TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[Double Misfire]

50 minutes ago, PJetski said:

This is exactly how it currently works though...

Am I missing something?

I think there's a lot of player confusion involving rolling the "armour" save on a model's profile before determining the amount of wounds caused and then rolling additional saves like the one gained from Deathless Minions afterwards. The mechanic is simple enough, but due to the rules for additional saves appearing on individual warscrolls and as allegiance abilities and not in the main rules it can make when to roll for either type of save confusing to a new player.

[PJetski]

Here is how it works:

1. Hit

2. Wound

3. Save

4. Calculate damage

5. Special rules to ignore wounds

6. If there are more attacks or weapons, return to 1. If not, go to 7

7. Allocate damage to models in the unit

 

I suppose they could clarify it for people in the FAQ... but they already did that

[RuneBrush]

8 hours ago, PJetski said:

Here is how it works:

1. Hit

2. Wound

3. Save

4. Calculate damage

5. Special rules to ignore wounds

6. If there are more attacks or weapons, return to 1. If not, go to 7

7. Allocate damage to models in the unit

 

I suppose they could clarify it for people in the FAQ... but they already did that

Sorry to disagree (and this is a prime reason why it needs clarifying), but your point 6 is in the wrong place (assuming you're talking about a single units attacks).  Your point 6 should be between points 4 and 5.  You calculate the damage pool for all attacks and weapons before applying special rules to ignore/half/reduce wounds.

[Ratamaplata]

16 hours ago, PJetski said:

This is exactly how it currently works though...

Am I missing something?

No because you roll to hit then wound (not damage) at the moment. Then wounds turn into a total damage pool, then damage gets applied as wounds.

The language used makes it unnecessarily complicated when applying rules which give saves against "wounds" / "mortal wounds" etc. Also makes it plainly obvious what abilities you get armour saves against rather than having the word "wound" before and after the armour save step (as it is now).

It doesn't change the mechanics in any way. It just makes it much easier to work out the interaction between various warscroll abilities and would make it easier for GW to use consistent wording when writing rules.

Easy change to make. Big gain available imo.

[Squirrelmaster]

Trouble is, they've already printed all those books with a “to wound” characteristic on the warscroll. No amount of re-wording the core rules is to going to change the fact that a roll using the “to wound” characteristic doesn't actually cause wounds, and that's just going to cause confusion until they completely re-do the game.

[TerrorPenguin]

47 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Trouble is, they've already printed all those books with a “to wound” characteristic on the warscroll. No amount of re-wording the core rules is to going to change the fact that a roll using the “to wound” characteristic doesn't actually cause wounds, and that's just going to cause confusion until they completely re-do the game.

They have indicated before it should be a living game e.g not an update every three years but an evolving game. Some of the warscrolls originally printed in the grand alliance books are already out of date. 

Yes it's an effort but an FAQ answer plus a gradual update of the warscrolls should cover it.

[amysrevenge]

18 hours ago, PJetski said:

This is exactly how it currently works though...

Am I missing something?

 

The "additional saves" part is not explicitly detailed in the main rules.  It stops at step 4 in the 4-pager.

[PJetski]

11 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

 

The "additional saves" part is not explicitly detailed in the main rules.  It stops at step 4 in the 4-pager.

The FAQ specifies that this step happens after calculating damage. Clarifications do not belong in the main rules, they belong in an FAQ.

[amysrevenge]

Oh I agree, there's no mystery in how it works if you are a careful reader.  It didn't even need the FAQ to work exactly the way it properly does.  But a LOOOOOOT of players aren't careful readers (reference:  how many times are we asked "can I have more than one standard/banner in my unit?" when it is very explicit in the rules what that answer is?).

The 4-page rules describe just the 4 steps.  Then they stop.  That's what I mean, not that the process stops at step 4, but that the main rules literally stop with the 4th step, and you have to go on to every individual not-a-ward-save warsrcoll rule to determine what happens next on a case-by-case basis (what's next happens to be almost universally consistent, but it doesn't have to be, since the rule is repeated on each scroll and theoretically could change between them).

So, including all of the steps, even optional ones like extra generated attacks and not-a-ward-save saves, in the 4-pages might be a good thing.  It would allow a wider selection of players, beyond just the most careful readers, to understand what to do.

[Andreas]

47 minutes ago, PJetski said:

 

Of topic but then maybe you can help me with something I have been thinking about.

The wound roll cause damage right, that can be saved and then the damage specify the number of wounds.

So read the ironsworn spiteshield, it causes wounds on the opponent. Can he make a save roll, despite that wounds are calculated after the save roll? If not what's the difference in this case between wounds and mortal wounds?

I think they should just change a few lines to make this cristal clear.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Andreas

[Nico]

Quote

So read the ironsworn spiteshield, it causes wounds on the opponent. Can he make a save roll, despite that wounds are calculated after the save roll? If not what's the difference in this case between wounds and mortal wounds?

I play this as a probable typo - it meant to say mortal wounds. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Nico

[Andreas]

9 minutes ago, Nico said:

I play this as a probable typo - it meant to say mortal wounds. 

Probably true. But if they revise the core rules one suggestion could be to change wound roll to damage roll to make it clearer. But that might create to much complications for existing warscrolls so it is what it is.

Sorry back to topic. ?

[PJetski]

There are two ways to deal damage in Age of Sigmar:

1. Wounds

2. Mortal Wounds

Wounds are generally caused through attacking with weapons while mortal wounds are usually caused by special abilities. Armor saves (ie: the Save stat on a models warscroll) can be taken against Wounds, but not against Mortal Wounds.

If the warscroll says it causes a wound - and not a mortal wound - then saves can be taken against that damage.

I remember having this conversation when discussing the Verminlord Corruptor since that model has a special rule that specifies wounds and not mortal wounds.

Unless FW puts out an errata, regular saves can be taken against the spiteshield.

[StealthKnightSteg]

I would like to give my 2 cents, I did made a comment on someone else his idea on the FB

1. To add diversity on the battleplans to aim also for the 3 different sizes, now they are only focused on 2000 points aka 6x4 table.. so add at least a 4x4 build up

2. base to base measurement -> yes, but what about flyers? They would be somewhat handicapped and ripperdactyls even have a rule to go to ground, so there needs to be something extra for those.

3. Line of Sight, fine, but units in close formation (base to base) should block line of sight. Body should be partially been seen, just an arm or hand should not be enough.

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

There are two ways to deal damage in Age of Sigmar:

1. Wounds

2. Mortal Wounds

Wounds are generally caused through attacking with weapons while mortal wounds are usually caused by special abilities. Armor saves (ie: the Save stat on a models warscroll) can be taken against Wounds, but not against Mortal Wounds.

If the warscroll says it causes a wound - and not a mortal wound - then saves can be taken against that damage.

I remember having this conversation when discussing the Verminlord Corruptor since that model has a special rule that specifies wounds and not mortal wounds.

Unless FW puts out an errata, regular saves can be taken against the spiteshield.

I have to reply. Sorry off topic again. ?

The corruptor deals mortal wounds, that was probably a typo. Please name one abillity outside the spiteshield that deals wounds. The reason for that you wont find any is because you determine the number of wounds after the save roll, before that there are no wounds here lays the ambiguity of the wound roll that actually is a damage roll.

There is no RAW way to solve this, you have to go to the most important rule or TO if that is the case and get some arbitrary ruling. But in practice it woun't really impact the game other than create minor disagreement and one wound or two taken or not taken.

The reason I gave you this example was just to point out that this part of the core rules are not as cristal clear as you might think, I think it could be improved. It took (some) people like a year to figure out if you save damage or wounds ie when to do the save roll.

But that is probably not for the GH to do if they dont use the opportunity the update the core rules.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Andreas

[PAR]

my 2 cents

1 Change rule of one so a spell can only be cast once successfully not attempt once 

2 measure unbinding from the effected unit or point on the battlefield not the caster

3 ring of immortality & red fury only on heroes without the behemoth keyword

4 limit battle brew to 2 sips 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by PAR

[Squirrelmaster]

43 minutes ago, Andreas said:

I have to reply. Sorry off topic again. ?

The corruptor deals mortal wounds, that was probably a typo. Please name one abillity outside the spiteshield that deals wounds. The reason for that you wont find any is because you determine the number of wounds after the save roll, before that there are no wounds here lays the ambiguity of the wound roll that actually is a damage roll.

There is no RAW way to solve this, you have to go to the most important rule or TO if that is the case and get some arbitrary ruling. But in practice it woun't really impact the game other than create minor disagreement and one wound or two taken or not taken.

The reason I gave you this example was just to point out that this part of the core rules are not as cristal clear as you might think, I think it could be improved. It took (some) people like a year to figure out if you save damage or wounds ie when to do the save roll.

But that is probably not for the GH to do if they dont use the opportunity the update the core rules.

The Black Amulet (Artefacts of Death in the GH).

FWIW, I would say by RAW you don't get saves against wounds, which makes them like mortal wounds only better. Possibly both rules were meant to say "mortal wounds", possibly someone at GW just doesn't understand how their own game works, and intended for armour saves to be applicable.

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, PAR said:

2 measure unbinding from the effected unit or point on the battlefield not the caster

That makes good sense. I could also see it as measuring from either one.

[BrAiKo]

Perhaps a general rule applying to those with random-number-summoning spells like Branchwraith or Ogroid Thaumaturge - as an alternative to putting aside full minimum-unit-size points for this summoning, allow it to replenish lost models in a nearby existing unit (and thus not requiring points).  Unfortunately this solution doesn't work for things like Coven Throne and Screaming Bell summoning.  Also shouldn't be applicable to more reliable summoning of daemons/seraphon which is fine as it is.

[PaintingTentacle]

On 11/23/2016 at 9:42 AM, PJetski said:

Not sure why my previous post broke the forum formatting so badly, please delete it

1. Allegiance and spell lore for pre-GHB armies (Seraphon, Fyreslayers, Ironjawz, etc.)

2. Command Traits can be given to any model with a Command Ability, rather than just the general

3. Only scenery generated as per the AOS Rules can grant a Cover bonus - scenery generated by player abilities (such as Balewind Vortex and Sylvaneth Wildwood) does not grant cover

4. Ardboyz should be Destruction battleline rather than Ironjawz battleline

5. The following units should cost less: Hellpit Abomination (240), Megaboss on Maw-Krusha (420), Gore-Gruntas (160), Ripperdactyl Riders (120), Engine of the Gods (200),  Nagash (800), Skink Handlers (20)

6. The following units should cost more: Stormfiends (360), Necropolis Knights (180), Savage Orruk Arrowboyz (120)

7. Reduce the cost of Seraphon battalions by 40-50%, they are too expensive for what they do

8. Thundertusk shooting attack should not be 6 mortal wounds on a 2+ with a 28" threat range. It's not necessarily imbalanced but it's definitely not fun to play against.

This seems more like a list of things you don't like than changes that would make the game better. Any justification for the points adjustments?   Why should summoned terrain not generate cover?  There are many "broken" things in the game but I think we should be careful in asking for the sigmar nerf hammer so quickly. 

[PaintingTentacle]

Items I would love to see addressed in the second iteration. 

A. More generic battle lines so we can mix and match more things. 

B. More cross clan (within the faction) battalion warscrolls.

C. Revisit situations where a multi-wound model can be slain on a roll of one (example running or charging through a wildwood, using a real gate, etc.) damage is fine, but slaying them seems unbalanced.

D. Look for a way to balance out deepstrike and reserves coming on the board.  This is especially true for the escalation scenario. A player with reserves has a huge advantage in this scenario  

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill.  

F. Add sub-objectives to the games so it is not just one thing to earn victory points.  This will require players to better manage the game since there are more ways to earn victory points  

thanks  

 

[StealthKnightSteg]

9 minutes ago, PaintingTentacle said:

Items I would love to see addressed in the second iteration. 

A. More generic battle lines so we can mix and match more things. A few more might be needed especially with the subfactions that aren't yet officially released yet. But they might see some love when they do eventually get their own Battletome.

B. More cross clan (within the faction) battalion warscrolls. This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but new Alliance books or Realm Gate wars books

C. Revisit situations where a multi-wound model can be slain on a roll of one (example running or charging through a wildwood, using a real gate, etc.) damage is fine, but slaying them seems unbalanced.

D. Look for a way to balance out deepstrike and reserves coming on the board.  This is especially true for the escalation scenario. A player with reserves has a huge advantage in this scenario  

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill.  This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but any change will be on it's warscroll and imo it's fine, due to the rule of 1 rippers are already kept in check more.

F. Add sub-objectives to the games so it is not just one thing to earn victory points.  This will require players to better manage the game since there are more ways to earn victory points  Great idea!

thanks  

 

 

[PaintingTentacle]

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill. This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but any change will be on it's warscroll and imo it's fine, due to the rule of 1 rippers are already kept in check more.

i don't know this is true. When bringing six rippers in anytime. They have 18 re-rolling failed hit, re-rolling failed wounds, hitting on 3 up and extra attacks for each hit.  This is just one attack line on them. The chances are you end up taking minimum 20 wounds from them and there was no tactical way to avoid it since they enter the board when they feel like it. 

At least if the toad is dropped and they choose not to enter first turn, you can kill it and eliminate the 3 attacks vs 1. 

[StealthKnightSteg]

42 minutes ago, PaintingTentacle said:

E. Make the Blot Toad something players can kill. This is not something that will be addressed in the GHB, but any change will be on it's warscroll and imo it's fine, due to the rule of 1 rippers are already kept in check more.

i don't know this is true. When bringing six rippers in anytime. They have 18 re-rolling failed hit, re-rolling failed wounds, hitting on 3 up and extra attacks for each hit.  This is just one attack line on them. The chances are you end up taking minimum 20 wounds from them and there was no tactical way to avoid it since they enter the board when they feel like it. 

At least if the toad is dropped and they choose not to enter first turn, you can kill it and eliminate the 3 attacks vs 1. 

Getting on the board anytime they feel like it is part of a batallion warscroll ability so that would cost extra for their army, and with a movement of D6 for the toad and the ability to trigger it needs to be within 2" of the unit that is being attacked I don't think it's that hard to avoid.

Still if this thing is broken (without the rule of one, so extra attacks can generate extra attacks it certainly is) it should be corrected with an update on it's warscroll and isn't an issue for the input for the GHB.

[KHHaunts]

have mentioned this one previously i think near the beginning of the thread but want some more feedback on it.

Loosen up the allegiance abilites.

I dont like the fact that they promoted mixing armies up for fun interesting combos (Chaos and fyreslayers is a proper fluff sensitive choice) and now have done a complete U turn with the points system.

I get that some competition players treat the game more seriously than other and see armies simply as a variety of tools to be used to achieved victory. (like picking a golf club before a swing) now personally the few competitions i do i still enjoy unusual army combinations but then im in it for the thrill the challenge brings and not just for the win. But the GHB rules were created for all players use not just competitions. Therefore i think promoting the idea of custom armies in their rulesets should be done by GW. If a competiton body wants to stick to "Pure bred" armies let them specify that themselves and everyones happy.

What im suggesting is not to eliminate the reward of allegiance however make it less pivotal. We already have synergy for that. Instead you should simply have to pick an alligeance with certain specifications (Such as:General must be of Allegiance choice, over half the army must be of the allegiance etc) then simply only the units that comply with the allegiance get the benefit gain and those that dont, dont. This will allow for players to mix their armies and use a combination of synergy and allegiance to powerup their armies allowing for endless possibilites instead of these finite lists