Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Ben

TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

Recommended Posts

I would like to see:

- A thematic Time of War rule to go with the Verdigris Plains (or similar) narrative mini-campaign.

- More units labeled as Battleline or faction specific Battleline.

- Rules for Skirmish play (similar to Warhammer World's Regiments of Renown).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Louzi said:

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. 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) a complete balance pass on all units. There are lots of examples of units over preforming for their points cost and others that cost too many points to justify including because they can't compete point for point with alternatives.  This is a shame because interesting, fun, flavorful units are getting left on the shelf and I would bet that is impacting sales of those units.  I wont comment about means and methods to get this accomplished but I know there is a lot of talent in the world that can crunch every variable in this matrix and solve for the balanced solution vector.

2) Lets get some diagrams to supplement the official rules to explain some of the things giving people headaches.  A solid diagram explaining how to pile in, and another for charge moves, retreat moves, these would go a long way towards mitigating some of the comprehension gap out there.  The old WHFB rule books had great diagrams, shouldn't be hard to add these.

3) This will be controversial but I think that a return to the old percentage restrictions for armies would be a good move.  Max 25% characters, minimum 25% battleline, one monster per 1000 points. Something like that but with a lot more thought put into it would go a long ways towards clearing out the monster mash meta, for a lot of armies the best way to be competitive is to field as many of the big behemoth monster leaders as possible with the minimum battleline tax and that is just not cool imho. 

4) This is more of a request for a rules change but why not: please add some kind of cover system to give low wound "on foot" leaders better survivability in the shooting phase. I think that something like if the unit is within 3" of another friendly unit with at least 5 models then when they are targeted in the shooting phase a -2 to hit modifier applies.  No line of sight shenanigans, no % of the model obscured, just if you're within 3" of a friendly unit that contains at least 5 models you get the cover save bonus.

 

This portion is dedicated to common requests that I do not agree with:

 

A) I do not want summoning to cost no points. The way summoning costs points now is good and should stay.

B) Shooting while in combat is fine and should stay. Shooting only happens half as often as the combat phase already its working fine.

C) I do not agree with the sentiment that all battleline restrictions should be removed. That moves the games further towards the monster mash meta.

D) I do not agree with the sentiment that the game needs more rules, in general. Counter charge, charge reactions, other stuff that has been floated would just bog down the game and create barriers to entry it doesn't need. The clean easy smooth, yet complex enough, rules set is refreshing, compared to say the cluster bleep that is the 40K rules set.

 

 

If you're still with me at this point then you deserve a medal, thanks so much for reading all my rambling musings.

 

P.S.

Please aleves :) and an awesome Malekith the Eternity King release of elves.

dark_elf_black_guard_armor_t7_by_jonathankirtz-d31ok5m.png

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been loving AoS since release. The GH was a great addition and certainly has made both pick up games and tournaments far better. Some great thoughts from everyone on the forums. Here are mine.

1. Base to base measurement needs to be official. Too many games have been ruined due to a discussion of zombie dragon wings. Give us the recommended base size for every model on their warscrolls.

2. I think there should be another unit type. Right now we have four: leaders, behemoths, artillery and every thing else, some of which get battleline either as base or in some combo. As the game evolves competitive play will benefit from an additional type that can be restricted for balance. Elite is what I would recommend knowing that the restriction can always be broken with formations.

3. I would like to see a change to unit formation as it relates to heroes. I want a hero to be able to join a unit. Ideally a hero would get protection from shooting and melee while giving the unit a bump. I am not talking about the independent character rule from 40k. Instead having a hero be part of a unit, bought separately but only playable together. I think having the heroes only being able to join a specific unit type would be the best. For example a mounted hero would be part of the cavalry unit only. Heroes on behemoths can be part of a unit at all. Heroes cannot decide to leave, their fanatical guard just won't allow it! This leads into my final point about shooting...

4. Heroes are exceptionally vulnerable to shooting, hence 3. I also want to see a change to shooting into and out of combat. Here are my thoughts. Shooting into combat: if you shoot into combat all engaged units would have to make a battleshock roll using the number of models removed for the roll. This would represent the chance of accidentally hitting your own unit. And could easily become a neat mechanic of elite sniper troops to give their own units a bonus to that battleshock roll. Shooting out of combat: only models out of melee range should be able to shoot.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sactownbri said:

Elite is what I would recommend knowing that the restriction can always be broken with formations.

Not quite sure what you mean by this? Battalions don't allow you to break the army composition rules (they do in 40k but not AoS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, buffalozap said:

 

3) This will be controversial but I think that a return to the old percentage restrictions for armies would be a good move.  Max 25% characters, minimum 25% battleline, one monster per 1000 points. Something like that but with a lot more thought put into it would go a long ways towards clearing out the monster mash meta, for a lot of armies the best way to be competitive is to field as many of the big behemoth monster leaders as possible with the minimum battleline tax and that is just not cool imho.

Think about this one. 25% characters means I can't take my mawcrusha in 2k pt games, which would be awful :(

I think for simplicity the system we have now is fine tbh. Adding these restrictions means you won't see so many cool armies, and I don't think it would work at all with the battalions we have now either

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could rule that some of the more expensive models take up 2 leader or behemoth slots instead of one — write it as behemoth(2) or something.

That, and/or maybe tighten the restriction on behemoths further - maybe down to 1 in 1000pts, 3 in 2000…

Actually, I kinda like the 40K approach of not tying it to points, but having one or more "detachments" — you could have a maximum of 1 behemoth for every 2 battleline + 1 leader, for example.

Something like:

1-4 leaders
2+ battleline
0-2 artillery
0-1 behemoths
0-4 other units

is one detachment, take as many detachments as you like.

I'm not sure, I'd have to play around and playtest it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

You could rule that some of the more expensive models take up 2 leader or behemoth slots instead of one — write it as behemoth(2) or something.

That, and/or maybe tighten the restriction on behemoths further - maybe down to 1 in 1000pts, 3 in 2000…

Actually, I kinda like the 40K approach of not tying it to points, but having one or more "detachments" — you could have a maximum of 1 behemoth for every 2 battleline + 1 leader, for example.

Something like:

1-4 leaders
2+ battleline
0-2 artillery
0-1 behemoths
0-4 other units

is one detachment, take as many detachments as you like.

I'm not sure, I'd have to play around and playtest it a bit.

I still feel like this isn't something that needs fixing. The scenarios take care of balancing against 1 dimensional armies, and adding these kinds of restrictions just flat out breaks armies like beastclaw raiders, who are themed around having lots of big monsters!

I think the better way to fix this is points adjustments or scenarios that mean armies full of monsters auto lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say, heroes not being able to join units is one of the greatest things about AoS. It would be nice if heroes could be a bit easier to protect from ranged attacks (they are fine in melee), but deathstars, additional complexity and other issues of joining units are not a price I am willing to pay.

 

I think the real issue here is the near impossibility of screening models with the current Line of Sight rules.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Not quite sure what you mean by this? Battalions don't allow you to break the army composition rules (they do in 40k but not AoS)

Maybe broken was the wrong word to use. Today you can take a hero or faction and it changes the battleline requirements. More of that type of modification is what I was talking about using the 40k analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by apologizing if this has already been mentioned.

I think they should address certain buffs. Specifically buffs that give +1 to hit. Currently units that deal mortal wounds on a roll of 6 can be given these buffs and deal mortal wounds on a 5 or 6.

I believe the +1 to hit should affect only the to hit. ie if they hit on a 4+ now they hit on a 3+ and maintain the 6 for mortal wounds. This is already a powerful ability to buff it further by increasing its chances of happening to 33% is insane.

I mention this after having had my entire 10 man unit of Ard Boys deleted by rétributions or judicature (the ones with the Hammers) causing 2 mortal wounds per 5 or 6 to hit. Maybe thst is just sour grapes on my part but it seemed insanely powerful.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MightyQwan said:

Let me preface this by apologizing if this has already been mentioned.

I think they should address certain buffs. Specifically buffs that give +1 to hit. Currently units that deal mortal wounds on a roll of 6 can be given these buffs and deal mortal wounds on a 5 or 6.

I believe the +1 to hit should affect only the to hit. ie if they hit on a 4+ now they hit on a 3+ and maintain the 6 for mortal wounds. This is already a powerful ability to buff it further by increasing its chances of happening to 33% is insane.

I mention this after having had my entire 10 man unit of Ard Boys deleted by rétributions or judicature (the ones with the Hammers) causing 2 mortal wounds per 5 or 6 to hit. Maybe thst is just sour grapes on my part but it seemed insanely powerful.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 

I disagree. I think it is intended that they buff the abilities you mention. It says in the retributer rules, "hits of 6 or more" for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N_Watson said:

I disagree. I think it is intended that they buff the abilities you mention. It says in the retributer rules, "hits of 6 or more" for a reason. 

And indeed some units only get a bonus on a natural 6. Ironjawz Warchanter for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, buffalozap said:

C) I do not agree with the sentiment that all battleline restrictions should be removed. That moves the games further towards the monster mash meta.

As someone who thinks that battleline is currently too restrictive for some armies (ie. Flesh Eaters only have ghouls), I'd like to affirm that I agree with this 100%. Battleline restrictions are an important way to make sure that the armies make sense from a background/setting perspective and they assist in balance. I just think that any army with only a single battleline option should get at least one more, maybe two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see an increase in the behemoth allowance for under 2k, as I feel points and the battleline requirement keep this in check.

 

Points adjustment for a couple of things:

Regular Orruks need to be made cheaper or bonesplittas a little more expensive as the additional wound is pretty big.

Orruk boar chariots need a points decrease

Gargants need a little point decrease I feel as they're not used enough at the current points cost. Maybe 160pts?

Frostlord needs a little points increase, maybe to 480?

Not sure if its possible, but tamurkhan needs a points decrease as he's got weak dmg output compared to a frostlord on stonehorn who is 40pts cheaper.

Mortis engine being moved to deathhaunt would be cool as it comes in the malignant box

Seraphon need a points decrease

 

Some secondary missions would be awesome, such as first blood, line breaker and slay the general as in 40k.

More battle plans for matched play would also be awesome, maybe something like capture the middle and kill points?

 

Thanks!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, N_Watson said:

I disagree. I think it is intended that they buff the abilities you mention. It says in the retributer rules, "hits of 6 or more" for a reason. 

Agree 100%, especially when you look at the Tomb King spell, Righteous Smiting, which was already heavily nerfed by the rule of one, and would simply be worthless if it only triggered on a natural 6.

AoS is a game of synergies and combos. A properly built unit with the right support can kill just about anything else in the game, if you get the initiative — look at skeleton warriors, who can easily exceed 100 attacks and attack twice in a single turn. The trick is to control which units fight, and when, and with what support. Put expendable units out front. Take out support units first. Plan to press the advantage if you get the initiative, and mitigate the damage if you don't.

Don't be put off when your strongest unit gets wiped out by an "insanely powerful combo", because that is meant to be part of the game, and it's really not so bad once you start to get your head around that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for the inclusion of a Mordheim style skirmish game, but I'm not sure the General's Handbook is the place to include this.

That said, as a prelude to this, can we see either points per model, or halve the unit sizes on most things, so that we get more flexibility in building warbands.

Path to Glory is in need of balancing work, the power scale between different warbands makes it very difficult to have fun games when some armies get involved. They also feel just a little bit too large, and would benefit from being bought down in side.

Summoning would benefit from a tweak to reflect that you aren't guarenteed to get the points into play. Either alter it, so that the allocated points represents the maximum amount you can have in play at any one time, or give a slight reduction in the points cost or a boost to the unit model count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to make a skirmish system like Heralds of Ruin but so far no one was actually interested to help on it. :)

I never played Mordheim so I can really comment on it.

Edited by Sete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see some point adjustments (I think everybody wants, that their armies is getting cheaper ?) and some more battlelines for smaller faction, like warhounds (for monster), seekers for a pure Slaanesh army, tuskor chariots for brayherd (otherwise nobody is using them) and i think there are more factions with monobattlelines, which is boring to field. And yes of course, I could take battlelines from other factions and mix it up, but for style reasons I would prefer not to - it's not always about the maximum competitive game (in matched play).

And as some people wrote above, I would like to see a switch from 1 attempt to cast to one successful cast.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to see allegiance abilities to let the old armies fight together. 

Examples can be like the old elves, dwarfs, skaven, etc. you can make them less optimal but give them something.  Abilties plus being able to share special battleline choice would be amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26 november 2016 at 9:34 PM, ElectricPaladin said:

background/setting perspective and they assist in balance. I just think that any army with only a single battleline option should get at least one more, maybe two.

I get the sentiment (and support it) but for that to be viable some factions need to be expanded or merged. For example, the DE are so divided in factions that it's not possible to make more units battle line. See shadowblades (assassin + dark riders) or scourge privateers. You could make the chariots battle line but then the whole army would be hero, behemoth or battle line. Which feels like an over reaction. 

 

Edited by Kramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2016 at 3:40 PM, Shane said:

Rather than increase any point costs, instead look at the units no one uses and ask why. Are those too expensive? Do they need an ability/combo tweak? Don't immediately punish the good units. Improve the bad ones.

I think this is a key point.

Don't ruin the fun of people playing with powerful units by increasing their costs, instead improve the effectiveness of units that are currently not being used - this way everybody wins.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kramer said:

I get the sentiment (and support it) but for that to be viable some factions need to be expanded or merged. For example, the DE are so divided in factions that it's not possible to make more units battle line. See shadowblades (assassin + dark riders) or scourge privateers. You could make the chariots battle line but then the whole army would be hero, behemoth or battle line. Which feels like an over reaction. 

Right. The real problem for some factions is that they are actually stubs, bits and pieces, not fully developed. Others are just small.

For the former, though, the question is, does GW really care about them? Are they headed for a real book, or are they just "legacy plus," armies that represent rare but still extant formations in the Realms?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pforson said:

I think this is a key point.

Don't ruin the fun of people playing with powerful units by increasing their costs, instead improve the effectiveness of units that are currently not being used - this way everybody wins.

It's the same thing in the end...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pforson said:

I think this is a key point.

Don't ruin the fun of people playing with powerful units by increasing their costs, instead improve the effectiveness of units that are currently not being used - this way everybody wins.

I have to disagree here. In the short term, the effect of leveling the playing field is the same (barring the small passing morale boost of nobody feeling "Nerfed"). The Big Hitters are just as devaluated by weaker units being improved as they are by Nerfs and point increase.

 

However, the long term effect of only ever boosting units is absolutely cathastrophic for a game. Decreasing point costs require bigger and bigger armies. Boosting units through abilities and improved defense results in rules bloat, as abilities, to counter abilities, to counter abilities and so on are added. Improving offensive capabilities leads to casualties mounting up faster and faster.

 

Just look at the state of 40k for the end point of that (not saying there aren't Nerfs in 40k, just that there is far more uppowering and point decreasing than nerfing). Warhammer 40k armies have become huge. At the same time, the staying power of most units has dropped to nearly nothing, even the 2+/5++ save of terminators is considered to little by competitive players. Entire Detatchments can be deleted within a single turn. There are armies depending on 2+ rerollable ward and cover saves on multiple or nearly all units. Not all of these are even the highest teir. Most top teir units (like Wrathknights) have multiple ways of surviving the insane firepower flung around can still be brought down turn 1.

Not only does this arms race make for poor gaming (neither narrative, casual or competitive gamers are exactly fond of the state of the rules) it really closes the game to newcomers. Just try to figure out how to collect a Genestealer Cult army right now. Most of that army is made of chaff units, you need a lot of boxes just for 1000 points. And even at 1000 points against a non optimised opponents, a few of those units won't make it past turn one. That is hardly motivating.

 

A wargame needs Nerfs and point increases to stay healthy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...