TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Shane]

14 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

3. Could easily be fixed on a per warscroll bases. They could do it like they fixed bale wind. Update thier war scroll and your done. Either add "these can ignore the rules of 1 for arcane bolt" Or don't make it a spell and instead make it an ability they use in the hero phase.

 

That's what I meant about creating new keywords/rules to get around existing ones. That is the cause of rule bloat (see 40k). It also leads to the opposing player being (unpleasently) surprised when you suddenly point out a unique keyword that invalidates their game expectation.

Copying Arcane Bolt into Bolt of Change for Heralds as a hero phase ability could work, as an example. That way you're not playing around with keywords. 

[Deathadder99]

I'd love to see - 
Better battleline for Chaos. Less pillow-fisted chaos warriors, maybe chariot or warhounds battleline?
More options for Tzeentch spells, rule of one really screws over Fatesworn battalion and Horrors.
Also - and I have no idea why no one has mentioned this yet - a maximum number of special weapons in a unit. When it says some of the models carry X, some people take it as all of them carry it, and that's part of what makes Stormfiends so powerful. Perhaps as 1 model per X carries a Y.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think the main problem with Undestructable Prediction is that it so rarely has an effect, compared to Deathless Minions or the Destruction one, at least. It's nice when it happens, but really I think something else might fit better in both thematics and gameplay.

[Age of The Erstwood]

I hope somebody suggest this already but 6 new battleplans in this GHB and every GHB thereafter. They can be designed with the current meta in mind and with the intention of keeping it fresh. It's good for old hands so they're not playing the same scenarios year in year out and good for newcomers because it levels the playing field a bit, in that you're not coming up against people who know the scenarios inside out. 

 

[Nico]

Quote

Also - and I have no idea why no one has mentioned this yet - a maximum number of special weapons in a unit. When it says some of the models carry X, some people take it as all of them carry it, and that's part of what makes Stormfiends so powerful.

This is the worst anti-Stormfiend rant I've seen today and I've seen 3. Every single such rule I've seen has a specific cap, e.g. 4 Starsoul Maces for 10 Paladins, 1 Goreglaive for 10, with the notable exception of Moonclan Grots (a "few" is it?) - people who stuff the unit with nets can go play by themselves. 

The reason why this is completely irrelevant to Stormfiends is that all of their weapon choices are "special weapons" - they are notionally balanced between themselves - e.g. Ratling guns actually are better against 5+ saves at medium range. Doomflayers have -2 rend etc..

[Dan.Ford]

Full feedback will come later but these are some of my first thoughts:

1, When casting a spell you can make any number of attempts but it is only cast once.

2, Slaughterbrute, chimera, glottkin, archaon, varanguard, Scarrac (500 lol) etc  to name a few are overcosted

3, Keep the Compendium for another year and relook after that. Things are still fluid.

IE: Death need some real shooting units , 9" Breath and screams is hardly a choice, luckly there are still Tomb kings Archers ,chariots with bow, Giant Bows and warmachines. 

All phases in the game are Critical, to lose one like the above is to weaken your army . Normal its by your choice not by the game design.  Its one of the reasons i believe that T.O still allow Tomb kings in death army.

4, In Event, PITCHED BATTLE is great but some Armies, battalions and units have the abilities to automatically be 'almost anywhere on the table when deploying'  at there choosing.

This is massive ,

The opponent armies could be 30%-80% destroyed before even moving and then the objectives are then easy to claim.

or Win the game on turn 5 by dropping onto the battlefield and charging into units that are on objectives.

or Stopping armies coming onto the table on turn 1 or any turn,

or Claiming all the objectives on the table before the opponent has even rolled a dice.

One simple change too 'offset' this, is to say that no unit can claim objectives on the turn they are deployed on the battlefield. Simple, some T.O are already doing this.

 

Has any Podcasters putting up their changes they would like to see?

 

[tyler1906]

8 hours ago, Hairojin said:

The sylvaneth book seems to be a little bit off in internal balance, I'm especially thinking about Tree/Spite Revenants and Branchwraiths cost too much for what they do and Kurnoth Hunters might cost too little.

I would like to see a discount for taking larger battle line units. Having a base cost that goes down when the unit gets larger. Example,  Tree revenants cost 100p for 5 today, make the unit size 5/10/15/20 and cost 100/180/250/310

They added the teleport etc in the cost. As a Sylvaneth player hate the cost for some of our units but I understand it. 

[Ian R]

Points need fixing e.g. skaven cannons, TK knights, TK tomb swarms, (and any similar that can appear from off the table and easily grab an objective but are very cheap), vamp on zombie dragon, some bloodbound, warrior brotherhood stormcast battalion, big killer units of ork type archers, etc to name a few.  Needs some meaty changes in places.

How about units not being able to claim objectives in the turn they come on the table ( this was in one of the previous comps widely used and made this type of unit require a level of skill to use)?

And I agree that shooting in and out of combat needs fixing to make it feel " realistic" (in a fantasy game, but you know what I mean!) and nerf big shooting units in favour of close combat.

Measure base to base.

Keep priority roll but like Lord of Rings game, if a draw on dice roll it goes to the player who did not go last.

Clarify when spells and other abilities impact the unit/model pushing them out more clearly.

More variety in pitched battles so not all objective based.

Balance Allegiance abilities more Order one is very weak.

 

[Arkiham]

Reintroduce lores of Magic, add new spells.

Rules for rivers 

Change the key wording on some of the chaos monsters, the slaughterbrute is so obviously khorne based and vortex beast tzeentch, they might see use again, same with warhounds, dragon ogres etc, Splitting them up made them unviable and thus unusable 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Arkiham

[chord]

there are lots of battle plans in the realmgate wars books.

would like to see an app for windows 10 so I can read the book on a large screen

[hobgoblinclub]

Make the army composition requirements scalable. So, 'you need x at 500 points' and just multiply this for bigger games. 

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, Nico said:

This is the worst anti-Stormfiend rant I've seen today and I've seen 3. Every single such rule I've seen has a specific cap, e.g. 4 Starsoul Maces for 10 Paladins, 1 Goreglaive for 10, with the notable exception of Moonclan Grots (a "few" is it?) - people who stuff the unit with nets can go play by themselves. 

The reason why this is completely irrelevant to Stormfiends is that all of their weapon choices are "special weapons" - they are notionally balanced between themselves - e.g. Ratling guns actually are better against 5+ saves at medium range. Doomflayers have -2 rend etc..

Totally agree.  Though I would potentially like to see Starsoul maces and similar x per y weapons cost something like 5-10 points each.  Might cut down on the spammy-ness.  Might not.

[SuperHappyTime]

Map Campaign Rules similar to the old Mighty/Planetary Empires. If this has to wait for GH3 for a subsequent product release.

Fix Lord Kroak, you tards!

[Lord Veshnakar]

Just a few ideas! Some are echoing the thoughts of others.

• Command abilities and artifacts for all of the pre-Sylvaneth Battletomes (Seraphon, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Fyreslayers, etc)
• Base to base measuring and with that an appropriate base size chart.
• Add a small handful of additional basic spells like Arcane Bolt and Mystic Shield.
• An overall small reduction in point costs for Fyreslayers. Especially Vulkite Berzerkers who I believe were given point cost based on the old version of the SCGT comp before they reduced the pool costs on the Berzerkers down from 10 vulkites for 10 pool choices to the more appropriate 10 vulkites for 7 pool choices. 
• Special Rules for fighting in the 8 realms. (harder to hit with shooting in the realm of shadow, minus to bravery for undead/daemons in realm of light etc.) and perhaps a way to randomly determine which realm you are fighting in at the start of the game as well.
• I really feel that summoning and the magic phase needs to stay close to the same as it is now beyond some new spells so every spell caster can do something. Otherwise it will get out of hand REALLY fast and it will be magichammer all over again. Perhaps allowing replenishment of wounds up to the starting value for units but keep it so you have to pay points if you want to summon entirely new units? I have seen how crazy summoning can get when we used to do open play at our club here, and it is just WAY too much. 

[Nico]

Quote

Totally agree.  Though I would potentially like to see Starsoul maces and similar x per y weapons cost something like 5-10 points each.  Might cut down on the spammy-ness.  Might not.

Expect to see Stormcast players marching in the streets if you ever messed with their Starsoul Maces. Whisper it quietly, but they doubled the number of Starsoul Maces early on after the release....

Quote

Special Rules for fighting in the 8 realms. (harder to hit with shooting in the realm of shadow, minus to bravery for undead/daemons in realm of light etc.) and perhaps a way to randomly determine which realm you are fighting in at the start of the game as well.

Read page one of the Rules. If you cannot agree, then roll a dice and whoever wins picks the realm. This is part of the core rules that remains in matched play. @Benpointed this out to me at The Warlords. I'd forgotten about it since it so rarely matters. I know - tucked away where you would never think of looking!

As far as I know, this affects Drazhoath and the Magma Dragon - it's a big deal for the latter.

Quote

• I really feel that summoning and the magic phase needs to stay close to the same as it is now beyond some new spells so every spell caster can do something. Otherwise it will get out of hand REALLY fast and it will be magichammer all over again. Perhaps allowing replenishment of wounds up to the starting value for units but keep it so you have to pay points if you want to summon entirely new units? I have seen how crazy summoning can get when we used to do open play at our club here, and it is just WAY too much. 

I agree, but would go further, I don't see any reason to buff summoning. Wizards could use some small buffs (partly this will be fixed by Lore spells, e.g. Nagash, Arkhan).

Quote

Fix Lord Kroak, you tards!

Could you please explain what you mean, fix him in which way? He's actually pretty well balanced at the moment (he also has the Balewind option for an extra 100 points). It continues to surprise me that we don't see more armies that are Stormcast plus Kroak etc..

Quote

• An overall small reduction in point costs for Fyreslayers. Especially Vulkite Berzerkers who I believe were given point cost based on the old version of the SCGT comp before they reduced the pool costs on the Berzerkers down from 10 vulkites for 10 pool choices to the more appropriate 10 vulkites for 7 pool choices. 

Having built some lists using these jokers, I would suggest the following:

• Runemaster should cost minus 40 points (yes he's literally a boon to your opponent).
• The Magmadroths should cost less (unless they are planning to give them seriously good offensive and defensive abilities in an Allegiance Pack).
• The Runesmiter could go down to 80 (or have an allegiance ability that lets them tunnel two units instead of one).

Vulkites are really good if you can subdue the part of your body that wants to use Multiple Small Units.

As you said, they really need an allegiance pack as the Order abilities suck (and they aren't a top tier army like Stormcast).

I'll see how they fare at Blood and Glory in a few hours - yes it's finally here - woop woop.

[Louzi]

My only wish:

Please reconsider the point costs of Archaon and Varanguard. Those are the most beautiful models in decades, but you cant play them in competetive games, because they are too expensive. Thats a real shame...

You dont have to make it too cheap, but I rly think that 600 points for Archaon and 300 points for Varanguard are ok. If you cant do that, at least reduce the min. unit seize for the Varanguard from 3 to 2, PLEASE!

[Sete]

I would love to see a focused kill team game. 

While Regiments of renown is a good start it could be improved.

Also allow units to shoot into combat.

Ex: Your Liberators are fighting some reavers.

You use your judicators to shoot into that combat. Rolls of 1 are a critical miss and you hit your models. Roll to wound and save as normal.

Also if your judicators (or ranged unit) are engaged in close combat they can't use their bows to shoot.

They are fighting for their lives.

In my opinion this would improve Cavalry and infantry positioning making it a more tactical game.

Would make for meaningful decisions. Should I shoot and charge those dudes. Should I put my Liberators defending the judicators so cavalry do not charge them.

You see my point.

Allow Hero's to join units.

My guys are constantly getting sniped by  death wizards (my main opponent is tomb kings.) 

(It's a battle of attrition that I always lose. Summons on top of summon and d3 dmg -2 rending dudes that are constantly being summoned everytime i kill one. )

Make maximum unit sizes smaller.

If the minimum is 5 max should be 10 (ex)

A proper FOC would be nice.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Sete
Adding ideas.

[Taketheskull]

Khorne Bloodbound Heroes that have threatening damage output in close combat...

No wait... sorry... I'm just wishlisting now.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Maybe an alt mode for Death Summoning spells that returns slain models to a unit? It would probably need to be a new Death book rather than a GHB though, but for example have Grave Guard at +D3, Skeleton Warriors at +D6, etc, etc. Would allow a bit more active engagement with Death regen.

Heck, maybe even remove the passive Banner regen and make it a more active, involved choice in return for making the regen spell more potent.

[Louzi]

Hmm most of the suggestions are so bad, that I rly hope this thread doesnt make it to GW...

[Sete]

28 minutes ago, Louzi said:

Hmm most of the suggestions are so bad, that I rly hope this thread doesnt make it to GW...

Then please be our guest and pitch in your ideas.

[Squirrelmaster]

The main problem I have with summoning at the moment is that it's kind of all-or-nothing. If you don't have enough summoners to reliably ensure that you can get your reinforcement points on the table, you risk those points being wasted. If you don't have enough points set aside for taking advantage of a lucky roll (eg. 20 skeletons if you roll a 10+), your summoning ends up being weaker as a result. If you're going to do summoning at all, you are usually better off building your whole list around it.

Now, I think when you do build an entire list around summoning, it becomes fairly well balanced, but I'd like to see a change to make having just a little bit of summoning in your list more viable.

For example, you could introduce a rule in some scenarios that from turn 2 onwards, in each of your hero phases, you can select a single minimum-sized unit, then roll equal to or over its points cost on D6 x 100, if you succeed you can automatically summon that unit (paying for it as normal) entirely within 3" of any table edge. Or something like that, maybe slightly different rules for each scenario.

[KHHaunts]

3 hours ago, Louzi said:

Hmm most of the suggestions are so bad, that I rly hope this thread doesnt make it to GW...

Thats your input . . . . . .?

cheers . . . . .

any way the whole point of these threads are to filter loads of ideas so that GW doesent get given a load of garbage like people who keep posting changes to core rules and warscrolls.

GW have asked the question what would we change in the Generals handbook. If people keep making suggestions about stuff that arent relevant to the handbook then you may as well just turn this into another AOS wishlist thread.

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by KHHaunts

[DeadlySarcasm]

5 hours ago, Louzi said:

Hmm most of the suggestions are so bad, that I rly hope this thread doesnt make it to GW...

Lets make sure this thread remains on point and respectful.

Thank you

[amysrevenge]

On 11/24/2016 at 2:32 AM, Sprueless said:

I would like to see support for 1,500 pt games in matched play, e.g number of leaders/battleline etc.

 

This is a good point.  What has fallen out as the sort of "default" game sizes we've seen in the community?  So far, I've seen many games reported at the following:

• 700
• 1000
• 1500
• 2000

Maybe people have been playing other sized games (especially maybe bigger ones), but these 4 sizes constitute the vast bulk of what I've seen on social media or in real life.

So it would be good to maybe have those 4 sizes explicitly called out in a table.

Edited November 25, 2016 by amysrevenge