewhere. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Sleboda

[Bradifer]

On Summoning:

The goal is to make the mechanic a risk vs reward system, but not underpowered/overpowered. Also, not a very complex mechanic. It's simple as it stands.

GHB 2.0 could give certain summon-oriented units the ability to extend your Total Points for your army by marginally small amounts. This gives incentive to summoning that only applies to pointed games (Matched Play) and doesn't muck with narrative/open.

Example 1: (This text would be in GHB 2.0, not on warscrolls).

• Arkhan the Black adds 40 points to your reinforcement pool. These points cannot add to the total value of your starting army.
• (If this makes Arkhan OverPowered, you can raise his points by ~20, and then give ~60 points of summoning instead.) This adds risk i.e. higher points invested in "summoning oriented units" while allowing higher rewards (bonus summoning pool size).
• "Bonus reinforcement points are always consumed before pitched battle points are." - Verbiage stating something like that, allows bonuses i.e. +1 summoning while you have bonus points available. (This may not be necessary if its too complicated, but adds potential rules diversity.

 

Example 2: (This text would be in GHB 2.0, not on warscrolls).

• Slann Starmaster adds 40 points to your reinforcement pool. These points cannot add to the total value of your starting army.
• Almost the same example. But Most Seraphon units cost ~100+. So he effectively needs to start an army at 1940/2000, + 40 "free" reinforcement points gives him the ability to summon Saurus Warriors more easily.
• "Slann Starmaster has +1 to summoning Saurus Warriors or Saurus Guard while bonus reinforcement points remain in the pool.
• If Slann Starmaster or Lord Kroak is your general, you may dedicate a battleline unit to start the game not-deployed on the table, instead it can only be added to the field via summoning. (Additional mechanic that totally fits a summoning-oriented army's theme.)
• This specifically rewards players who wish to summon battleline troop like units (or whatever GW designates) and provides no bonus to X units such as a Bastiladon or Old One on Carnosaur.

Example 3: (This text would be in GHB 2.0, not on warscrolls).

• Nagash, Supreme Lord of the Undead (Or a Deathlords/DeathRattle Battletome Allegiance Spell) gains the spell: 
• Reanimate Undead. 18" range. Choose a point within range. All Skeletons, Grave Guard, Zombies, and Zombie Dogs within 6" of the point, may regenerate D6 wounds worth of models. (May or may not exceed past starting limit, depends on how strong we want spell.)
• I don't play any TK but I understand they have something along these lines. 

On Ranged:

I think we could make one clause that's not overpowering but simple.

Example 4: (This text would be in GHB 2.0, not on warscrolls).

• Units within 3" of an enemy unit, have -1 to hit in the shooting phase.
• This rewards models that could be made with a retreat-and-fire rule (i.e. new Aelves?) but also allows counterplay to ranged spam via deep striking units, or fast flanking units (i.e. Gore Gruntas/Cavalry/Fast Units).
• Additional Counterplay would be to rework swarm units like the Death's Vampire Bats that gives -1 to hit in enemy shooting phase, but instead it is to allied units within ~X inches, rather than the bats being near the enemy.

Any thoughts?

[Sleboda]

I just thought of one based on convenience, experience, and style of the game.

Rule that models never block line of sight to other models.

If it's all supposed to be a constantly moving affair (thus allowing the various shooting/combat things), why not abstract to say shots are taken at a good moment?

Also, at Adepticon I did not see one single instance of people checking LoS through models.  It seems it's how people play.

[Madra101]

A ruling on maintaining unit coherency is required. You should have to attempt to maintain coherency when removing models due to combat. Conga lines with no models in the middle doesn't make sense. 

[Ratamaplata]

21 hours ago, Madra101 said:

A ruling on maintaining unit coherency is required. You should have to attempt to maintain coherency when removing models due to combat. Conga lines with no models in the middle doesn't make sense. 

So how would you remove models if they were in a line? Any removal would leave a >1" gap.

[Jamopower]

1 minute ago, Ratamaplata said:

So how would you remove models if they were in a line? Any removal would leave a >1" gap.

From the ends?

[Ratamaplata]

Just now, Jamopower said:

From the ends?

Haha oh yeah. Sometimes the obvious is missed!!

[PJetski]

On 4/1/2017 at 5:55 AM, Madra101 said:

A ruling on maintaining unit coherency is required. You should have to attempt to maintain coherency when removing models due to combat. Conga lines with no models in the middle doesn't make sense. 

There is already a rule for this. If you try to move (move, pile in, charge, whatever kind of move) and can't keep 1" coherency at the end then you can't move.

[mdkinker]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

There is already a rule for this. If you try to move (move, pile in, charge, whatever kind of move) and can't keep 1" coherency at the end then you can't move.

That rule's related to what he's talking about, but doesn't specifically address his concern. He was arguing that in choosing models that have died you should need to maintain coherency as well (if you can).

The rule you brought up does make it likely that, if you want to be able to move that unit later, you won't leave a gap that is too big for your models to make up for in their move (though that would be quite a big gap, even for 4" movement units). 

Ed: there/their

Edited April 2, 2017 by mdkinker

[daedalus81]

I'm starting to think making shooting a tandem phase like combat is not such a terrible idea.

Quote

The player whose turn it is picks a unit  to attack with and attacks with it's ranged weapons, then the opposing player must attack with a unit using their ranged weapons, and so on until all eligible units on both sides have attacked once each.  The opposing player may instead choose to run with one unit instead of choosing one to attack for each unit the initial player chooses to shoot with.  A unit can be picked only once per turn to run. Neither players needs to declare attacks with all of it's ranged units.  If the controlling player may finish shooting with any remaining units if the opposing player has no further reactions.  Any unit that does shoot must now reload and cannot shoot in the next shoot sub-phase.

1) You can still shoot into and out of combat.
2) You still have the same total rounds of shooting available.
3) It lessens the impact of a shooting army catching a double turn.
4) All-melee armies have some benefit.
5) It makes you have some harder choices in target selection like with close combat.
6) It is relatively simple and in keeping with the spirit of the rules.
 

Edited April 2, 2017 by daedalus81

[TerrorPenguin]

58 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

I'm starting to think making shooting a tandem phase like combat is not such a terrible idea.

1) You can still shoot into and out of combat.
2) You still have the same total rounds of shooting available.
3) It lessens the impact of a shooting army catching a double turn.
4) All-melee armies have some benefit.
5) It makes you have some harder choices in target selection like with close combat.
6) It is relatively simple and in keeping with the spirit of the rules.
 

What benefit would melee only armies get?

[daedalus81]

9 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

What benefit would melee only armies get?

They can pick one unit to run D6 for each unit the controlling player shoots with.

[CentralKarma]

Personally, I think if they are going to change shooting they should add a minimum range to some weapons like longbows, the way some artillery such has the grudge thrower has.

For example, change a Judicators range from 30" to 3"-30", they can still shoot, but not in close combat.  Having no shooting when an enemy is within 3" doesn't make sense for weapons like pistols or throwing axes, they could be used melee combat, i.e. pistols or throwing axes.

38 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

They can pick one unit to run D6 for each unit the controlling player shoots with.

I don't know, melee only armies such a Iron Jaws are fast enough already, doing this gives them 3 movements a battle round instead of two, excluding charges.

Edited April 2, 2017 by CentralKarma
grammar problems

[Bradifer]

"The player whose turn it is picks a unit  to attack with and attacks with it's ranged weapons, then the opposing player must attack with a unit using their ranged weapons, and so on until all eligible units on both sides have attacked once each....(More Snipped)"

AoS is a simple game.

That is a complete overhaul of the sequences of each turn, and it's pretty complex at that.

That is a very complex redesign that would require rebalancing of offensive/defensive potential and movement of every unit in the game. The opposite of a GHB 2.0 "patch" or rules tweak, if you will.

I think the easiest fix is to either give shooting units -1 to hit while enemies are within 3 in. or to give shooting a minimum range (say this on each warscroll.) Some units would have special powers which lets them shoot in close combat i.e. Dracoth breath, pistsols, hand axes etc...

[Jamopower]

12 hours ago, CentralKarma said:

For example, change a Judicators range from 30" to 3"-30", they can still shoot, but not in close combat.  Having no shooting when an enemy is within 3" doesn't make sense for weapons like pistols or throwing axes, they could be used melee combat, i.e. pistols or throwing axes.

Wouldn't 3"-30" range just mean that the judicators in combat couldn't shoot the enemies they are fighting, but they could shoot (almost) any other enemy on the board?

[Dotification]

How about codifying/recommending a minimum amount of 10 terrain pieces for the table for Matched Play, like they're doing @ the SCGT?

6 pieces need to be large/medium size (GW woods/Skull Keep/ Obsidian Archway etc or an equivalent scratch built/alternative terrain piece)  One of the large pieces needs to be a structure of some sort  4 pieces need to be smaller (these could be a pair of Realm gates, walls and fences or a small shack or a garden of Morr statue on dias for example)  We recommend that everyone brings a set of realmgates/proxies for them.

http://heelanhammer.com/SCGT/

I for one think this would help with the spamming of 30" greatbows & the like; Kurnoth Hunters for Order, and Tzaangor Enlightened(?) for Chaos.   

Getting double-turned by a shooting & spell-heavy army when you have no cover to break LoS isn't very fun . . .

[Jamopower]

In our games we have usually around 10+ terrain elements on board with house rules for forests blocking los through them. I feel it makes the games more interesting when there is more terrain which has more effects. Of course in tournaments it might be bit too much for the organizer to have that amount of terrain. Still LoS blocking obstacles usually make gaming more interesting if there is shooting involved, no matter the game system.

[daedalus81]

8 hours ago, Bradifer said:

"The player whose turn it is picks a unit  to attack with and attacks with it's ranged weapons, then the opposing player must attack with a unit using their ranged weapons, and so on until all eligible units on both sides have attacked once each....(More Snipped)"

AoS is a simple game.

That is a complete overhaul of the sequences of each turn, and it's pretty complex at that.

That is a very complex redesign that would require rebalancing of offensive/defensive potential and movement of every unit in the game. The opposite of a GHB 2.0 "patch" or rules tweak, if you will.

I think the easiest fix is to either give shooting units -1 to hit while enemies are within 3 in. or to give shooting a minimum range (say this on each warscroll.) Some units would have special powers which lets them shoot in close combat i.e. Dracoth breath, pistsols, hand axes etc...

It is no more complex than the current combat phase sequence aside from requiring that you track who shot the previous turn. I could possibly get behind -1 to hit.  Minimum ranges could go either way.

Edited April 3, 2017 by daedalus81

[whiskeytango]

man, there are so many "Paper is overpowered and needs to be nerfed. Scissors are fine. Signed, Rock" suggestions here, mostly pertaining to shooting, which out side of a few tricks some armies have here and there, really is not THAT powerful. Shooting will always play second fiddle to melee, if for no other reason that once you're in combat, you're attacking every combat phase, not just your own. 

I don't mean to say that shooting can't be devastating, because it can be, but most armies pay a premium for powerful shooting attacks. If, like so many have suggested, they were then unable to use them once they were in combat, or they started taking to hit  modifiers or range modifiers, their value would drop drastically.

Edited April 3, 2017 by whiskeytango

[Dotification]

20 hours ago, Jamopower said:

In our games we have usually around 10+ terrain elements on board with house rules for forests blocking los through them. I feel it makes the games more interesting when there is more terrain which has more effects. Of course in tournaments it might be bit too much for the organizer to have that amount of terrain. Still LoS blocking obstacles usually make gaming more interesting if there is shooting involved, no matter the game system.

Do the Britbong T.O.'s have players also bring a few terrain pieces to help fill out the tables??  Isn't that a thing somewhere???

As far as Citadel Woods/forests blocking LoS . . . I could go either way, given that Sylvaneth players have 3 different ways of summoning them.  

My buddy and I also drop what we call "scatter terrain" as in random taller bushes to give Heroes/lone units like Gorgers some cover here and there.

[Jamopower]

Well, I guess the new dwarfs will eventually show if the shooting is powerful or not. At least looking at the amount of guns they have. I don't have so much against the power of it, but it just is bit boring compared to close combat where you have all sorts of pile in manouvers to consider, while the shooting is more or less point and click. 40k is good indication what happens when you put too much shooting in to this kind of i go you go mechanic and in there it is even more restricted as you can't shoot in melee.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jamopower

[CentralKarma]

On 4/2/2017 at 10:36 PM, Jamopower said:

Wouldn't 3"-30" range just mean that the judicators in combat couldn't shoot the enemies they are fighting, but they could shoot (almost) any other enemy on the board?

I guess it would, assuming they could see them

On 4/2/2017 at 10:09 PM, Bradifer said:

I think the easiest fix is to either give shooting units -1 to hit while enemies are within 3 in. or to give shooting a minimum range (say this on each warscroll.) Some units would have special powers which lets them shoot in close combat i.e. Dracoth breath, pistsols, hand axes etc...

This is probably a better solution then mine.  I just think certain range weapons should still be usable in close combat, such as pistols, throwing axes, etc

Also, base contact/ in combat is better than within 3in, IMO.  If someone fails a charge with snake eyes, you should be able to shoot them 

[CentralKarma]

I'd like them to add a 1500 pt limit for matched play.  It could be 1-5 heroes, 3+ battleline, 0-3 artillery, 0-3 behemoths, or something along those lines.  I really like the smaller, games, but list building at 1000 can feel a little restrictive at times.

P.S.: Sorry if this has been suggested, I didn't want to scroll through 19 pages

[Bradifer]

2 hours ago, CentralKarma said:

Also, base contact/ in combat is better than within 3in, IMO.  If someone fails a charge with snake eyes, you should be able to shoot them 

Units cant be within 3" unless they're in combat with you. I think that is correct.

A unit at minimum distance that fails a " charge is technically like 3.001 " away, therefore fire away.

I also quite enjoy 1500 pt games, an find 1000 and 1500 pt games are faster, easier, and more common if you are not with very experienced/competitive players.

---------

Another idea for matched play would be to let players choose either 3 battleline units at 2000 pts or ~400 points of battleline units, distributed however.

I think you might see more armies with 2 strong battleline units rather than 3 weak ones.

I.E.

• Seraphon: 3 units of 10 Saurus Warriors becomes One block of 30 Saurus Warriors & One Block of 10 Saurus Guard
• Death: 3 units of 10 zombies becomes One block of 40 Skeletons and One Block of 20 Zombies & Points to summon more zombies
• Sylvaneth: 3 Units of Tree Revenants becomes Two Blocks of 20 Dryads

Really it would be up to the player to determine if they want to spend more points, or have more units. Either way I think GW still requires the sale of BattleLine models, because you benefit by stacking Battleline (I.e. See Clanrat rules or zombie rules).

This system would allow:

• Allow further flexibility in army building
• Still simplistic rules ("Hey Player A, do you have 400 points of Battleline?" "Yes I have Soulblight allegiance and on big block of 10 Blood Knights".
• Can be more easily variable via Matched Play Points size. (I.e. 1k Game = 2 battleline units or 200 points, 2K Game = 3 Battleline units or 400 points, what about 1500 Game? 3 battleline units or 300 points?) You could evn drop down to ~750 point games.
• Expands diversity for the higher and lower tiers of competitive play. If a guy loves elite units but dislikes hordes, he can stick to one big expensive battleline. If somebody just wants Troop filled army, but only has enough Saurus Warriors to make 2 good units, rather than 3 weak ones (i.e. 60 total).

Edited April 4, 2017 by Bradifer
typo

[someone2040]

Haven't read the thread, but here's my feedback on what I'd like to see.

Some stuff I would like to see in terms of balance:

Allegiance:

When you choose your Allegiance for your list, you must take that allegiances abilities/magic items/etc and can only default to the Grand Alliance one if your faction has no Allegiance abilities.

Maybe the above is just trying to address the fact that the Destruction one is a bit too good? Dunno. But another change I guess would be to make the Destruction one worse. Certainly at the moment no Destruction army uses their own allegiance ability, and unfortunately while the Destruction one is so good they won't.

I suppose even if you forced them to take their faction allegiance ability, unless they relied on their allegiance for battleline or something else you may just find armies get cheap battleline from outside their own allegiance to force Grand Alliance.

Pet peeve is the Chaos one. I think it needs to be revamped completely. All the other ones happen automatically and generally you're always going to benefit from (Even if the only Order armies you tend to see don't care about it). The Chaos one is just... ERGH, exactly as it's called, Unpredictable. And as a player, that's really frustrating. I went through an entire 4 game tournament with it, and didn't roll it once.

At the same time, fix the magic item discrepencies. Battle brew OP.

Warscroll Updates:

Above all else, one thing I'd love to see is a range-wide warscroll updates at the same time as the Generals Handbook dropped. Some warscrolls just... don't well equate to the fantasy behind the models. Take Dragon Ogors for example, nothing Ogor about them. All the attacks from the 'Ogor' are 1 damage to small. They could even update Compendium warscrolls at the same time to integrate them better off into the new mortal realms sub-factions.

GW really need to embrace the digital age better, it's frustrating to see war scrolls that could just be fixed or made more interesting to better fit the fantasy and GW doesn't do anything. But if they do it at the same time as they update the Generals Handbook, that's at least a step in the right direction.

I don't think points decreases are the best approach for everything that's underpowered. The above for Dragon Ogors, you could make them good enough with a points decrease, but it would be a band aid fix IMO to the core problem that they don't match the fantasy of the models.

Unit Size Increments:

The increment in which you upgrade units should be separate to the minimum number of models you need in the unit. If you buy something with a minimum model count of 10, maybe you should be able to upgrade in 5's. I get the feeling this won't change, because GW want to see a box and you have a unit (or the next increment of a unit). But it's probably not really that fair that Grots need to upgrade in 20's, just because they're sold in 20's (Although strangely Skaven get to upgrade in 10's, consistency anyone).

Consistency:

Talking about consistency, it is ridiculous that stuff like the above exist. Or that Brettonians as a legacy army take numbers that match their box size, but Tomb Kings as a legacy army don't. I really don't get where they were going with the Brettonians. Given they no longer sell them, for consistencies sake, please make them in standard unit sizes.

 

Also in terms of consistency. Please choose battlefield roles that make sense. Why are waywatchers battleline for Wanderers? It doesn't make sense, these were the elite rare archers of the Wood Elves, not your run of the mill Glade Guard. At the same time, Eternal Guard aren't. What gives?

Same thing for the (now) Swifthawk Agents, Reavers as battleline while Spireguard are only if the allegiance is Agents? Make Spireguard battleline all the time.

Armour Saves:

Ideally, this belongs in the core rules. Either GW need to update every scroll to have a 6+ save (Unless they're basically nude), or they need to change the way armour save increases work for models without a save. When a core mechanic in the game to protect yourself (cover), you need to make sure everyone can use it. Witch Aelves should either get an armour save, or they change the rules of cover to allow them to get a 6+ if no save. Maybe for consitencies sake, Witch Aelves should just get an armour save (The Sisters of Slaughter which are effectively the same models do after all).

Auxillaries:

I'm sure this has been done to death in the topic, but yes, I do think you should be able to take a certain amount of your army without breaking your allegiance. They certainly shouldn't benefit from your allegiance, but I would like to see it happen.

It's a tight line to walk though, because you run into the fact that now you can just plonk 'strong' stuff in your army without losing the benefits of your allegiance. This possible means you need to tighten up things like Sayl the Faithless (Maybe make it only able to effect Slaves to Darkness units). The Hurricanum is an odd one, as it can't really operate in it's own sub-faction and is made to be taken alongside other armies. Maybe it's alright, as it doesn't seem to be as ubiquitous as Sayl is in non-Tzeentch Chaos armies.

IF each faction had it's own battleline, heroes, etc I would say maybe there should be an Allied Detachment that you could take. Could be made up of 1+ Battleline, 0+ heroes, 0+ other units, maximum % of your points. It doesn't work for Monsters of Chaos though.

Tough thing to figure out, hopefully GW can find a nice way to do it.

 

Some stuff I'd like to see in terms of content:
 

Additional Ruleset:

I think it was a good idea to include Path to Glory in there. I think the implementation of Path to Glory is terrible, but still good to see in there. 

I'd actually really like to see a balance ruleset around those game sizes, but considering Path to Glory already exists and GW is running with it, instead I'd like to see a Skirmish ruleset akin to Hinterlands. I wouldn't mind if it's even a bit more involved (Akin to Shadow Wars: Armageddon). With rules like being prone/stunned, basic rules for climbing and jumping (Could just be a flat dice roll you need to make). It does get a bit harder without an initiative/dexterity stat to make more interesting movement dynamics though (Why would an Aelf or Skaven need the same roll to climb/jump as an Ogor for example).

Map Based Campaign:

Map based campaigns being fleshed out with some more rules similar to Mighty Empires or the like.

Additional Battleplans:

I'd like to see new Matched Play battleplans (well, new battleplans in general really!). One way for them to keep selling this book is new content, or making sure that everyone wanting to tournament game needs the new thing. A good way to do that is to change up the Matched Play scenarios every year. This set of 6 scenarios will be the standard for the next 12 months. You could keep 3, ditch 3. Or just ditch the ones that aren't as enjoyable.

Edited April 10, 2017 by someone2040