TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback

[StealthKnightSteg]

13 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

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

I guess you are talking about cross-alliance armies then (combining Order with Destruction etc). As we already have the Alliance abilities and several subfaction abilities. I see a subfaction more as a purebread army (like only stormcast or only Ironjawz), while combining several subfaction still grants you a boon for creating an interesting combination of forces within an alliance.

I think in that there are already a lot of options and with more battletomes coming out these will increase. Though from a narrative standpoint I could see some alliances work together (chaos paying ur-gold to get some fyreslayer aid... Orruks joining a fight with Stormcast to drive off a chaos war band etc)

[KHHaunts]

5 minutes ago, StealthKnightSteg said:

I guess you are talking about cross-alliance armies then (combining Order with Destruction etc). As we already have the Alliance abilities and several subfaction abilities. I see a subfaction more as a purebread army (like only stormcast or only Ironjawz), while combining several subfaction still grants you a boon for creating an interesting combination of forces within an alliance.

I think in that there are already a lot of options and with more battletomes coming out these will increase. Though from a narrative standpoint I could see some alliances work together (chaos paying ur-gold to get some fyreslayer aid... Orruks joining a fight with Stormcast to drive off a chaos war band etc)

yes this was mostly applicable to cross alliance combos. However the majority of the subfaction specific allegiance abilites seem far more powerful the the grand alliance ones.

There is pros and cons to be gained from synergy. Again its may be more applicable to competitions but id would be great if that was left upto the comp and the actually GW rules were a little looser to accommodate "Friendly competitive" play with all sorts of bizzare armies with intresting outcomes. The list building is more than enough to ensure a bit of army structure.

[Requizen]

53 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

yes this was mostly applicable to cross alliance combos. However the majority of the subfaction specific allegiance abilites seem far more powerful the the grand alliance ones.

There is pros and cons to be gained from synergy. Again its may be more applicable to competitions but id would be great if that was left upto the comp and the actually GW rules were a little looser to accommodate "Friendly competitive" play with all sorts of bizzare armies with intresting outcomes. The list building is more than enough to ensure a bit of army structure.

I think there should be an option for cross-alliance combos - but with a cost. I would like to see a Mixed-Alliance section like the one for Order/Destruction/Death/Chaos. No Allegiance Ability, and the Command Traits and Artefacts are not as good. I think it should be an option for people to take but you should also be incentivized to take something more fluff friendly. 

But even that I'm hesitant about. I like that there's lines drawn and at least some pressure to be fluff-friendly. There will always be people powergaming and ignoring fluff, but I don't want it to be encouraged and become the norm like it is in another game I can think of.

 

 

As an aside, I think the thing I want to ask them most is to not change certain things. I worry about adding too much and ending up with the bloat that WHFB 8th had and 40k currently has. Just sort of remind them that the simplicity of Sigmar is what a lot of people love about it. 

[KHHaunts]

In reality i imagine that the changes will be small compared to the number of requests (Think how many people cried about having pointsb before GW actually did anything)

True i suppose but its a bit off a toss-up really if its about the competition the fluff shouldnt actually matter just the rules. If fluff does matter however the recreating cross alliance armies is very fluffy inmany cases. Orks and stormcasts, chaos and fyre slayers, Undead and SC.

I suppose you could create battalions for those.

As far as powergaming goes if you pay your battleline tax and stick to the Behemoth/Leader requirements what combos could be considered powergaming? (Not meant as if i know that was a genunine questions some example of post points + list buildig rules + less strict allegiance rule would be great.)

if i say wanted to take a megaboss and a single unit of Brutes who have been promised a good fight by my Stormcasts i feel like thats fun and fluffy. I dont think i should be put at a disadvantage for that.

Again this is mainly down to me wanting to use the rules for non comp match play. (I know i could just do what i want. but you could say that for all the rules) I feel it would make more sense for the comps to enforce that rule but it to not be set in the GW rules to encourage what they original set out to.

[amysrevenge]

39 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I think it should be an option for people to take but you should also be incentivized to take something more fluff friendly.

The problem is that "fluff-friendly" is not as intuitive as it seems on the surface. 

Consider an alliance between  Sylvaneth and Fyreslayers.  There might have been mention here or there of individual battles where they fought on the same side, maybe, in Black Library or Realmgate Wars books, but I don't remember any prominent ones.  There certainly isn't any particular ideological similarity, beyond sharing a vague xenophobia, and a distaste for Chaos.  It would be disingenuous to make the claim "there is a strong fluff-based justifaction for a joint Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army".  But other than the usual Allegiance ability and Battleline factors, there's no restraint on combining them in an Order army.

Alternately, consider an alliance between Stormcast Eternals and whatever Death faction Mannfred belongs to.  We've had quite prominent fluff stories of alliances between Stormcasts and various undead (see also that swordmaker's ghost in Chamon).  And yet, you're looking at Open Play if you want to try to recreate what I would consider to be a very fluff-friendly mixed Stormcast/undead army.

Basically, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a fluff-based justification for a mixed Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army that couldn't also justify a mixed Stormcast/undead army.  Or a mixed Bloodbound/Bonesplitterz army.  Or many other combinations where you could imagine short-term coincidental goals.

Edited December 2, 2016 by amysrevenge

[Requizen]

31 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

The problem is that "fluff-friendly" is not as intuitive as it seems on the surface. 

Consider an alliance between  Sylvaneth and Fyreslayers.  There might have been mention here or there of individual battles where they fought on the same side, maybe, in Black Library or Realmgate Wars books, but I don't remember any prominent ones.  There certainly isn't any particular ideological similarity, beyond sharing a vague xenophobia, and a distaste for Chaos.  It would be disingenuous to make the claim "there is a strong fluff-based justifaction for a joint Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army".  But other than the usual Allegiance ability and Battleline factors, there's no restraint on combining them in an Order army.

Alternately, consider an alliance between Stormcast Eternals and whatever Death faction Mannfred belongs to.  We've had quite prominent fluff stories of alliances between Stormcasts and various undead (see also that swordmaker's ghost in Chamon).  And yet, you're looking at Open Play if you want to try to recreate what I would consider to be a very fluff-friendly mixed Stormcast/undead army.

Basically, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a fluff-based justification for a mixed Sylvaneth-Fyreslayer army that couldn't also justify a mixed Stormcast/undead army.  Or a mixed Bloodbound/Bonesplitterz army.  Or many other combinations where you could imagine short-term coincidental goals.

While that's true on a faction level, it's obviously much easier to group people together based on what demi-god or god they follow. Yes you can argue that there are fringe situations where alliances happen (in 40k, you could use Desperate Allies or Come the Apocalypse to represent this), but on the whole in the fluff, the Fyreslayers and Sylvaneth both ally themselves with Sigmar. While the Stormcast and the undead have teamed up (in some pretty decent books, at that), it was a tenuous alliance at best. The Stormcast are loyal to Sigmar (duh) while the undead will never (can never?) go against Nagash's will. 

I could accept there being allowances for certain armies or alliances, but honestly as I said above, the simplicity of Sigmar is one of the big driving points, and I think it would be more of a detriment to have an Allies matrix or 0 restrictions than it would be a boon. The simple Grand Alliance organization is easy to understand while still retaining mostly fluff sentiments, which seems as good as you could ask for.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Requizen

[Nico]

I think the main problem with mixing armies across Grand Alliances is that some synergies would go nuclear (because they aren't limited to units of the same faction or grand alliance).

I'd be reluctant to loosen allegiances other than with the Sylvaneth-style battalions which allow a constrained number of Order units. Some armies (Bonesplitterz) must never be allowed to mix in Destruction units and retain their allegiance abilities (without being hard nerfed). Bonesplitter Arrer Boyz should just have a unit cap of 20 for example or be vastly more expensive.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Nico

[amysrevenge]

Actually @Nico that raises an interesting point.  Can we use new iterations of the GHB to essentially "fix" mistakes in army balance without having to go all the way back to the Battletome?  Can we utilize the GHB v2.0 to correct the problem between Kunnin' Rukk and Savage Arrowboys, without changing the actual warscrolls?  Would just point adjustments do the trick, or is there an actual rules-based solution required?  I would posit that if points will fix it, then GHB will do, but if points alone is not enough, the GHB can't do anything.

[Arkiham]

There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules to units. it's 2016 and digital, not 1996 and book release only.

 

[hobgoblinclub]

6 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Would just point adjustments do the trick, or is there an actual rules-based solution required?  I would posit that if points will fix it, then GHB will do, but if points alone is not enough, the GHB can't do anything.

I can't imagine a situation where simply changing the points wouldn't fix any issues. No matter how powerful something is, X amount of anything else is going to beat it. 

[Andreas]

18 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

I can't imagine a situation where simply changing the points wouldn't fix any issues. No matter how powerful something is, X amount of anything else is going to beat it. 

Yes but is it fun?

I know fun is subjectiv but I think it would be fun so see arrowboys outside a 40man cunning ruk unit but if they just raise the points it will only reinforce that this is the only way to run them. Until you can not run them at all.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Andreas

[Squirrelmaster]

Maybe a more nuanced points system? A unit could be, say 80pts for 10, 200 for 20, 360 for 30, 560 for 40. Rather than just a flat number of models x points-per-model.

[Requizen]

35 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yes but is it fun?

I know fun is subjectiv but I think it would be fun so see arrowboys outside a 40man cunning ruk unit but if they just raise the points it will only reinforce that this is the only way to run them. Until you can not run them at all.

Or you just raise the points of the Rukk until it becomes a serious decision to bring rather than an autoinclude.

30 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Maybe a more nuanced points system? A unit could be, say 80pts for 10, 200 for 20, 360 for 30, 560 for 40. Rather than just a flat number of models x points-per-model.

Again, simplicity is the saving grace of AoS. If you need a formula to make a single unit, you're just causing issues.

[Taketheskull]

Nurglings need to be a battleline unit.

If a unit looks, smells and sounds (and possibly tastes, urgh) like a battleline unit, it should be a battleline unit.

And/or providing points to use the Nurgle's Deluge formation in matched play,

"Once on chariots made from plague clouds did the humble Nurgling ride into battle, but no more, as if it never were".

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, Requizen said:

Or you just raise the points of the Rukk until it becomes a serious decision to bring rather than an autoinclude.

Same effect. Only one (for some boring) way to run the Rukk until you cant run it.

I dont believe that was their (the rules writers) intention, they just did not see it when they wrote the rules. And points cant fix that (the rules unintended consequence), if you like me believe that was the case. They need to tweak the rules.

Or I am wrong and they intended for the savage gunline all along, we might never know.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Andreas

[hobgoblinclub]

3 hours ago, Andreas said:

Yes but is it fun?

I know fun is subjectiv but I think it would be fun so see arrowboys outside a 40man cunning ruk unit but if they just raise the points it will only reinforce that this is the only way to run them. Until you can not run them at all.

You don't need to raise the points of the bonesplittaz, just the rukk. People could take it but it'd leave them with very little else. 

 

2 hours ago, Taketheskull said:

Nurglings need to be a battleline unit.

If a unit looks, smells and sounds (and possibly tastes, urgh) like a battleline unit, it should be a battleline unit. 

I agree. They should expand the list of battleline, particularly for destruction. It'd be cool to be able to run troggoth and gargant armies. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

19 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

I can't imagine a situation where simply changing the points wouldn't fix any issues. No matter how powerful something is, X amount of anything else is going to beat it. 

The Black Coach. No matter what you pay for it, it's still pointless.

[Rogue Explorator]

1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

The Black Coach. No matter what you pay for it, it's still pointless.

Don't say that. If cheap enough, it would be great as a LoS blocker.

[Squirrelmaster]

Hmm… completely ignore "Evocation of Death", because it's not worth the investment trying to trigger it, and you still have a model that can dish out a potential 10 wounds per turn has 7 wounds and a 4+ save, movement 10…

Plus it's a hero, so it bubbles Deathless Minion and can take an artefact, if you don't have anyone better to carry one.

It's also Nighthaunt, and a Leader, in case you want to run something bigger than a Cairn Wraith in a Nighthaunt allegiance army.

If it was 60pts I'd happily take one in a Death army, if I wasn't so dedicated to my Tomb Kings. For 80pts I'd maybe consider it, if I really wanted to run pure Nighthaunt, or an wizard spam army (not really viable with the current "Rules of One", but drop those and maybe). Probably not, though.

[tolstedt]

I'll echo the battleline comments.  A few more units should be inherent battleline.

I also have an idea for battleline.  Let's call it "general's battleline".  

There could be a system where if you take a model as a general it opens up some options for battleline.  This could be written on the warscroll for the hero.  "If you take this model as a general in matched play, the following units become battleline: x,y,z.  Toss it on the bottom of the warscroll.

Many will be against muddying up the warscroll and that is a legitimate concern.  As is the thought of making printed warscrolls "outdated".  

But I'd propose that if anyone wishes to discuss the "general's battleline" idea that I propose here they ignore those and focus on the idea as it relates to gameplay and list construction.  It does add one more thing to consider when list building, but does not ask too much more than is asked now.  And please understand I don't propose doing this for every hero.  Maybe 2-3 per grand alliance.

Gordrakk is a good opportunity to play with this as the unifying force of destruction.  This would be thematic.

Also:  GW probably intends to look at the points on every GHB release.  This means that the surveys that S&W are doing will be very valuable.  We do a little bit of work as a community, they do a bunch of work as talented developers, and everyone gets a better game.  

I'm very pleased with my return to GW products.  Thanks for this thread.

[hobgoblinclub]

2 hours ago, tolstedt said:

Also:  GW probably intends to look at the points on every GHB release.  This means that the surveys that S&W are doing will be very valuable.  We do a little bit of work as a community, they do a bunch of work as talented developers, and everyone gets a better game.  

I'm very pleased with my return to GW products.  Thanks for this thread.

I've not seen this survey yet as I'm a bit behind with my podcast listening. I'll check it out. 

I've no doubt GW will change quite a few of the points with each GHB. There's no danger in it, as any errors could be fixed the following year (or sooner by errata if there's a major mistake). 

It's already evident how much feedback has improved AoS. If you look at how far it's come in a year, and how much GW have engaged with the community, and continue to do so, it only bodes well for game.

GW's golden age may yet lie ahead of us. 

[Squirrelmaster]

3 hours ago, tolstedt said:

I also have an idea for battleline.  Let's call it "general's battleline".  

There could be a system where if you take a model as a general it opens up some options for battleline.  This could be written on the warscroll for the hero.  "If you take this model as a general in matched play, the following units become battleline: x,y,z.  Toss it on the bottom of the warscroll.

Many will be against muddying up the warscroll and that is a legitimate concern.  As is the thought of making printed warscrolls "outdated".  

But I'd propose that if anyone wishes to discuss the "general's battleline" idea that I propose here they ignore those and focus on the idea as it relates to gameplay and list construction.  It does add one more thing to consider when list building, but does not ask too much more than is asked now.  And please understand I don't propose doing this for every hero.  Maybe 2-3 per grand alliance.

Skeleton Archers already have "Battleline if army has Tomb Kings allegiance and High Queen Khalida is the army general". They aren't the only ones. Karanak makes Flesh Hounds Battleline, various other non-named characters make units battleline.

They could do something similar for other units & characters, but why put it on the warscroll when the GH is already the authority on what is/is not battleline?

[ElectricPaladin]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Skeleton Archers already have "Battleline if army has Tomb Kings allegiance and High Queen Khalida is the army general". They aren't the only ones. Karanak makes Flesh Hounds Battleline, various other non-named characters make units battleline.

They could do something similar for other units & characters, but why put it on the warscroll when the GH is already the authority on what is/is not battleline?

I think that allegiance unlocking battleline would be a good way to update factions that were released before they had the idea of allegiance abilities. For example, what if all you needed to do to get crypt horrors as battleline was run "pure" Flesh Eaters?

I could also see limited access to expanded battleline. For example, what if there was a rule that allowed - in some circumstances - for a single unit of such-and-such to count as battleline? So you still need at least one (or more) units of the standard crummy boots on the ground, but it opens up a little more variety.

[Dotification]

If people want to do unusual alliances of need/common foe then multiplayer games are great for that, & can be fluffy too with a bit of brainstorming.  Allowing people to cherry-pick from more than 1 grand alliance in matched play would be more trouble than it's worth. Use Open Play rules with your club-mates if you're that keen on your Chaos Lord bribing FyreSlayer mercs with Ur-Gold.

I hope GW puts out additions/addendums to factions still lacking Allegiance rules &/or Path of Glory tables (most existing warband tables could use another balance pass, & most basic troops need higher unit size caps to be on a more even footing, for example.)

More specific to the G.A.'s I play:

Greenskins & their Boar Boyz seem to need another Wound/something else to be on par with the rest of their allied factions.

Orruk Warboss & Orruk Shaman are over-costed @ 140 each. Orruk Boar Chariot is a tad pricey. Idol of Mork/Gork as well. Non-BattleLine* Ruglud's Armoured Orcs are waaay overcosted for shooting only 12"!

Orruk WeirdNob is also over-priced giving his proclivity for hurting his mates & failing his spells.

Aleguzzler Gargants need a path to getting the IronJawz keyword, & if it's only that Battleforce/whatever's battalion that grants it, well they should point those for Matched Play too.

Ruglud's mob getting the IronJaws keyword too would give the faction a touch of shooting finally, more so with a cost-reduction. Given the rarity of the pewter models, I would be keen to see players converting them out of 'Ardboyz, & maybe other GW Orks.

Speaking of 'Ardboyz, clarification on how to use shields like theirs & the Tzaangors' would be handy.

Whatever the "Burn/tear it down Command/General trait is handy against Sylvaneth, but otherwise everyone seems to take Ravager for the +2" to Hero Phase movement, as the random range for Bellowing Tyrant is too risky/restrictive IMHO.

 Kunnin Rukk could use a points increase so it's not such an auto-include for anyone dabbling around within Destruction. Your opponent rolling bucket-fulls of dice in multiple shooting phases should have more of an opportunity cost, compared to say... Brettonia's Peasant Bowmen doing it only once per game.

I haven't been super impressed with Order's Command/General Traits & Artefacts, but I feel their expansive array of unit & Hero choices mostly balances that out, as it may for Chaos as well seemingly.  Most commonly it made sense to either pick Reckless to increase reliability of runs & charges, & spread around +1 Damage artefacts, with maybe a Quicksilver one if the frontline Hero/Leader is mounted on a Monster/Behemoth, though +1 Attack has its moments & proponents too.

I hear that Judicators could stand to be 10-20 points pricier, if so then the Crossbow variant should be a comparatively cheaper separate war-scroll, as they Wound worse, don't Rend, & you have to keep them much closer but also still to get any damage out of them. The special mortal wounding crossbow is underwhelming compared to its bow counterpart.

I would not see the harm in letting people buy individual models above & beyond the minimum size for the unit. It's nice to buy 13 or 14 Dryads,  or 32-33 Grots of whatever mob, so if a random one dies, then it's not such a jarring decrease in combat effectiveness.  It's one of the few things I miss about 8th Ed., now that we can customize our Heroes/Leaders, & are starting to get more spell lores.

I also agree that the Rule of 1 should apply to successful casting of spells, but also to prayers & their like. Not everyone has the restraint to not stack RunePriest's +Rend prayers, &/or Stormcast Lord Castellants' versions of Mystic Shields.  If it waddles & quacks like a spell, then effectively it's a spell!--even if the Priest(?) can't unbind for whatever reason (sorry Lord Relictors, at least you're cheap for a Stormcast, & it left an open niche for another semi-new model to sell!)

I'm on the fence for Duardin Thunderers & Quarrelers gaining open Battle-line status, more so with the restriction of having to take the Warden King as your General, then... yeah!

FyreSlayers in general could use some point reductions, especially whomever "gives" the opposing player his choice of units to receive the Ur-Gold buff/debuff. Why not pick a backline War Machine/Artillery piece for yourself???

Add/switch whatever keyword allegiance to make the Start Collecting NightHaunts box work as an army nucleus.

Do we have any way of knowing this thread of feedback is reaching the right people @ GW??

*I agree we all could use more BattleLine, considering some factions like Skryre get StormFiends as B.-L.

[Nico]

As I have a suspicion from Twitter that the GH might be being amended sooner rather than later, here are my key suggestions as to changes. I've kept points changes to a minimum and only gone for the really key ones. @Ben @scrubyandwells

Command Traits

• Tenacious should be +2 to wounds chracteristic.
• Master of Defence should be on a roll of 5 or more.

Artefacts

• Battlebrew changed to one use per game (cf. Quicksilver potion) or only works on to wound rolls and does D3 damage in subsequent hero phases for a double swig.
• Relic Blade should add 2 to the damage.
• Obstinate Blade should add -2 rend.
• Talisman of Blinding Light should be -2 to hit for the entire of a Battleround.
• Chaos Talisman should be clarified that it only works on wounds and not on mortal wounds (this is what it says literally).

Rules of One

• Consider carving Arcane Bolt out of the first Rule of One. Wizards to need a buff wrt shooting and this shouldn't get out of hand. It will buff Tzeentch and the Fatesworn Warband will be useable again.
• I don't suggest changing the first Rule of One so that it only applies to successful casts, as opposed to attempts. There should be a value attached to reliable mystic shield wizards, e.g. Arkhan the Black. 

Battleplans

Three Places of Power

• Add a note to point out that heroes set up on an objective cannot score if they don't subsequently move that turn (e.g. Runesmiter using Magmic Tunneling or Cairn Wraith summoned onto the objective).

Escalation

• That Battleplan could be amended so that in the fourth battleround - everything remaining from the 3 waves comes on irrespective of position of the enemy units (i.e. remove the 12 inch rule at that point). Or the equivalent. Then there would be a reasonable risk reward in playing to block the second and third wave. This avoids "non-games" such as the one that happened to Russ Veal at Blood and Glory.
• Put into words the explanation of how this rule interacts with Battalions and special deployment rules, e.g. (I'm not suggesting this word for word, merely that this is an attempt to capture some of the nuances in this battleplan).

Let's take Gnarlroot and say there are 10 units in the army.

1. You do count the number of units irrespective of battalions and things like Runesmiters (don't think about "drops" it just makes thing more confusing).
2. There are 10 units, so this becomes waves of 4, 4, 2. I trust that's clear for everyone but please ask.
3. For deployment, you can still deploy the first wave of 4 units using the battalion rules. In particular you can deploy part of a battalion as a single drop then deploy the rest as multiple drops thereafter (the only thing you cannot seem to do is deploy a single unit from the battalion, then the rest of the battalion as a single drop - see the hints that introduce Warscroll Battalions in each Battletome - it's not 100% flexible).
4. So you could deploy a unit of Tree Revenants and 2 units of Dryads and an Ancient as your first wave as a single drop. You have to put all the Battleline units in wave 1 (unless you have an overflow of Battleline units into wave 2  - e.g. Ironjawz could have this problem since all their units will be battleline and they are often Multiple Small Units.
5. You could put the Tree Revenants and the Ancient on the table and the Dryads in the Hidden Enclaves if you wish. 
6. You don't have to deploy something even if you've paid for it (see the core rules, you can stop deploying when you like), so you can junk the formation and lose the points and the buffs (you might want to do this with Ghoul Patrol if you've messed up the unit count).
7. Wave 2 would then be 4 units of whatever - in your hero phase you can deploy these to your Hidden Enclaves if you wish or onto the table.
8. You start shooting yourself in the foot when the battalion requires that everything deploy together, Clan Skryre, Skyborne Slayers and Ghoul Patrol are examples. Here you have to keep deploying waves off the table to "fill up" the Engine Coven, battalion etc.. This is a major reason why Warrior Brotherhood is preferred to Skyborne Slayers.

Compendium Units

I'm assuming that the decision makers will want to cull much of the Compendium including named characters, Brets and Tomb Kings. 

Could you please spare the following from execution:

• Battalions for armies such as Greenskinz (they have a start collecting box, so can hardly be seen as legacy), Moonclan, Gitmob, Spiderfang, Warherd (and release an FAQ that specifies more clearly that they are backwards compatible, e.g. Grot = Goblin, ).
• The Goblin Warboss (Gitmob).
• As a far lower priority, the Screaming Skull Catapult.

Factions

Sylvaneth

1. Consider increasing the cost of Gnarlroot Wargrove a tad.
2. Reduce Spite Revenant cost to 80 points for 5 OR make them inherent Battleline.
3. Reduce Tree Revenant cost to 90 points for 5 (there are units that are not a multiple of 20, like Fanatics). 
4. Increase the cost of Free Spirits (rather than comping out its ability to do an alpha strike), e.g. double the cost at least.

Bonesplitterz

• Change the model cap for Bonesplitter Arrer Boyz to 20. Also increase their cost to 10 for 140.
• Increase Savage Orruks to 10 for 120.

Greenskinz

• Reduce Orruk Great Shaman to 100 points.

Ironjawz

1. Change Orruk Ardboys to inherent battleline. This would be the most beneficial change. 
2. Implement the community suggestions on Ironjawz pricing: (these are from the email @scrubyandwells sent, I cannot seem to find the thread - sorry):

• Gordrakk, the Fist of Gork - 620
• Megaboss on Maw Krusha 460
• Orruk Weirdnob Shaman - 100
• Orruk Gore-Gruntas - 160 for 3
• Ironfist - 80

Beastclaw Raiders

• Huskard on Thundertusk increased to 400 points.

Fyreslayers

• Fyreslayers could do with an allegiance pack please - more than any other faction. The Order allegiance pack is duplicative of many of their abilities. Perhaps double the number of units a Runesmiter can tunnel with an artefact. Command traits could make their Magmadroths tougher or faster or in some way worth their costs. A +1 to armour or reroll saves artefact like Oaken Armour would also be handy.

Everchosen

• Reduce Archaon to 640 points.
• Reduce Varanguard to 300 for 3 (or ideally 100 for 1).

Death

• Nagash down to 840 or Allegiance Pack Deathlords please where he knows the full lore of spells.
• Mannfred down to 420.
• Neferata down to 400.
• Clarify that Zombies can merge freely.
• Morghast Archai down to 2 for 200 (Morghast Harbingers are viable as they are).

Chaos

• Clan Skryre Battalion up to 300 points.
• A Clan Moulder Allegiance Pack would be very welcome.
• Rat Ogres become Battleline for Moulder.
• The Glottkin down to 440.
• Thanquol down to 460.
• Screaming Bell down to 200.
• Tamurkhan down to 420.
• Drazhoath down to 340.
• Slaughterbrute down to 180.
• Mutalith Vortex Beast down to 200.
• Daemonettes down to 100 for 10.
• Pink Horrors down to 120 for 10.
• Infernal Guard Castellan down to 80 (one of the worst command abilities in the game due to its range - not being a unit visible to the target).
• Bull Centaurs down to 140 for 3.

Monstrous Arcanum

• Rogue Idol down to 440.
• Carmine Dragon down to 440.
• Troll Hag down to 360.
• If someone takes a Squig Gobba - they receive an extra Triumph Roll.
• Skaarac down to 440

Thoughts welcome. Always happy to discuss.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Nico