Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From Facebook:

In the months since the release of the General's Handbook, the game of Warhammer Age of Sigmar has gone from strength to strength. Covering three ways to play - open play, narrative play and matched play - this book is the trusty companion for thousands of Warhammer Age of Sigmar gamers the world over.

But these new rules were always intended to evolve as time went on, so now, we're looking to the people who use them most for help (that's you, the players).

What would you change about, or add to, the General's Handbook?

Let us know in the comments below, whether it be the narrative Battleplans, the points for Warscrolls or Battalions, Path to Glory campaign rules, the Three Rules of One, or anything else, and we'll send all your ideas on to the team writing the new book.

I plan on commenting the following...

1. Tweak the points for certain units to balance them a bit better.
2. Add a points values for ALL current units/Battalions... including Grombrindal and the Battalions that come in the Start Collecting boxes.
3. Scrap the Path to Glory section and start over. It's ridiculously unbalanced AND doesn't include a pretty large number of armies.

 Kriswall wrote:
I plan on commenting the following...

1. Tweak the points for certain units to balance them a bit better.
2. Add a points values for ALL current units/Battalions... including Grombrindal and the Battalions that come in the Start Collecting boxes.
3. Scrap the Path to Glory section and start over. It's ridiculously unbalanced AND doesn't include a pretty large number of armies.

Don't agree on the second point, I think it's fun to have overpowered models without points that you can't use everyday like Grombrindal.

grombrindal is good but far from being overpowered. Lot of battalion in the realmgates war are actually quite funny without being ridiculously powerful, and could be playable in matched play

Can we rethink the roll-for-first-turn mechanic?

I love that they are looking for feedback.

I love that they are going to update this thing annually.

I was a bit disappointed to see how the "official or nothing" crowd weren't happy enough with base to base measuring being an optional rule and wanting it to be the only rule.

I was a bit disappointed to see that people want to go back to paying model by model in points (i like being able to create an army list in 30 seconds without having to have an excel sheet or calculator doing minute calculations)

I threw up in my mouth at the number of people on the fb comments clamoring for summoning giving back free points again and how they needed to let you spam summon spells again.

* Create a data model and make points reflect that model. Adjust everything to reach this baseline. Overcosted and undercosted models should not exist or be very minor.

* No shooting into combat or out of combat. This is ridiculous. I'd be ok with a unit being able to shoot into tis own combat.

* Alternate activation. Kill off IGO UGO. Makes double initiative not as nasty.

* do not bring back free points with summoning please. I cannot stand this type of game. I cannot stand easy mode being so easy and so obvious.

* i'm not really a fan of paying by the model. I don't like having to spend a ton of time in excel or whatever fine tuning lists.

* all formations should cost APPROPRIATE ***** points. THERE SHOULD BE NO FREE ABILITIES!!!

I'd love to see the Flesh Eater Courts Crypt Horror/Flayer as Battleline requirement not require the respective Courtier. Those models are just bad generals given how good the Ghoul King is.

I'd also love to see the 3 rules of 1 be changed a bit. I like 2nd and 3rd rules, but the 1st rule needs some work. I'd like to see it go from one spell of each type to a unit can only be affected by each spell only once. That means you could cast multiple Mystic Shields, but they won't stack with each other for +2 save.

I really hope they do not alter summoning at all. It is fine how it is now and certainly much better than free summoning. My only suggestion would be to allow summoning up to the max unit size (if you have the points). Summoning 30 zombies is much better than 10 but doesn't break the game.

The only other thing I would like changed is Scenario 1. It's too hard to get a major victory.

Other than that, Matched Play is fine. For the other modes of play, something fresh would be welcome (a hex map campaign for example).

Its a shame community projects can't really get a foothold. I've seen a couple of hex map campaigns that were pretty awesome. Their lack of "official" makes it hard to share them though.

 Mulletdude wrote:
I'd love to see the Flesh Eater Courts Crypt Horror/Flayer as Battleline requirement not require the respective Courtier. Those models are just bad generals given how good the Ghoul King is.

Those models are ridiculously good as batteline, though. That's why you have to make the Courter your general. It becomes the tax you have to pay in order to not have to take Crypt Ghouls as batteline.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:
I'd love to see the Flesh Eater Courts Crypt Horror/Flayer as Battleline requirement not require the respective Courtier. Those models are just bad generals given how good the Ghoul King is.

Those models are ridiculously good as batteline, though. That's why you have to make the Courter your general. It becomes the tax you have to pay in order to not have to take Crypt Ghouls as batteline.

I understand that. It's just the general of your army is so bad because you didn't take zombies/skeletions/ghouls and wanted flayers or horrors (but not both) as battleline. Horrors/Flayers as battleline is no worse than brutes or mournfang packs as battleline.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I plan on commenting the following...

1. Tweak the points for certain units to balance them a bit better.
2. Add a points values for ALL current units/Battalions... including Grombrindal and the Battalions that come in the Start Collecting boxes.
3. Scrap the Path to Glory section and start over. It's ridiculously unbalanced AND doesn't include a pretty large number of armies.

Don't agree on the second point, I think it's fun to have overpowered models without points that you can't use everyday like Grombrindal.

Yeah... but when your local community only uses Matched Play, which is a fairly common situation, the result is that you can NEVER use Warscrolls like Grombrindal or the Start Collecting Battalions.

For shooting, allow shooting in combat INSTEAD of normal attacking, with a -1 penalty to hit. Some models (such as those with handguns) can negate this penalty, while others (those with massive ranged weapons) can have a larger penalty.

And you can only target the models you're locked in combat with. No shooting across the board while locked-you're too busy shooting the dude trying to eat your face.

1.) I'd like to see the Path to Glory section replaced with a Mordheim type system or Warhammer World's Regiment of Renown skirmish rules.

2.) I'd like to see certain units given a 'Mercenary (x)' keyword, where the 'x' list which Grand Alliance it can be a mercenary for. For example, if the Aleguzzler Gargant has the 'Mercenary (Destruction)' keyword then any Destruction army may take a single Aleguzzler Gargant without losing their Allegiance (e.g., Ironjawz would be able to take a single Aleguzzler and retain their Ironjawz Allegiance).

I'm not on Facebook, but if someone could pass along this suggestion I think it's one that may satisfy both sides: for every 20 points reserved in the army list, the player gets 30 points for reinforcement during the game.

This allows people to get more bang for their buck when summoning or using abilities that add models, but not to the overwhelming degree that free or half-price models would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
2.) I'd like to see certain units given a 'Mercenary (x)' keyword, where the 'x' list which Grand Alliance it can be a mercenary for. For example, if the Aleguzzler Gargant has the 'Mercenary (Destruction)' keyword then any Destruction army may take a single Aleguzzler Gargant without losing their Allegiance (e.g., Ironjawz would be able to take a single Aleguzzler and retain their Ironjawz Allegiance).

Maybe make it so the "mercenary" keyword is always replaced by the keyword of the army's declared allegiance? Might be a simpler way of doing it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
2.) I'd like to see certain units given a 'Mercenary (x)' keyword, where the 'x' list which Grand Alliance it can be a mercenary for. For example, if the Aleguzzler Gargant has the 'Mercenary (Destruction)' keyword then any Destruction army may take a single Aleguzzler Gargant without losing their Allegiance (e.g., Ironjawz would be able to take a single Aleguzzler and retain their Ironjawz Allegiance).

Maybe make it so the "mercenary" keyword is always replaced by the keyword of the army's declared allegiance? Might be a simpler way of doing it.

The problem with that would be that the mercenary unit would count for Allegiance-specific abilities as well (e.g., the Aleguzzler Gargant would be an Ironjawz unit for the Megaboss 'Waaagh!' Command Ability, etc.). That's a bit further than I would want it to go.

 Ghaz wrote:
1.) I'd like to see the Path to Glory section replaced with a Mordheim type system or Warhammer World's Regiment of Renown skirmish rules.

Or maybe even the Hinterland rules?...

Shameless plug is shameless. Would love it if that happens though, Hinterlands is INFINITELY more balanced than PTG, and playing it myself (even if only once for now) means I can personally recommend it. I think it would find good use replacing or sitting alongside PTG.

Some sort of small skirmish (apologize for the alliteration) rules for AoS would be nice. It'd be cool to have something like Mordheim.

 WarbossDakka wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
1.) I'd like to see the Path to Glory section replaced with a Mordheim type system or Warhammer World's Regiment of Renown skirmish rules.

Or maybe even the Hinterland rules?...

Shameless plug is shameless. Would love it if that happens though, Hinterlands is INFINITELY more balanced than PTG, and playing it myself (even if only once for now) means I can personally recommend it. I think it would find good use replacing or sitting alongside PTG.

The fact that Regiments of Renown is basically a GW product makes it infinitely more likely to be included in a new version of the General's Handbook.

What is the consensus so far on Age of Sigmar

i tend to only follow 40k, so what is the reception of AOS been?

LightKing wrote:
What is the consensus so far on Age of Sigmar

i tend to only follow 40k, so what is the reception of AOS been?

Incredibly divisive. It's either the saviour come to fix all ills that can do no wrong or the most terrible abuse ever inflicted by lazy writers. Nobody's ever just ambivalent about it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

LightKing wrote:
What is the consensus so far on Age of Sigmar

i tend to only follow 40k, so what is the reception of AOS been?

Incredibly divisive. It's either the saviour come to fix all ills that can do no wrong or the most terrible abuse ever inflicted by lazy writers. Nobody's ever just ambivalent about it.

huh....like 40k

I was meh about it till the generals handbook. Now I'm a pretty solid fan.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I was meh about it till the generals handbook. Now I'm a pretty solid fan.

Yep. That pretty much sums up the reception of AoS.

 WarbossDakka wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
1.) I'd like to see the Path to Glory section replaced with a Mordheim type system or Warhammer World's Regiment of Renown skirmish rules.

Or maybe even the Hinterland rules?...

Shameless plug is shameless. Would love it if that happens though, Hinterlands is INFINITELY more balanced than PTG, and playing it myself (even if only once for now) means I can personally recommend it. I think it would find good use replacing or sitting alongside PTG.

I'm honoured that you would even suggest it If GW wanted to put them in I would gladly let them do so!

LightKing wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

LightKing wrote:
What is the consensus so far on Age of Sigmar

i tend to only follow 40k, so what is the reception of AOS been?

Incredibly divisive. It's either the saviour come to fix all ills that can do no wrong or the most terrible abuse ever inflicted by lazy writers. Nobody's ever just ambivalent about it.

huh....like 40k

Not really. We're all sort of united in tolerating 40k, even people who like it acknowledge its flaws, people who dislike it tend to gripe or start writing house rules but keep on playing. The existence of a new edition has never been enough to send 40k off into an isolated corner and make talking about it elsewhere taboo in case you set someone off on an angry rant.

The number one thing I think would make this a better game, for matched play anyway, is revamping the way turns and initiative work. Either make it alternating activations with initiative (like lotro) or at the very least get rid of the double turn "mechanic". I forgot how much I hate it after house ruling it away. Played a game with it at the store and it all came back to me.

Being able to go first in a given round of alternating activations is pretty good. Being able to have two entire turns of movement, shooting, magic, etc... Is not cool.

LightKing wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

LightKing wrote:
What is the consensus so far on Age of Sigmar

i tend to only follow 40k, so what is the reception of AOS been?

Incredibly divisive. It's either the saviour come to fix all ills that can do no wrong or the most terrible abuse ever inflicted by lazy writers. Nobody's ever just ambivalent about it.

huh....like 40k

Haha, nailed it!

Anyway, speaking for the Bret community, Bowmen as battleline. (Someone put that on FB, pretty please? )

Also, can we somehow petition Auticus and Bottle's ideas and projects? Maybe a huge neon sign in the comments saying "Awesome stuff ahead!!".

Can we please keep this thread on topic (feedback for the new General's Handbook) and take the discussion about people's opinions on the game to it's own thread.

Sorry.