Likelihood of GHB2 changes

[ZealousJ]

There's been a fair bit of (understandable) speculation about what changes the second generals hand book will bring.

Three of the biggest I've seen are:

1. More restrictions on shooting in order to tilt the balance of the game away from gunlines

2. Some sort of rule to prevent hero's being sniped quite so easily ( likely linked to the above)

3. Those battletome released before the advent of faction specific allegiance abilities to be brought up to date with incentives to stay within faction similar to DoT and BoK.

 

I was just wondering how likely everyone thinks changes of this magnitude will be? Have we had any clues? Or is it more likely that we will get new scenarios and points adjustments and little else?

 

Cheers

Johnny

[bsharitt]

I'm not sure we'll see huge changes to rules in the GHB2, and it'll mostly be about udating them to include FAQ and Errata(with maybe a few additions in only those small scopes) updates. I'm expecting the GHB2 to be more about matched play rebalancing with tweaks to points. I do think we'll eventually see a "second edition" of AoS rules at some point that takes some lessons learned from 40k 8th and makes bigger changes, but I'd expect that next year maybe along side a GHB3.

[Sleboda]

#3, yes.

#1, meh.

#2, find me a different game if so. 

[wayniac]

They should, but they likely won't due to being afraid of risking the backlash from everyone whining about it if they did.

[Flood]

I dont see that there is a big problem with the current shooting system. It may be a bit strong but in my opinion not by much. Shooting units should be equally as strong as melee units, otherwise why would anyone take shooting? The game would simply shift to pure melee which sounds boring. Sniping heroes will make people think twice about taking many large easily visible units, and it forces people to think more strategically. I imagine it is an endless circle though. Those with strong gunlines will argue against it's change, where's those with strong melee armies will beg for a gunlines nurf. I play skaven and feel I have options for balance in both gunlines and melee, so personally I would not like to see a gunlines nurf and feel shooting is relatively balanced. Again, i do agree the balanced is shifted mildly towards shooting. 

But point 3 I do agree with. There should be an update for compendium scrolls etc. 

[Tuluth]

Agreed on the points adjustments; that's almost confirmed at this point. I actually expect to see two rules changes to matched play: 1) A cap on the number of units of one type you can have (eg. so we're not running into that 27 Skyfires at SCGT again). 2) Possibly mandate that your General must have the 'HERO' tag (prevents things like an 80 wound (40 model count) general in the form of Savage Orruks, or 'MegaBrutes').

On the topic of updating based on lessons learned from 40K 8th ed, after watching the unboxing videos today, the official turn phase there looks like it's now Movement>Psychic>Shooting>Charge>Melee>Morale (assuming on the last 3 there). I never paid enough attention to 7th ed, so I'm not sure if that's a switch up of phase order or not. 

[Carnelian]

I expect a few more modifiers coming up to affect shooting.

E.G.  cover if shooting through units unless artillery. 

-1 to hit units in combat

-1 to to shooting at heroes within 3" of another unit

Or something 

[BunkhouseBuster]

14 minutes ago, Tuluth said:

Agreed on the points adjustments; that's almost confirmed at this point. I actually expect to see two rules changes to matched play: 1) A cap on the number of units of one type you can have (eg. so we're not running into that 27 Skyfires at SCGT again). 2) Possibly mandate that your General must have the 'HERO' tag (prevents things like an 80 wound (40 model count) general in the form of Savage Orruks, or 'MegaBrutes').

On the topic of updating based on lessons learned from 40K 8th ed, after watching the unboxing videos today, the official turn phase there looks like it's now Movement>Psychic>Shooting>Charge>Melee>Morale (assuming on the last 3 there). I never paid enough attention to 7th ed, so I'm not sure if that's a switch up of phase order or not. 

I too would like a unit cap for the army, some sort of allowance on a given type of unit at a time.  The issue then is that it would hurt some armies with small unit selections like Ironjawz or some of the Legacy armies.

Also, in 7th Edition 40K, it was just Movement>Psychic>Shooting>Assault phases.  They added in the Charge Phase for 8th Edition, and had Morale Checks at the end of each phase instead of once at the end.  Not so much a switch up, but a blending of what worked in Age of Sigmar with what was already in 40K.

If I were to make a list of changes in Age of Sigmar, it would just be a rebalancing of points, and adding in faction specific Allegiance Abilities sooner than later.

[PJetski]

I think, and many people would agree, that the power of shooting attacks certainly needs to be reigned in. It could just be individual units overperforming but I think nerfing them is not necessarily the right way to approach the problem.

It's too difficult to screen heroes from long range shooting attacks and to address it they could rebalance the game or just tweak/add a rule. They could either change LOS rules or add a rule about targeting heroes similar to what they introduced in 40k (but modified to fit into the AOS ruleset).

The fact that the KO battletome does not have the Core Rules at the book could mean that they are planning on updating the Core Rules in the near future.

[Sleboda]

14 minutes ago, PJetski said:

I think, and many people would agree, that the power of shooting attacks certainly needs to be reigned in.

 

People who don't use adequate terrain, maybe.

[Naflem]

with regards to one and two, I don't see anything other than points adjustments maybe for shooty units.  Just thinking about how companies generally work, I don't see them changing that widely anything from the 4 page base rules to add in something about not shooting in combat or minuses to hit relating to combat or that kind of thing.  I think item 3 is quite likely. 

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

People who don't use adequate terrain, maybe.

I generate and use terrain as the Core Rules recommend. I use both GW and FLGS terrain. I'm not suggesting it is impossible to hide heroes, but that it is just too difficult right now. Hero sniping should be a strategic choice with risks and rewards, but right now it's all reward and no risk.

It seems wrong that a combat-oriented commander is only capable of leading his troops from behind a wall or else be immediately deleted from the game by units like Skyfires, Thundertusks, and Longstrikes.

It also promotes bad hobby habits, like not wanting to model your hero on a cool scenic base because you are worried about them getting sniped.

It's not just a case of "git gud".

[Sleboda]

Just now, Auticus said:

 

I use a ton of terrain.  Terrain doesn't really do anything to curb shooting because you can see through most everything at some angle to not stop it from happening.

 

Lots =/= adequate, clearly. ☺

I was lucky. My very first AoS game was on a glorious 4x4x2.5 table with thick mountain pillars, valleys, a 12 inch long brewery that was 8 inches tall, and all sorts of other great terrain. LoS blockage was everywhere.  I really had to work to get shots.

The game was awesome, fun, and fair. 

I am utterly convinced that complaints about shooting are coming from the wrong place. 

[wayniac]

35 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I use a ton of terrain.  Terrain doesn't really do anything to curb shooting because you can see through most everything at some angle to not stop it from happening.

Unless you are fighting in the realm of fire and using the Time of War for it where all terrain blocks line of sight.

This is spot on.  Almost every single piece of GW terrain blocks nothing (woods) or has enough holes and gaps that you can easily see through it, or if not then you can just maneuver around at an angle and draw LOS (most everything else; walls and fences don't block, the Ophidian Archway and Numenous Occulum and all of those have enough gaps to not block LOS).

Most people use GW's own examples for what constitutes "proper terrain" (from their pictures and battle reports and WHTV) and what the norm should be for games.  This terrain does barely anything to block LOS no matter how much of it you use, and the answer shouldn't be "use more" because according to how GW does it, they are using enough.  Take a look at any GW battle report, that *should* be the adequate terrain setup, and it does hardly anything to stop heroes just being deleted with little or no effort.

[Spinsane]

1 hour ago, Tuluth said:

2) Possibly mandate that your General must have the 'HERO' tag (prevents things like an 80 wound (40 model count) general in the form of Savage Orruks, or 'MegaBrutes').

Judging by the new Warscroll Builder, this doesn't look like an incoming change. While I admit they might have let the option in for now as a way to keep such a change secret, the fact that it is still there is a significant spoiler, I think.

+Edit :

25 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Most people use GW's own examples for what constitutes "proper terrain" (from their pictures and battle reports and WHTV) and what the norm should be for games.  This terrain does barely anything to block LOS no matter how much of it you use, and the answer shouldn't be "use more" because according to how GW does it, they are using enough.  Take a look at any GW battle report, that *should* be the adequate terrain setup, and it does hardly anything to stop heroes just being deleted with little or no effort.

This is so true. I'm sick of hearing the broken "use more terrain" record.

[ZealousJ]

I don't want to start the sort of argument that is thankfully very rare on these forums but so prevalent elsewhere.

I haven't played a game yet (STILL!) but the general consensus from most bloggers and posters in these forums is that where true line of sight allows the game to remain simple for new players, the ratio between board size and weapon range, inability to properly 'jam' shooters, and the ease of singling out hero's nudges what is an otherwise fairly balanced game towards favouring gun spam.

I don't think anyone would want a nerf to shooting, but some small change to the rules to allow players to strategically protect their assets would be appreciated.

Again, this is based on no personal experience and a lot of board trawling.

Thanks for all the responses guys. Some really interesting opinions here.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I don't think it as much of use more terrain as use different terrain. It isn't hard to have LoS blocking terrain for true LoS but you do need to have built it with that in mind. Also don't forget that models themselves block LoS so careful placement can help as well.

 

I can't see any wholesale changes of basic rules though. I suppose they could further clarify base to base measuring, perhaps add a model volume type mechanic or just ignore weapons/banners etc for LoS in the second Generals handbooks. I'm not too sure though.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Oppenheimer]

3 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I don't think it as much of use more terrain as use different terrain. It isn't hard to have LoS blocking terrain for true LoS but you do need to have built it with that in mind. Also don't forget that models themselves block LoS so careful placement can help as well.

 

I can't see any wholesale changes of basic rules though. I suppose they could further clarify base to base measuring, perhaps add a model volume type mechanic or just ignore weapons/banners etc for LoS in the second Generals handbooks. I'm not too sure though.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I've never found models to block line of sight, you can see a sliver of the other model on the other side even with multiple ranks of models.

Also GW doesn't really sell decent LOS blocking terrain except maybe the dread fortresses because they're all ruins and GW stores don't let you do otherwise.

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, Spinsane said:

 

This is so true. I'm sick of hearing the broken "use more terrain" record.

Likewise sick of complaints over:

Something easily handled within the existing rules 

Something that is a design feature not a flaw.

Heroes need to be sniped or these stacked combos that others likes to comolain about will become even more problematic. We would also see a return to the days of units of troops becoming nothing more than delivery systems for powerful charactets.

Dead heroes are good heroes.

[Nin Win]

I think I'd rather depart from what GW presents as the norm and have actual LOS blocking terrain.  I understand why they did what they ddi in terms of selling terrain kits and do get that wide open tables in terms of LOS is the norm they are presenting.

As for GHB2, I think we'll see mostly points shifts.  Apparently at warhammer fest, Jervis said a lot of things have new points values.

[Baardah]

Isn't the problem just people taking silly things to break the system all the time in competitive environments...I think listbuilding is a cowards way of being tactical. Instead of playing good and winning by tactics you try to win the game by overloading on a combo that most will have no counters for thus not having to adapt and change during the game.

I get that many think coming up with the killer combo is fun and all, but I don't think that is the same as playing a good and tactically astute game.

27 skyfires is silly and doesn't seem to make a proper army IMO. 

Neither does 18 Kurnoth hunters with bows 

a proper army have more basic battle line than elite choices. 

And a company champion shouldn't be allowed to be the general. It just seems wrong even if the rules allow it. 

So maybe a higher battle line tax is needed or a cap on number of elite units. 

And for herosniping. I don't think the ability to delete Sayl the faithless from doing his borderline cheating alphastrike bomb is such a bad thing. 

But could a Look out sir rule be the way to go? 

[Jamopower]

12 hours ago, Carnelian said:

I expect a few more modifiers coming up to affect shooting.

E.G.  cover if shooting through units unless artillery. 

 

This I cannot see, as it was removed from 40k as well.

 

I presume that there will only be (minor)points adjustments and limit on general being hero, but one can always hope  Hopefully we'll get another set of kick ass scenarios though as there shouldn't be too much reason to reprint the existing scenarios to the new book.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I've never found models to block line of sight, you can see a sliver of the other model on the other side even with multiple ranks of models.
Also GW doesn't really sell decent LOS blocking terrain except maybe the dread fortresses because they're all ruins and GW stores don't let you do otherwise.

It does certainly depend on which models but in both cases I found they can work for individual models.

I've not encountered a GW only scenery ruling but I could see it being an issue. They are are getting better the Sigmarite mausoleum offers plenty of opportunity to put together a LoS blocking piece. By the look of it you could even make one to hide a unit behind.

Blocking with models is real much easier when playing model to model and bases are ignored. It's why I say there may be a bit of clarification over base to base as it does make blocking much trickier. I'm surprised we haven't seen something about it in an Comp packs already. The SCGT did do some ring to deal with vertical distances but didn't touch on how it would effect LoS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ollie Grimwood]

I've never found models to block line of sight, you can see a sliver of the other model on the other side even with multiple ranks of models.

Also GW doesn't really sell decent LOS blocking terrain except maybe the dread fortresses because they're all ruins and GW stores don't let you do otherwise.

 

It does certainly depend on which models but in both cases I found they can work for individual models.

 

I've not encountered a GW only scenery ruling but I could see it being an issue. They are are getting better the Sigmarite mausoleum offers plenty of opportunity to put together a LoS blocking piece. By the look of it you could even make one to hide a unit behind.

 

Blocking with models is realyl much easier when playing model to model and bases are ignored. It's why I say there may be a bit of clarification over base to base as it does make blocking much trickier. I'm surprised we haven't seen something about it in an Comp packs already. The SCGT did do some ring to deal with vertical distances but didn't touch on how it would effect LoS

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Asensur]

15 hours ago, Sleboda said:

People who don't use adequate terrain, maybe.

+1000 times this.

We allow players to bring 3 to 6 pieces of terrain to our games (we use terrain deployment rules of the basic rules). This brings a whole new level to our matches and mkes shooting armies less powerful.

Nobody gets in front of a gunline in open terrain.