We've had a few teasers of the next installment of the GHB, but not a lot of concrete info yet. That being said, what are your hopes and wishes?

Big one for me....lighten up on some of these battleline pre-requisite conditions. Especially for the high elves, most the standard battleline models aren't even being produced anymore. The ones that are still "battleline" require your entire force to be one of the tiny fractured sub factions of High Elves (spireguard and swordmasters.....I'm looking RIGHT at you). At the very least, consolidate some of these extremely fractred subfactions into bigger ones with more wiggle room (again...high elves....why do we need so many mini factions for you?).

I also hope they modify Starsoul Maces to allow only be 1 per 5 models, otherwise it's just disgustingly powerful (or put a point value on adding that 2nd starsouls mace to a 5 man squad).

casual player typing here.

for the GHB i only wish for 2 things;
ironweld to get gyrocopters as batteline option.
the removal of the 2nd and 3rd rule of one for pitched.

if they dont remove thouse 2, the units/heros affected better get a hefty point cost reduction.

More narrative campaign info would be nice. Path to Glory could use a major balance pass, and I'd love to see a Kill Team style small point skirmish ruleset.

Points balance: That is all.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

 Bardic Tale wrote:
Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

They're still present in the lore. I fully expect an eventual release of undead with a similar aesthetic at some point.

 Bardic Tale wrote:
Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

Probably not. They will just touch on some of the point values (and ensure that they will remain supported). Tomb kings are just an ordinary Egyptian army and I think that GW tries to stay away from ordinary looking models (this and the talk about them selling poorly).

This is a real long-shot, but I'd love to see the Legion of Azgorh fleshed out some more (I'd be thrilled with a full Battletome treatment, special equipment, spells, more units, etc., but that's very unlikely).

I would like to see the first rule of one tweeked. At the very least, if (for example) mystic shield is cast but fails, another wizard should be able to attempt to cast it. Maybe not allow multiple successful casts of the same spell, but at the very least I should be able to attempt the same spell a few times until I get it off.

A nitpick I have is that some battalions give bonus' for having chaos or demon units in multiples of their corresponding sacred number, but no way to utilize this other then hoping the unit you want comes in blocks that jive well with buying additional models, but not using the models in order to get the bonus.

For example, putrid blightkings come in blocks of 5, for 180 points. to get a multiple of seven I would have to buy 10 and leave 3 off the table (thats 108 points) or buy 15 and leave one off the table.. but that would be an obscenely large unit and not very viable. I think having a system where chaos and demons can make more use of their sacred numbers is extremely fluffy and fun, but can provide some small inherent buffs to those armies.

Can GW make a battletome for a FW army or would that be under FW's jurisdiction?

I'd love that too, though. Didn't think much of them before someone showed off their entire army and that it wasn't just big artillery everywhere. They're really epic!

 EnTyme wrote:
More narrative campaign info would be nice. Path to Glory could use a major balance pass, and I'd love to see a Kill Team style small point skirmish ruleset.

So much this!^

 CoreCommander wrote:

 Bardic Tale wrote:
Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

Probably not. They will just touch on some of the point values (and ensure that they will remain supported). Tomb kings are just an ordinary Egyptian army and I think that GW tries to stay away from ordinary looking models (this and the talk about them selling poorly).

Death does need something, though. I'm hoping the next undead army has tomb king elements to it even if it's not actually them. Same for a Breton army.

My wish for the next GH book is the echo of most Bretonnian players, battleline bowmen.

I wish they'd add Points Per Model, but that's super unlikely. So I hope for adjustments to points where it's needed, maybe some more/different Pitched Batle scenarios (maybe with *gasp* different goals for attacker/defender!) and I hope a balanced Path to Glory (but still doubtful). Some more guidance on running a multi-player campaign would be nice (not necessarily a map campaign), especially in the context of using Matched Play points rather than just basic "do what you want" rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

Not necroing a thread that's been dead 2 months lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I wish they'd add Points Per Model, but that's super unlikely. So I hope for adjustments to points where it's needed, maybe some more/different Pitched Batle scenarios (maybe with *gasp* different goals for attacker/defender!) and I hope a balanced Path to Glory (but still doubtful). Some more guidance on running a multi-player campaign would be nice (not necessarily a map campaign), especially in the context of using Matched Play points rather than just basic "do what you want" rules.

PPM would be awesome, I have an odd number of Paladins and Liberators from that Storm of Sigmar little box and the Big boxed set. It would also help people play those "start collecting" models straight out of their respective boxes with the matched points play system.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

 HunterEste wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

Not necroing a thread that's been dead 2 months lol.

The mods are usually okay with necro if its on topic and not too old, plus the linked thread gives you three pages (and a link to 1,500 posts on Facebook) of answers to your question.

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

What do i want

Actual balance or as close as we can get. So better points.
Skirmish rules.

More campaign support.

More optional house rules that make things like shooting into melee have a risk for the shooter and can hurt their own buddies.

What don't I want?
A return to crutches and obvious takes. Or should I say, more of them.

I don't want a loosening up of the balanced rules for balanced games.

We as a community say we want balance in one hand and then in the other wish we could do stuff like super summon and spam over powered spells.

Keep the balanced games balanced. Bring in optional rules for narrative games.

 auticus wrote:
What do i want

Actual balance or as close as we can get. So better points.
Skirmish rules.

More campaign support.

More optional house rules that make things like shooting into melee have a risk for the shooter and can hurt their own buddies.

What don't I want?
A return to crutches and obvious takes. Or should I say, more of them.

I don't want a loosening up of the balanced rules for balanced games.

We as a community say we want balance in one hand and then in the other wish we could do stuff like super summon and spam over powered spells.

Keep the balanced games balanced. Bring in optional rules for narrative games.

Basically where I'm at, with the exception of skirmish rules simply because I doubt their offering would beat Hinterlands. Of course if they could adopt that ruleset it would be great.

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

Wayniac wrote:

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

I just stated what I hoped for the game, I just want better balance as I much prefer points to any other part of the system.

Though it's a tad insulting seeing this is where my hopes went.

If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

It always amazes me how these kinds of toxic, insulting replies crop up from self labeled casual and friendly gamers. Guys, YOU are "those players". The original poster in this chain just said he wanted better point balance, none of this was a necessary or even sensical response to it. Freakin let be.

I just want Summoning addressed in a more lengthy manner. There are some abilities that randomly summon units, like the Engine of the Gods. I can't use that in Matched Play unless I've paid the points to summon something, and even then there is NO guarantee that I will roll that 14-17 before the Engine gets clawed up.
Other than other examples of paying for abilites that make you pay points, I just want a little more fairness among the armies. Balance as others have said.
In my own 'casual' group (I say this because some of the guys go pretty hard even in fun play), Stormcast, and Sylvaneth are dominant. But that's just me.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "toxic point players" seemed to be aimed at the players of the "old days" rather than at you, ZebioLizard.

I get the fear, though. They're louder than the other types of players and it might steer GW's direction of the game if they listen only to them.

Though alot of the narrative focus people also spoke out during the GH2 facebook discussion so at least we know GW heard our voice as well.

Let the dice fall where they may.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "toxic point players" seemed to be aimed at the players of the "old days" rather than at you, ZebioLizard.

I get the fear, though. They're louder than the other types of players and it might steer GW's direction of the game if they listen only to them.

Though alot of the narrative focus people also spoke out during the GH2 facebook discussion so at least we know GW heard our voice as well.

Let the dice fall where they may.

I just dread the day when MathHammer becomes commonplace in AoS and people get shamed at stores for bringing the "less than optimal lists".

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

 HunterEste wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "toxic point players" seemed to be aimed at the players of the "old days" rather than at you, ZebioLizard.

I get the fear, though. They're louder than the other types of players and it might steer GW's direction of the game if they listen only to them.

Though alot of the narrative focus people also spoke out during the GH2 facebook discussion so at least we know GW heard our voice as well.

Let the dice fall where they may.

I just dread the day when MathHammer becomes commonplace in AoS and people get shamed at stores for bringing the "less than optimal lists".

Of course not! Just as you would not shame optimized lists, or tournament players, or competitive players.

I'd like unit costs to be listed per model basis. Seems a weird restriction to have, and allows for a bit more use of extra points.

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,
Being able to make this usable, playable tournament game made this and actual thing. The game was a joke until it GHB and points came out

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

Frim what ive gathered, thundertusks and those sylvaneth archers could use price increases.

Wayniac wrote:

 HunterEste wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

I just hope it's not all. Lately, I read a few forums about this and it really sent me back to the old days of players only bitching about point cost and judging the efficiency of units in game on that basis alone.

And honestly, that's not a time I'm fond of. Because it's not true, units aren't just a matter of points.

It's good GW keep promoting the others ways to play the game. Let's keep it with as many choices as possible, and put them on equal grounds. Let's keep points at what they are; a tool for players to use, not a tyrannical obligation.

Despite our best efforts, the toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC gamer community will eventually infect this game, just like it infected 40k and Fantasy. It's not a pleasant realization....but a reality we must accept. Just make sure you aren't one of "those players" and encourage the fly casual groups as much as you can.

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

This is the most elitist thing I've ever heard anyone say on this forum. I appreciate the value of open play and narrative play but for those things points are ultimately meaningless. Points in age of sigmar aren't for you or anyone else looking to have a casual, fun experience because you don't need them. Presumably you can determine along with your opponent what each of you can bring to have an enjoyable match without even glancing at the back half of the ghb, or even just doing a quick run through to see if they're in the same ballpark. Narrative or Open players whining about points is a lot like whining in Warmahordes forums about how broken Eldar are. It has nothing to do with you.

A discussion of point efficiency of units is important because matched play is designed for competitive events and competitive matches. Points are designed for competitive events and competitive matches. If units are underrepresented then talking about why they don't see use and tweaking their cost down will open up a variety of different options. If units are overperforming tweaking them upwards frees up lists to be more creative. It's not always just people pissing and moaning about their army not being wtfomgbbq uber l33t, a lot of the time it's just people frustrated with the available design space to build lists in because for a lot of people, myself included, list building is one of the best part of the hobby.

tl;dr If you can't see the irony of statements like 'toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC' or 'those people' when talking about this particular subject that's your problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Frim what ive gathered, thundertusks and those sylvaneth archers could use price increases.

Absolutely.

It is interesting though, I feel like point reductions should end up being far more common than point increases. A few standouts like the huskard on thundertusk(he can heal, he should be MORE expensive than the frostlord not less, I don't care how much damage the rider does when that breath attack exists) or the warrior brotherhood should go up, but I think when they first made the handbook they tended to sit on the high side with things like light and medium cav or basic archer type units and a lot of those can come down.

But if that many things seem like they should cost less, wouldn't it be better to increase the minority of models that should cost more? The same effect with less changes.

Im going to operate under the assumption that they wont change any warscrolls, so the best bet will be points increases for blatantly undercosted things (as mentioned above) and points decreases for the stuff that is a bit overcosted.

I mean, the main worrying things right now are Destruction and Sylvaneth, right? The arms race and points decreasing is what makes 40k so lethal now a days, and unless we want more of that, price increases would be the best bet.

As to what GW will do... who knows.

I wouldnt mind a way to make Dracoths Battle Line so people can run an extremis chamber list.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I've played a few games where a double-turn didn't win a game but helped even the field. Generally is against lists like my ironfists and the Order-Draconis "IN YOUR FAKKIN FACE" lists where you are bound to have turn one combats. Hell, I got a double turn 1/2 and still lost against that list but I know I'd have lost eariler if I hadn't had a double turn to reposition my remaining ardboyz after that crippling Alpha strike (it also helps I did NOT screen, didn't think he'd be THAT fast).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Yep, kill it. I've only got a couple of games under my belt, but floating initiative is the only thing about AoS that really jumps out at me as awful. The fact that I have to build my entire tactical plan off of a 50/50 gamble is ridiculous.

Another thing I'd like to see is loosened up battleline restrictions for armies without much unit variety. Picking up Rotbringers and realizing that I can't actually use anything else from the other Nurgle-based factions without compromising my comp is annoying, especially when I only have a single unit type to draw from to begin with. I like to think that the Battleline requirements should inform composition, rather than restrict it as a tax, if that makes any sense.

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Sad but true. The "competitive" crowd tends to scream the loudest because they are the most visible (via tournaments and conventions), and as a result drown out everyone else. What we can hope for is that the game itself remains at a good point, and doesn't cater too much to the whim of those types of people.

This is the most elitist thing I've ever heard anyone say on this forum. I appreciate the value of open play and narrative play but for those things points are ultimately meaningless. Points in age of sigmar aren't for you or anyone else looking to have a casual, fun experience because you don't need them. Presumably you can determine along with your opponent what each of you can bring to have an enjoyable match without even glancing at the back half of the ghb, or even just doing a quick run through to see if they're in the same ballpark. Narrative or Open players whining about points is a lot like whining in Warmahordes forums about how broken Eldar are. It has nothing to do with you.

A discussion of point efficiency of units is important because matched play is designed for competitive events and competitive matches. Points are designed for competitive events and competitive matches. If units are underrepresented then talking about why they don't see use and tweaking their cost down will open up a variety of different options. If units are overperforming tweaking them upwards frees up lists to be more creative. It's not always just people pissing and moaning about their army not being wtfomgbbq uber l33t, a lot of the time it's just people frustrated with the available design space to build lists in because for a lot of people, myself included, list building is one of the best part of the hobby.

tl;dr If you can't see the irony of statements like 'toxic Pro-Gamer WAAC' or 'those people' when talking about this particular subject that's your problem.

Doubling down on this, it's not even just competitive matches that match play is useful. With a standardized point system, I can go to any club anywhere, ask if anyone wants a game, say the size of game I want to play, and without having to spend any time hashing things out, we're already on the same page and playing in 5 minutes.

I would like to see the IGOUGO system. Put in the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit way. You move, I move, You shoot, I shoot, we all assault.

They already have the Priority system in place from LotR so that is good. We can even say for smaller point games it plays like LotR where the minis are individual unit and only need to be in unit co-herency ONLY if you want a BONUS for movement or what not.

Add a bit more tactics. Like front units can shield but not attack so the get a bonus for defence while units in the back can attack but no defence.

This way we can have tray movement or block movement for those who want it and can still play as is now for those who want to as well.

I would actually like alternate activation.

I activate a unit. You activate a unit.

I love those types of games.

I'd also love if this thread didn't devolve into another pointless evil waac points is evil vs narrative gamers are crybaby threads.

Maybe they should make an epic rap battles of history between those two and we could just link the youtube everytime it starts.

Alternate activation, if done like Bolt Action, could be great.

Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

The thing is, if you go all in on a double turn and lose its really not that crippling. As compared to the massive benefit you get from doing so it's not so much a risk-reward as something you do automatically because the odds favor that approach by a large margin. I've played both with and without, and it's fixed initiative that adds tactical layers because one can plan things out rather than being forced to wait and see what the initiative result is before determining action. For the more cinematic feel of a narrative battle then rolled initiative has a place and I think is even preferable, but on the strategic side where matched play lies that sort of thing takes away from the game. Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of battleline, I would like to see more options become available based on multi-faction keywords. For example, have blightkings and plague monks become battleline on just Nurgle allegiance rather than mortal Nurgle and pestilens, respectively. Make several of the faction exclusive aelf battleline be based on aelf allegiance rather than the specific sub faction. Make squig hoppers and spider riders battleline for grot allegiance, and leadbelchers battleline for ogor allegiance. And so on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Points balance: That is all.

Agreed...

I read a whole bunch of those player... aka competitive folks... and not taking the optimal list ect ect...

I'm of the competitive gamer I try and make a list to win so I work on making my list that way and I play match play. There are casual ways of gaming in aos so to be honest I not sure why there is a problem with wanting to play competitive and optimal?

That being said if GW fixes the point cost would that not make more units optimal which in turn would allow for many different variance in army building. This would in turn make for more equal games... that being said the competitive folks should not be picked on cause that the way they like to play... which really goes the same for all type of gamers... casual, story based ect to each their own.

That being said if someone wanted to play me and they said let make for a more story based game Id be down for it.

Big thing is match play imo was designed for tourney players so the competitive peeps.... that being said I use dispossessed trying to make them competitive is a douzy but I have to say I have done pretty well

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?

I could, and it would be quite the cluster haha however it still could be interesting to play. Chess pieces are more cut and dry, no hoping to roll 6's somewhere for super awesome ability's. Never designed to be played like that, but I bet you money we could make a sweet version of chess that uses random turns thats fun to play.

I understand both sides, and with how all the units work, and how the terrain works and everything else, AOS is SO random, the random turns fit in with the rest of the game. lol Its something different then most other games and it tickles me the right way. I'm a freak I know.

 zfreie wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 zfreie wrote:
Random initiative works, and works well. The more games you play the more you realize its not an auto win if you get back to back turns.

That said I much prefer alternate activation in games, but the random initiative isnt that bad, just a different mechanic then most are use to and once you learn how to play with it adds a whole new layer of thinking.

Going all in and losing the initiative goes back to big risk big reward, you know you might lose the initiative but if you win it you will easly wipe them out. Risk reward

Can you imagine Chess with random initiative?

I could, and it would be quite the cluster haha however it still could be interesting to play. Chess pieces are more cut and dry, no hoping to roll 6's somewhere for super awesome ability's. Never designed to be played like that, but I bet you money we could make a sweet version of chess that uses random turns thats fun to play.

I understand both sides, and with how all the units work, and how the terrain works and everything else, AOS is SO random, the random turns fit in with the rest of the game. lol Its something different then most other games and it tickles me the right way. I'm a freak I know.

I think you are hitting on the point of the GHB as a whole right there; multiple ways to play.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the topic of battleline, I would like to see more options become available based on multi-faction keywords. For example, have blightkings and plague monks become battleline on just Nurgle allegiance rather than mortal Nurgle and pestilens, respectively. Make several of the faction exclusive aelf battleline be based on aelf allegiance rather than the specific sub faction. Make squig hoppers and spider riders battleline for grot allegiance, and leadbelchers battleline for ogor allegiance. And so on.

This opens up army composition to so much customization and story building. I would absolutley love to see something like this. Like Fafnir said, battleline should open up options, not restrict them. They shouldnt a tax, but be a driving force of where the rest of your army should gravitate towards. I do very much like the keyword system though!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course not! Just as you would not shame optimized lists, or tournament players, or competitive players.

Sorry if my quote got misunderstood. It's just a feeling that I have when I recently read about the reactions from several forums on this matter. And it was all focusing on point cost - and that only. It really looked like the General Handbook is only about points cost. Which is not.

So that's why I took your "that is all" as an illustration of my feeling; to me, that's not all that needs to be for Age of Sigmar. New rules of 3, new victory conditions, new battleplans (or, why not, redone battleplans for some that didn't work as intended), new Path to Glory (updated tables, new factions and so on)...Matched Play is a fine way to play. I just hope it's not becoming the only one.

To me, competitive or tournament players aren't toxic; they're players like the others. But they're not the only kind of players. Just a part of them. Let's keep giving everyone what they want, and not putting one way to play as "above" the other.

That's what I wish for the General Handbook II. For now, we have seen the point cost part, because it's what is showed the more until now. I wish to see the other parts as well.

I'd love for shooting rules to be tweaked. I still think it makes no sense for units locked in melee combat to be able to sheathe their swords, draw a bow, and take a shot at some other unit, all while someone is trying to stab them to death.

Also, no friendly fire penalty or rules? C'mon....that's silly.

The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
What do i want

Actual balance or as close as we can get. So better points.
Skirmish rules.

More campaign support.

More optional house rules that make things like shooting into melee have a risk for the shooter and can hurt their own buddies.

What don't I want?
A return to crutches and obvious takes. Or should I say, more of them.

I don't want a loosening up of the balanced rules for balanced games.

We as a community say we want balance in one hand and then in the other wish we could do stuff like super summon and spam over powered spells.

Keep the balanced games balanced. Bring in optional rules for narrative games.

Basically where I'm at, with the exception of skirmish rules simply because I doubt their offering would beat Hinterlands. Of course if they could adopt that ruleset it would be great.

I'm hoping one of these days, Bottle is going to start a blog update with "So I'm on the way to a meeting in Nottingham"

 Jackal wrote:
The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

My thing with firing into combat, with the swirl of melee there's a good chance that when you loose your arrow, your target will have moved and there's a darn good chance a buddy might suddenly be standing where the enemy was mere moments ago. Then again....that would really cripple ranged if there was friendly fire, wouldn't it?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
But if that many things seem like they should cost less, wouldn't it be better to increase the minority of models that should cost more? The same effect with less changes.

Because there are a large number of units that pretty approprietly priced, most of the battleline unit for example are pretty good, combined with most foot heros and heavy cav. About 60% I would say are not meaningfully overcosted or undercosted, increasing the cost of the ops doesn't automatically help the UPs because not everything is meaningfully unbalanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
The firing out of combat is one that bugged me.
While shooting someone in combat is fine and makes sense, it doesn't make sense to stop fighting, shoot someone else thats 50 yards away then continue the fight.

By all means keep shooting while in combat, just make it so that you can only shoot the person your fighting.

What about units with mounts AND riders that have shooting attacks? Or heros? Legolas doesn't seem to have an issue shooting something far away while in combat, why is the Knight Venator or Alith Anar not capable of it? Realism?

'

Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I don't want to be the L2p Guy but if you try to play the game like the double turn is some random thing that may or may not happen, you are going to lose on it. When you have first go, always assume your opponent is going to get the double turn, when your opponent has first go THEN you can gamble a bit but if you get wiped off because of 1 double turn to a list that isn't Launch fiends or Skryre Fyre then you made a tactical error.

Remember, if they get a double turn, they can't get another one until after YOU do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

I didn't know the Knight Venator or Anith Alar were goblins. Wierd, they look a bit tall for that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Agreed. If they're going to allow shooting into a combat, at least make all To Hit rolls of a '1' hit friendly models.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Have you ever heard of the Legend of the Great anf Fertile Legoblas?

Bardic Tale wrote:Did anyone notice the Tomb Kings under experimental rules? Should I get my hopes up that they will return?

Ghaz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why is every random goblin as good a shot as legolas?

Agreed. If they're going to allow shooting into a combat, at least make all To Hit rolls of a '1' hit friendly models.

I don't agree with the one. If shooting into combat like was said before, everybody shouldn't be Legolis so it's a 50/50 when shooting into combat. You have a 50% of hitting your own unit just like you would the enemy. That I can agree with. Other wise this will become like 40K and shooting will become the norm and over powered and the way to play.

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

dosiere wrote:
If I had one thing it would be the scrapping of the initiative system as it currently stands for... pretty much anything else, at least for matched play though I fail to see how it currently helps anyone.

Forgot about this. Yeah, I would love to see random initiative get scrapped, it's just too... random. I think its great for narrative games and open play where whatever goes, but for matched play they should get rid of it. The whole idea behind matched play is a balanced field so that skill can win the day, but initiative rolls trump that.

Pass. Random initiative becomes unbelievably interesting as you get deeper into the game; it's basically an entire extra game on top of normal AoS. The tricks you can pull by using the double turn to your advantage are incredible, even just deliberately not taking the double turn, or forcing your opponent to get a double turn when they aren't in position to capitilize on it is immense. Listen to rob symes talk about it on the newest 9th realm to get a more informed idea of what I'm talking about.

Every game I have played where a player got a round 1/2 double-turn, that player won. Every single time. What I see is a 50% chance the game will be decided by skill and a 50% chance the game is decided by an initiative roll.

I don't want to be the L2p Guy but if you try to play the game like the double turn is some random thing that may or may not happen, you are going to lose on it. When you have first go, always assume your opponent is going to get the double turn, when your opponent has first go THEN you can gamble a bit but if you get wiped off because of 1 double turn to a list that isn't Launch fiends or Skryre Fyre then you made a tactical error.

Remember, if they get a double turn, they can't get another one until after YOU do.

In all of those games save one I was the one getting the double turn and winning easily as a result, I didn't mention it because the point isn't about me winning but about the double-turn player winning.

Meh, forcing my opponent into a double turn has actually won me more games than getting one. I think it's actually a crucial component but I got used to it thru Wrath of Kings which does the same but you can generally only double up on about a third of the army instead of the whole thing.

Ok, so I've seen this mentioned in here a few times....but what do you mean when you say "if your opponent gets a double turn, you get one next"? If this is an actual thing, can you tell me which page of the current GHB it is on? No one at my local store apparently knows this.

 HunterEste wrote:
Ok, so I've seen this mentioned in here a few times....but what do you mean when you say "if your opponent gets a double turn, you get one next"? If this is an actual thing, can you tell me which page of the current GHB it is on? No one at my local store apparently knows this.

Double turn would go something like this. You win initiative and tell me to go first. Then you go second. Then you win initiative again but this time you decide to go first. So hence you have a double turn. Thing is, now I go second. I could win initiative and then I can say I go first, then I have the double turn.

Hope this helps.

Davor wrote:

 HunterEste wrote:
Ok, so I've seen this mentioned in here a few times....but what do you mean when you say "if your opponent gets a double turn, you get one next"? If this is an actual thing, can you tell me which page of the current GHB it is on? No one at my local store apparently knows this.

Double turn would go something like this. You win initiative and tell me to go first. Then you go second. Then you win initiative again but this time you decide to go first. So hence you have a double turn. Thing is, now I go second. I could win initiative and then I can say I go first, then I have the double turn.

Hope this helps.

Yes that does, thank you. I thought you guys were saying you automatically got 2 turns in a row if your opponent had just gotten 2.

I'd like to see summoning have a slight change.
You can summon back non leader units which you have payed for in your army list
Is
I have a block of 20 skellies which set up and paid for in my initial army list.they then get destroyed. I can then summon them back for "free". This way you don't punish death armies unfairly and it at least means that as a Death Player my skeleton hordes would actually become viable for a attrition style list. This combined with keeping deathless minions the same as it is now (maybe boost its range) would at least allow non flesh eater/tomb king death lists to actually have a decent chance again st a lot of the armies which currently have battle tomes.

A PDF download listing all point changes, so those on a budget don't need the new book.

Points for at least 3 new factions, i.e. released after those.


Some clarity on the summoning grey areas, esp. replaced models and horrors.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
What do i want

Actual balance or as close as we can get. So better points.
Skirmish rules.

More campaign support.

More optional house rules that make things like shooting into melee have a risk for the shooter and can hurt their own buddies.

What don't I want?
A return to crutches and obvious takes. Or should I say, more of them.

I don't want a loosening up of the balanced rules for balanced games.

We as a community say we want balance in one hand and then in the other wish we could do stuff like super summon and spam over powered spells.

Keep the balanced games balanced. Bring in optional rules for narrative games.

Basically where I'm at, with the exception of skirmish rules simply because I doubt their offering would beat Hinterlands. Of course if they could adopt that ruleset it would be great.

I'm hoping one of these days, Bottle is going to start a blog update with "So I'm on the way to a meeting in Nottingham"

Thanks for the kind words you two! And that's the dream haha!

I would like to see some non-allegiance breaking units across each alliance. Fyreslayers for Order (to represent their sell-sword status), Gargants for Destructions, perhaps Everchosen for Chaos (or undivided) and zombies or skeletons for Death.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I'd like to see summoning have a slight change.
You can summon back non leader units which you have payed for in your army list
Is
I have a block of 20 skellies which set up and paid for in my initial army list.they then get destroyed. I can then summon them back for "free". This way you don't punish death armies unfairly and it at least means that as a Death Player my skeleton hordes would actually become viable for a attrition style list. This combined with keeping deathless minions the same as it is now (maybe boost its range) would at least allow non flesh eater/tomb king death lists to actually have a decent chance again st a lot of the armies which currently have battle tomes.

You would never see anything but death at a tournament ever again. The amount of BS you could pull with an ability like this would be insanity. Deathless minions is already one of the best abilities in the game, why in all the 9 circles of hell would extend it's range?

This wouldn't make non-competitive death armies competitive, it would make competitive death armies literally unbeatable,

 DarkBlack wrote:
A PDF download listing all point changes, so those on a budget don't need the new book.

Points for at least 3 new factions, i.e. released after those.


Some clarity on the summoning grey areas, esp. replaced models and horrors.

In a game where people regularly drop $65+ for a single set, I don't think a yearly $25 release is going to break the budget bank....I'd be grateful that codexs are at thing of the past and warscrolls are available at no cost online.

I'm honestly all for keeping the current summoning rules, but with the simple addition that any points reserved out of your list for summoning are multiplied by 1.5 when the game starts.

ERJAK wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
I'd like to see summoning have a slight change.
You can summon back non leader units which you have payed for in your army list
Is
I have a block of 20 skellies which set up and paid for in my initial army list.they then get destroyed. I can then summon them back for "free". This way you don't punish death armies unfairly and it at least means that as a Death Player my skeleton hordes would actually become viable for a attrition style list. This combined with keeping deathless minions the same as it is now (maybe boost its range) would at least allow non flesh eater/tomb king death lists to actually have a decent chance again st a lot of the armies which currently have battle tomes.

You would never see anything but death at a tournament ever again. The amount of BS you could pull with an ability like this would be insanity. Deathless minions is already one of the best abilities in the game, why in all the 9 circles of hell would extend it's range?

This wouldn't make non-competitive death armies competitive, it would make competitive death armies literally unbeatable,

Why would I extent its range? Because death heroes are fragile as hell and Death as a faction is Much more reliant on our heroes being within a certain range to a unit to give them +1 to hit in the case of skeletons.

Yeah, I don't see how not fething over Death with summoning would make them "literally unbeatable". The issue now is Death relies on its characters to do anything; without the characters, death has basically no real buffs and hits typically very weak and has low saves so can't take hits back. With the way shooting is, it's trivially easy for anything with shooting to just target characters, even when you lock them in combat, and remove the way Death replenishes/buffs their units. That's the issue at its core, you have an entire grand alliance that relies on heroes in a game that makes it super easy to snipe out heroes.

Death seems to have been balanced around the idea of being able to summon a near-unlimited supply of weak minions. Without it, they seem rather weak. I don't think anyone was ever really scared of summoning Skeletons or Zombies. The problem is summon Vargheist and Vampire Lords on Zombie Dragons, etc. Here's an idea for a new summoning rule:

Each wizard may summon one battleline unit per game at no cost provided they would normally be able to summon that unit. Any other summoned unit must be paid for with points. Units summoned for free to do not count toward capturing objectives, though they may still block enemy models from capturing them.

Thoughts?

Remove narrative play so people stop tryin to play it. No one has fun it just hurts trying to pretend it's fun.

Either erase the models or give them a book. Like fire bellies has 1 model....... And gut busters has 3. Either merge them erase them or give them a book.

 EnTyme wrote:
Death seems to have been balanced around the idea of being able to summon a near-unlimited supply of weak minions. Without it, they seem rather weak. I don't think anyone was ever really scared of summoning Skeletons or Zombies. The problem is summon Vargheist and Vampire Lords on Zombie Dragons, etc. Here's an idea for a new summoning rule:

Each wizard may summon one battleline unit per game at no cost provided they would normally be able to summon that unit. Any other summoned unit must be paid for with points. Units summoned for free to do not count toward capturing objectives, though they may still block enemy models from capturing them.

Thoughts?

I would basically just say you can't summon monsters. I don't know, it's a weird thing. I agree death feels like the balance a horde of gakky dudes that you can just keep bringing back; nerfing summoning in matched play removes that, and Death becomes the "I can replenish guys every turn" faction, but some of them (FEC in particular) have it tied to characters that are super easy to shoot off the board, so you have a horde of gakky guys that you can't brig back, can't buff and hit like a limp noddle and take hits like a paper bag.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, I don't see how not fething over Death with summoning would make them "literally unbeatable". The issue now is Death relies on its characters to do anything; without the characters, death has basically no real buffs and hits typically very weak and has low saves so can't take hits back. With the way shooting is, it's trivially easy for anything with shooting to just target characters, even when you lock them in combat, and remove the way Death replenishes/buffs their units. That's the issue at its core, you have an entire grand alliance that relies on heroes in a game that makes it super easy to snipe out heroes.

Well, first off the general model does not have to be a hero, it could be the champion of a large unit and thus unable to be picked out with shooting. It would still grant deathless minions because it's wording is "within 10" of the general or a hero from your army". Secondly, heroes are no longer responsible for replenishing numbers in existing units because the unit standard bearers do that, who cannot be picked out of the unit and work regardless of hero presence. Finally, while I will say that Death generally has a steeper learning curve compared to other Grand Alliances, we can see that they aren't performing poorly in the competitive scene (quite the opposite, in fact) so it's unlikely that they will need some sort of buff across the whole alliance even after the problem units are nerfed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, I don't see how not fething over Death with summoning would make them "literally unbeatable". The issue now is Death relies on its characters to do anything; without the characters, death has basically no real buffs and hits typically very weak and has low saves so can't take hits back. With the way shooting is, it's trivially easy for anything with shooting to just target characters, even when you lock them in combat, and remove the way Death replenishes/buffs their units. That's the issue at its core, you have an entire grand alliance that relies on heroes in a game that makes it super easy to snipe out heroes.

Well, first off the general model does not have to be a hero, it could be the champion of a large unit and thus unable to be picked out with shooting. It would still grant deathless minions because it's wording is "within 10" of the general or a hero from your army". Secondly, heroes are no longer responsible for replenishing numbers in existing units because the unit standard bearers do that, who cannot be picked out of the unit and work regardless of hero presence. Finally, while I will say that Death generally has a steeper learning curve compared to other Grand Alliances, we can see that they aren't performing poorly in the competitive scene (quite the opposite, in fact) so it's unlikely that they will need some sort of buff across the whole alliance even after the problem units are nerfed.

Death aren't doing poorly? When most of deaths success is down to certain models which you can't buy anymore or a subfaction which was never really popular in the case of flesh eaters. A lot of death players like me want to be able to actually play a undead horde army and have it actually work. Even with all of the buffs certain units get from being a certain unit size or being close to a hero most of our units hit like a damn piece of wet paper. The whole point of undead in previous additions of warhammer was our units were worse than other aids equivilents however to balance this out death could summon certain units for free to use as a road block and allow is to gang up on one unit with 2 or more units and butcher it. Now gw has made us even more reliant on our heroes in a game where its easy to snipe them. Now I see 2 ways of fixing this problem death faces
Allow us to summon back units we have already paid for in our army lists for free and give our heroes either a better save or more wounds
Or
Instead of giving our heroes better saves or more wounds allow them to join units and make them more killy.

A lot of death players like me want to be able to actually play a undead horde army and have it actually work.

If you think for one second that a zombie horde army isnt viable and quite strong.. you must just have bad dice.

The whole point of undead in previous additions of warhammer was our units were worse than other aids equivilents however to balance this out death could summon certain units for free to use as a road block and allow is to gang up on one unit with 2 or more units and butcher it. Now gw has made us even more reliant on our heroes in a game where its easy to snipe them

previous additions of warhammer

There is your first problem. Its a new game. Stop complaining. Adapt and overcome. Your battleline/horde units are much much stronger now. Try not putting your heros in a position to be picked off ..BY THE WAY.. by the FEW units that can actually take out a hero from long range.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

A lot of death players like me want to be able to actually play a undead horde army and have it actually work.

If you think for one second that a zombie horde army isnt viable and quite strong.. you must just have bad dice.

The whole point of undead in previous additions of warhammer was our units were worse than other aids equivilents however to balance this out death could summon certain units for free to use as a road block and allow is to gang up on one unit with 2 or more units and butcher it. Now gw has made us even more reliant on our heroes in a game where its easy to snipe them

previous additions of warhammer

There is your first problem. Its a new game. Stop complaining. Adapt and overcome. Your battleline/horde units are much much stronger now. Try not putting your heros in a position to be picked off ..BY THE WAY.. by the FEW units that can actually take out a hero from long range.

Actually there are many things in the game that can easily deal with hordes and champion of slaanesh is right if you don't run tomb kings or mournghouls and most high rating death lists contain these without them death is not all the great at all. Also the heroes are petty terrible where they can easily get sniped hence why many who don't use tomb kings run the Vampire lord on the dragon. Even then he becomes a bigger target and there are tons of things in the game that can easily take down heroes like him.

Death without tomb kings or mournghouls are in a rut, tomb kings is how I imagined the death grand alliance would play. All of them synergize well and they can restore models via banners and wizards and some of the units are nails, the hordes hold the line while your heroes and elites are the linchpin, why do you think in the updated general handbook II almost all the tomb king options they showed us went up in points? Largely our heroes suck have you seen the generic vampire lord option? He is down right terrible? Why do you think everyone in the grand alliance death forums tell people to convert to a vampire lord on a abyssal terror?

"Death is doing well" No, Tomb Kings are. A faction that exists only via a legacy "get you by" compendium, whose models are out of production and can't easily be gotten. I wouldn't consider them even a part of Death, since they aren't. They're a legacy army that happens to be skeletons.

The problem is that Death hordes are weak, and only are not weak with characters, but it's easy to remove characters, especially characters with only a couple wounds and a 4+/5+ save. I'm speaking specifically about Flesh_Eater Courts here, thus far the only death army that has its own battletome. The characters, barring the king on monster (who is also a huge target for everything), are easy to snipe out. Crypt Ghast Courtier? 4 wounds, 5+ save. A unit of Judicators can shoot him off the board with no effort, to say nothing of any sort of hero with multiple wounds/shots. Literally there are only three things making death worth a gak: 1) Tomb Kings, who again I don't even consider to be Death since they aren't even under the Death profiles, but the Compendium Profiles along with "Bretonnia" and "The Empire" and other things from WHFB, 2) The Mournghoul, and 3) Taking like a huge amount of dudes with Ghoul Patrol so you don't need the character to replenish, and then just hope you roll enough dice that your opponent fails their saves.

Death needs help, and a huge reason why is because summoning was nerfed to gak to stop the ridiculous abuse that I think it was Chaos players doing (pink horrors summoning pink horrors etc. etc.)

Stop putting my heroes on the position they can be easily sniped? Tell me have you faced storm cast ? Maybe sylvaneth or destruction heck even chaos can easily snipe our heroes. Zombie horde is strong until you realize units with a lot of attacks which do multiple damage carve right through them and what's all the rage right now multi wound good save units which can do a lot of damage in one round of combat.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Stop putting my heroes on the position they can be easily sniped? Tell me have you faced storm cast ? Maybe sylvaneth or destruction heck even chaos can easily snipe our heroes. Zombie horde is strong until you realize units with a lot of attacks which do multiple damage carve right through them and what's all the rage right now multi wound good save units which can do a lot of damage in one round of combat.

With the way LOS rules work (i.e. super loose), it's almost impossible to NOT put heroes in position they can be sniped. Even hiding behind a building, all it takes is something moving around an angle and drawing line of sight to a portion of the body, and boom LOS (had this happen with a knight venator, he moved just enough at an angle so he could see a small portion of a haunter courtier's base who was hiding behind a large building, and shot him off the board). You can't hide behind anything with how true LOS works; models won't block, I've had people argue that flying creatures can see over everything on the table because they can fly (just fly up high enough to see), that archers can just shoot upwards at an angle to hit something hiding behind something else, etc. Making heroes integral to armies and then having it be super simple to snipe them out is a fething dumb idea, period.

Wayniac wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Stop putting my heroes on the position they can be easily sniped? Tell me have you faced storm cast ? Maybe sylvaneth or destruction heck even chaos can easily snipe our heroes. Zombie horde is strong until you realize units with a lot of attacks which do multiple damage carve right through them and what's all the rage right now multi wound good save units which can do a lot of damage in one round of combat.

With the way LOS rules work (i.e. super loose), it's almost impossible to NOT put heroes in position they can be sniped. Even hiding behind a building, all it takes is something moving around an angle and drawing line of sight to a portion of the body, and boom LOS (had this happen with a knight venator, he moved just enough at an angle so he could see a small portion of a haunter courtier's base who was hiding behind a large building, and shot him off the board). You can't hide behind anything with how true LOS works; models won't block, I've had people argue that flying creatures can see over everything on the table because they can fly (just fly up high enough to see), that archers can just shoot upwards at an angle to hit something hiding behind something else, etc. Making heroes integral to armies and then having it be super simple to snipe them out is a fething dumb idea, period.

Exactly this. Its way too easy to snipe heroes in AoS which IMO feels wrong. Even throwing them into combat doesn't help as they can still be sniped even there

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Stop putting my heroes on the position they can be easily sniped? Tell me have you faced storm cast ? Maybe sylvaneth or destruction heck even chaos can easily snipe our heroes. Zombie horde is strong until you realize units with a lot of attacks which do multiple damage carve right through them and what's all the rage right now multi wound good save units which can do a lot of damage in one round of combat.

With the way LOS rules work (i.e. super loose), it's almost impossible to NOT put heroes in position they can be sniped. Even hiding behind a building, all it takes is something moving around an angle and drawing line of sight to a portion of the body, and boom LOS (had this happen with a knight venator, he moved just enough at an angle so he could see a small portion of a haunter courtier's base who was hiding behind a large building, and shot him off the board). You can't hide behind anything with how true LOS works; models won't block, I've had people argue that flying creatures can see over everything on the table because they can fly (just fly up high enough to see), that archers can just shoot upwards at an angle to hit something hiding behind something else, etc. Making heroes integral to armies and then having it be super simple to snipe them out is a fething dumb idea, period.

Exactly this. Its way too easy to snipe heroes in AoS which IMO feels wrong. Even throwing them into combat doesn't help as they can still be sniped even there

Right. It makes it exceedingly hard for an army with limited/no range because there is literally no way to stop the enemy from shooting you to shreds AND hitting you in melee. It's my honest hope they add something to help mitigate shooting, because right now it's ridiculous.

Why are death considered so bad? I've always put death quite high on the power tree due to having Bravery 10 on everything. They don't even pay for it, I remember doing a direct comparison between Brettonian Peasants and Deathrattle Skeletons which have incredibly similar stat-lines with the skeleton being slightly better, and the Skeleton only paid 0.5pts more for ld 10.

In previous editions of warhammer, Undead were under powered stat-wise because they had to pay for the fact they never ran away but crumbled instead, allowing you to use them with clinical precision. But they don't do that here, they have similar stat-lines to everyone else except bravery 10, which they don't seem to pay for, why should they get to summon units for free?

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Why are death considered so bad? I've always put death quite high on the power tree due to having Bravery 10 on everything. They don't even pay for it, I remember doing a direct comparison between Brettonian Peasants and Deathrattle Skeletons which have incredibly similar stat-lines with the skeleton being slightly better, and the Skeleton only paid 0.5pts more for ld 10.

In previous editions of warhammer, Undead were under powered stat-wise because they had to pay for the fact they never ran away but crumbled instead, allowing you to use them with clinical precision. But they don't do that here, they have similar stat-lines to everyone else except bravery 10, which they don't seem to pay for, why should they get to summon units for free?

It's not so much "they should get to summon for free" it's that death seems to be balanced around having garbage troops that you can just have keep popping up, but that's normally tied to characters which, as it has been said, is really easy to snipe them out and remove the main benefit that Death has (i.e. bring back dudes). Summoning is just an easy thing to point out as being a way to help keep the feel of death.

Guess what, everyone has problems with their linchpin characters getting sniped with little counter play. This is not a death problem and even then making summoning free doesn't fix it, it just makes more problems. This leaky bucket has a hole in it, better add more water.

The argument that if something doesn't perform in tournaments it needs a buff is false; the viable options in tournaments right now are all overpowered. Saying 'this is bad because this overpowered thing is better' is hardly compelling.

Wayniac wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Why are death considered so bad? I've always put death quite high on the power tree due to having Bravery 10 on everything. They don't even pay for it, I remember doing a direct comparison between Brettonian Peasants and Deathrattle Skeletons which have incredibly similar stat-lines with the skeleton being slightly better, and the Skeleton only paid 0.5pts more for ld 10.

In previous editions of warhammer, Undead were under powered stat-wise because they had to pay for the fact they never ran away but crumbled instead, allowing you to use them with clinical precision. But they don't do that here, they have similar stat-lines to everyone else except bravery 10, which they don't seem to pay for, why should they get to summon units for free?

It's not so much "they should get to summon for free" it's that death seems to be balanced around having garbage troops that you can just have keep popping up, but that's normally tied to characters which, as it has been said, is really easy to snipe them out and remove the main benefit that Death has (i.e. bring back dudes). Summoning is just an easy thing to point out as being a way to help keep the feel of death.

This is the bit I don't get, a skeleton isn't any worse than a peasant isn't any worse than a clan rat isn't any worse than free guild militia isn't any worse than a Dark Elf spearman. There are tonnes of units with the same basic 4+ 4+ no rend 1dmg stat-line, each with their own specific mechanics about hordes or hero buffs, but I'd hardly say Skeletons get the worst end of the stick in that regard. Skeletons are not garbage troops in so far as they are more garbage than everyone else puts up with, in fact with Bravery 10 they are in fact *better* than the majority of garbage troops. And almost every single undead banner resurrects some models each turn, so it's not like your models don't have the feeling of returning from the grave.

I don't understand the idea that Death Heroes are more vulnerable than other heroes either. Vampires and Deathrattlers usually have a 4+ Sv, like everyone else. You could argue that FEC are a bit more vulnerable, but they also have uncounterable summoning, but vulnerable important characters might just be a design trait of that army specifically. Death models aren't actually any worse than equivilant units in other factions, except death models get bravery 10 almost for free. Why should death be given a bigger buff to bring back WHFB strengths (raising models) when it totally ignores WHFB weaknesses (crumble)? That just doesn't make sense to me.

If your point is that Death as a faction doesn't have the fancy stuff that stormcasts, sylvaneth or bonesplittas have than I can sympathise with you, but if you're arguing that your garbage units should be better than everyone else garbage AND be summonable for the SAME price then you've got a thhought process I can't understand.

I'm not even on about tournaments I'm talking about in my local store.
Death has many issues
Yes other armies have lynch pin heroes but no other army is reliant on their heroes for their synergy and buffs. Add in to the fact that unlike other aids we have no real shooting and let me tell you my 1 unit of 20 archers who hit on 5s wound on 4s damage 1 arrows don't cut it when it seems 80% of infantry units areulti would d 4+ save with a possible re roll.
Also to those of you saying everyone's troops are garbage yes but at least they aren't relying on a damn hero to give them +1 to hit and make it so most of the tie they actually get a flipping save. Why would bring able to summon back units we have paid for in our army lists be broken? Here's a clue it wouldn't and let me just say I'd happily take the old crumble when they lose combat rules back because at least then I'd have access to necromancy spells to balance out the amount of models I lose.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Why would bring able to summon back units we have paid for in our army lists be broken? Here's a clue it wouldn't .

It's hard to argue with well thought out arguments like this. The logic, evidence and cases you've provided are truly insurmountable.

Oh wait...

Have you done any research into what other armies rely on their heroes for buffs? I think you'll find it's most of them. Empire and Brettonia vastly rely on their heroes, as do Khrone Bloodbound, just off the top of my head.

No ranged units? In Vampires, sure. But Tomb Kings have a fair amount, or are you forgetting Shabti Great Bows which are 1 shot Kurnoth Hunters and Screaming Skullcatapults that do a flat reliable 4 damage and can be fired twice a turn with a Necrotec. Death doesn't have many shooting units, but it does have some. It could be argued that this weakness is balanced by having more wizards than most armies (more than Order and Destruction).

Having bad saves? Skeletons have a 6+ Sv, a 5+ against rend nothing. So against the majority of wounds they get the same save as every other chaff unit (5+). I admit they are slightly worse, but they also have a slightly better banner than most others.

And back to your original ''why would bring able to summon back units we have paid for in our army lists be broken? Here's a clue it wouldn't''. My question is why do you get this and not everyone?

Hyperbolic unbacked statements that don't look at the bigger picture don't exactly scream credibility.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
Why would bring able to summon back units we have paid for in our army lists be broken? Here's a clue it wouldn't .

It's hard to argue with well thought out arguments like this. The logic, evidence and cases you've provided are truly insurmountable.

Oh wait...

Have you done any research into what other armies rely on their heroes for buffs? I think you'll find it's most of them. Empire and Brettonia vastly rely on their heroes, as do Khrone Bloodbound, just off the top of my head.

No ranged units? In Vampires, sure. But Tomb Kings have a fair amount, or are you forgetting Shabti Great Bows which are 1 shot Kurnoth Hunters and Screaming Skullcatapults that do a flat reliable 4 damage and can be fired twice a turn with a Necrotec. Death doesn't have many shooting units, but it does have some. It could be argued that this weakness is balanced by having more wizards than most armies (more than Order and Destruction).

Having bad saves? Skeletons have a 6+ Sv, a 5+ against rend nothing. So against the majority of wounds they get the same save as every other chaff unit (5+). I admit they are slightly worse, but they also have a slightly better banner than most others.

And back to your original ''why would bring able to summon back units we have paid for in our army lists be broken? Here's a clue it wouldn't''. My question is why do you get this and not everyone?

Hyperbolic unbacked statements that don't look at the bigger picture don't exactly scream credibility.

You mean tomb king units which are put of freaking productoon?
Please tell me how units which are out of production are supposed to be of any use to me.
Yes other aies do rely on their heroes but not as much as Death do I suggest before shouting down mine and other death players valid complaints you try playing a damn death army.
Also why would we get it and no one else? I never said it had to be death only it could be a change to summoning and then they can give death our necromancy spells back.

Let's be fair here, when Death gets their own battle tome they WILL get their necromancy back. Sylvaneth have their own lore, Tzeentch has 2, Bonesplitta's has their own lore. So on that front it's just a waiting game.

I have played death, I've played Tomb Kings. And Sylvaneth. And wanderers. And I've dabbled in Orcs. Death seems no more reliant on their heroes then other hero-centric lists, like an Empire Gunline or an Orc combat list.

Unless you play exclusively in GW stores, there are alternative Tomb King models you know? Kings of War has some fantastic Skeleton Archers and a nice catapult, and Tabletop Minature Solutions are coming out with an Undying Dynasties range currently.

Not to mention in the teaser pictures of the Generals Handbook 2 has Tomb Kings in the same category as Death instead of in a legacy compendium, perhaps teasing a resurgence.

I would be against a change like that. The vast majority of summonable units have Bravery 10, a stat that I think many Daemon/Death players overlook. You don't have to worry about an entire Iron Orc Brute running away, or a host of Dryads fleeing instead of tarpitting like a Skeleton would. It's not that what your suggesting is unreasonable, it's that is that a buff Death and Daemons deserve on top of their already adequate regenerative abilities? I dont think it is.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Let's be fair here, when Death gets their own battle tome they WILL get their necromancy back. Sylvaneth have their own lore, Tzeentch has 2, Bonesplitta's has their own lore. So on that front it's just a waiting game.

I have played death, I've played Tomb Kings. And Sylvaneth. And wanderers. And I've dabbled in Orcs. Death seems no more reliant on their heroes then other hero-centric lists, like an Empire Gunline or an Orc combat list.

Unless you play exclusively in GW stores, there are alternative Tomb King models you know? Kings of War has some fantastic Skeleton Archers and a nice catapult, and Tabletop Minature Solutions are coming out with an Undying Dynasties range currently.

Not to mention in the teaser pictures of the Generals Handbook 2 has Tomb Kings in the same category as Death instead of in a legacy compendium, perhaps teasing a resurgence.

I would be against a change like that. The vast majority of summonable units have Bravery 10, a stat that I think many Daemon/Death players overlook. You don't have to worry about an entire Iron Orc Brute running away, or a host of Dryads fleeing instead of tarpitting like a Skeleton would. It's not that what your suggesting is unreasonable, it's that is that a buff Death and Daemons deserve on top of their already adequate regenerative abilities? I dont think it is.

Seconded the mini parts. TMS's owner may be an arrogant jerk but he does good stuff.

Its really not that hard to make a viable non-TK, non-flesh Eater death list, there's even several ways to do it. Now certainly there aren't many options but the ones that are there aren't bad. Will these builds go to tournaments and get crushed? Sure, but so will 80% of the armies out there because tournament armies are all about exploiting the OP options. Death isn't inherently flawed as a faction, it's real issue is simply a lack of content overall rather than the existing content being bad (OP models aside).

Just my two cents on summoning, I never understood why abilities like Warrior Brotherhood which allow you to hold units back and them bring them down where needed are considered amazing and yet summoning which allows you to hold units back and bring them down where needed is considered terrible by the player base.

I of course understand there are differences, Warrior Brotherhood worked with the Knight Azyros allowing you to land within 3" (note that this ability has now been removed from the Azyros but the Deepstrike rule has become a Battletrait so all Stormcast units can do this without the need for a battlion).

The differences are Stormcast now drop down on a 3+ and don't have to be within range of a wizard whereas summoned units vary in spell roll required and have to be brought in by a wizard.

The trade off is you don't have to declare your reinforcement points, meaning you can go to a 5 game tournament with a closed list and tailor your army every single battle - something no other player can do. And that is an important point to raise because Matched Play is designed with tournaments in mind. That becomes especially powerful in scenario play where you can bring on extra heroes for 3 places of power or extra bodies for the others.

So with all that said, I am categorically against summoning as a rule gaining any benefits such as bonus points or free units. But I also know that it is very thematic for Death to summon up hordes of troops. For that reason I would be happy for a Death Allegiance ability to allow for some extra summoning (perhaps bring back battleline or something else). This is what I did with my Hinterlands rules. Summoning is flat out banned but one of the Death Command Traits allows you to bring back certain slain models through the game. If this was to be incorporated into the Death Allegiance Ability the trade off would be losing Deathless Minions or anything else.

And then going round to the conversation of sniping heroes, it is definitely a facet of the game that wasn't in previous editions of WHFB (save for lucky cannonballs) and is a reason why your general either wants to be a tough character on a monster with 10+ wounds or a unit champion. Death have it better than others though with Deathless Minions and the command trait which buffs it, as well as abilities like the Necromancer to knock wounds onto nearby units.

 Bottle wrote:
Just my two cents on summoning, I never understood why abilities like Warrior Brotherhood which allow you to hold units back and them bring them down where needed are considered amazing and yet summoning which allows you to hold units back and bring them down where needed is considered terrible by the player base.

I of course understand there are differences, Warrior Brotherhood worked with the Knight Azyros allowing you to land within 3" (note that this ability has now been removed from the Azyros but the Deepstrike rule has become a Battletrait so all Stormcast units can do this without the need for a battlion).

The differences are Stormcast now drop down on a 3+ and don't have to be within range of a wizard whereas summoned units vary in spell roll required and have to be brought in by a wizard.

The trade off is you don't have to declare your reinforcement points, meaning you can go to a 5 game tournament with a closed list and tailor your army every single battle - something no other player can do. And that is an important point to raise because Matched Play is designed with tournaments in mind. That becomes especially powerful in scenario play where you can bring on extra heroes for 3 places of power or extra bodies for the others.

So with all that said, I am categorically against summoning as a rule gaining any benefits such as bonus points or free units. But I also know that it is very thematic for Death to summon up hordes of troops. For that reason I would be happy for a Death Allegiance ability to allow for some extra summoning (perhaps bring back battleline or something else). This is what I did with my Hinterlands rules. Summoning is flat out banned but one of the Death Command Traits allows you to bring back certain slain models through the game. If this was to be incorporated into the Death Allegiance Ability the trade off would be losing Deathless Minions or anything else.

And then going round to the conversation of sniping heroes, it is definitely a facet of the game that wasn't in previous editions of WHFB (save for lucky cannonballs) and is a reason why your general either wants to be a tough character on a monster with 10+ wounds or a unit champion. Death have it better than others though with Deathless Minions and the command trait which buffs it, as well as abilities like the Necromancer to knock wounds onto nearby units.

Death can't summon heroes only chaos sylvaneth and seraphim can.
And yes death probably will get necromancy back when we get a new book but oh wait that isn't happening anytime soon because gw would rather be brain dead and release more order and chaos armies

That's not right. Banshee and Cairn Wraith are summonable and great choices for that scenario.

FEC can summon heroes but there's basically zero reason to out points aside for it versus actually putting them on the field initially.

Maybe they'll change how summoning works for tournament play (aka default play).

The summer campaign I'm writing is a node/map campaign and some alterations are to summoning.

We don't put points aside. However we make it harder to summon.

8+ for true battleline
9+ for non battleline and < 8 wound heroes/monsters
10+ for 8> wound heroes/monsters

Additionally summoners can only hold a unit per how many spells they can cast so they can't just spam an entire second army like the rules before let you do.

For abilities that are not summon spells, they work on a 4+ with the same restriction of only being able to hold one unit/summoned entity on the table at a time.

I've worked with these rules for a few months and they don't overwhelm the table but are seen as more useful.

Clarification: I'm playing Chaos Dwarves this campaign and I don't summon so will be facing these rules on the receiving end.

I call this a narrative style campaign based on matched play rules with some alterations.

When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I've played FEC with no matched play restrictions.

They are definitely a bit busted in that regard with no restrictions.

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Anybody played that summoning requires, say, a Bravery test---roll equal or under on 2d6. Take x mortal wound for a fail plus nothing shows up.

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Basically, the idea was to make summoning a way to reinforce your army, not add to it. So it removed the ability to summon strong units such as Morghasts out of the blue, but kept the overall feel of "replenishment" by allowing you to summon units you've already "paid for" since often the summoning is like only 10 models for basic units; hence this rule so you couldn't summon, for instance, Morghasts to augment your force unless you had Morghasts as part of your force already. It was an idea, I never got the chance to try it out (I realized that trying to run a freestyle league for 20+ people would have been a huge hassle in trying to balance it; I stopped at around 3 pages of house rules and said screw it let's just use matched play instead as much as I didn't want to because I constantly say how Open/Narrative play is fine and viable)

Wayniac wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Basically, the idea was to make summoning a way to reinforce your army, not add to it. So it removed the ability to summon strong units such as Morghasts out of the blue, but kept the overall feel of "replenishment" by allowing you to summon units you've already "paid for" since often the summoning is like only 10 models for basic units; hence this rule so you couldn't summon, for instance, Morghasts to augment your force unless you had Morghasts as part of your force already. It was an idea, I never got the chance to try it out (I realized that trying to run a freestyle league for 20+ people would have been a huge hassle in trying to balance it; I stopped at around 3 pages of house rules and said screw it let's just use matched play instead as much as I didn't want to because I constantly say how Open/Narrative play is fine and viable)

Okay. I see your line of think now. I don't really think summoning powerful units is game breaking so long as they pay appropriately for the units. I definitely think summoned units should work differently than units that start on the board (can't summon, can't cap objectives, start to "crumble" when the unit who summoned them dies, etc.). I also think "Deep Strike" units (like the new Stormcast army ability) should have limits, too (like only coming in on a 3+).

I dont understand how people say death basic troops (like zombies) are garbage when they can be buffed to 2 attacks, 2+/3+ hitting from "2 ranks". Thats INSANE for a 6 point model. Skeletons have a similar but alternate strategy of adding attacks as opposed to +to hit. En Masse they are destructive! and if your opponent wants to focus on killing my vampire with wings (with a 3+ save because he is sitting in cover.. duh) instead of the morghasts that are going to be on your ass or the varghiests racing up the flanks...then so be it. The Necromancer even has a "look out sir" ability to prevent from being sniped! and he effectively doubles damage output. They are so inherently resitant to battleshock its insane. SO many people forget you get +1 bravery for every 10 models you have in a unit when taking battleshock test. So a block of 30 zombies is bravery 13 for battleshock purposes. You would have to lose 13 zombies in one round of combat before you even sniff losing a single model to fear. With a 5+ ward save (deathless minions is so fething good) that isnt as easy as some people in this thread make it seem.

Summoning isnt instagib autowin anymore and I guess everyone is butthurt. Being able to almost automatically drop a unit 18" in any direction whereever I want whenever I want is such an amazing tactical advantage. You can control the flow of the battle. You put what units you need where you need them.

It would be nice if death had the option to add to an existing unit with summoning. So for instance, with summon skeletons they could summon a fresh unit OR add that many models to an existing unit (provided it didn't go above it's starting size). That would allow death to have a more unique replenishment aspect as compared to other summoning factions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be nice if death had the option to add to an existing unit with summoning. So for instance, with summon skeletons they could summon a fresh unit OR add that many models to an existing unit (provided it didn't go above it's starting size). That would allow death to have a more unique replenishment aspect as compared to other summoning factions.

Couldn't they add the shambling horde rule to skeletons to achieve this?

Still can't summon within 9", tough luck if the unit is in melee.

The latest Heelanhammer is a great insight into the GHB II. Apparently many units are going to get points increases. Dan mentions how good (and cheap) Kurnoth Hunters are to which Wayne jokes "Enjoy that while you can!", and when asked which unit Dan thinks is bent (undercosted), Dan picks the Hurricanum, so those 2 will likely be going up.

Both of those sound like good changes to me. The Kurnoths in particular... Those were pegged as OP, like, the same day they came out

I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

They're pretty easy to block or at least limit to one base if you position scenery well during set up and keep your army spread out. Remember, the Wyldwoods have to be more than 1" away from any other models or terrain features, and when summoning more than one base, they have to be withing 1" of each other. That's a pretty large footprint.

 Bottle wrote:
I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

Overall I'd say freeguild/humans are near the baseline that other armies should be brought too; they are competitive but lack the cheese to do well in the bigger tournament settings. With the cheese being nerfed hopefully we'll see more diversity as armies like humans, mono-god, etc. that don't actually have problems become viable. Though in regard to the original statement I'd say all the Beastclaw heroes need to go up, significantly, even/especially the stonehorns. Thundertusks have the 'holy crap' effect when one first encounters them but once you learn the game a bit better they become something that can be dealt with, stonehorns are far more difficult on that front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

They're pretty easy to block or at least limit to one base if you position scenery well during set up and keep your army spread out. Remember, the Wyldwoods have to be more than 1" away from any other models or terrain features, and when summoning more than one base, they have to be withing 1" of each other. That's a pretty large footprint.

Something else is a 6x4 table should have an average of 12 pieces of terrain on it. I notice that a lot of players with wyldwood problems often aren't putting enough terrain on the board starting off.

I've written articles on BOLS about this, but yeah it seems the average table I see either in person or on reports has a very tiny amount of terrain on it, and that that is common in many places because people either don't want to afford or cannot afford or don't want to make terrain.

 auticus wrote:
I've written articles on BOLS about this, but yeah it seems the average table I see either in person or on reports has a very tiny amount of terrain on it, and that that is common in many places because people either don't want to afford or cannot afford or don't want to make terrain.

True, at my GW we are limited in terrain (only GW terrain allowed, can't make terrain) and only have certain things (mainly buildings and woods) so it's hard to have more than like 1 piece in each square, which is also what you tend to see in battle reports and such.

Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

Overall I'd say freeguild/humans are near the baseline that other armies should be brought too; they are competitive but lack the cheese to do well in the bigger tournament settings. With the cheese being nerfed hopefully we'll see more diversity as armies like humans, mono-god, etc. that don't actually have problems become viable. Though in regard to the original statement I'd say all the Beastclaw heroes need to go up, significantly, even/especially the stonehorns. Thundertusks have the 'holy crap' effect when one first encounters them but once you learn the game a bit better they become something that can be dealt with, stonehorns are far more difficult on that front.

I would agree with that, when I play well my army can finish mid table at a tournament still a few things that could be dropped in price like knights and Demigryphs (and the Steamtank) with Hellstorm Rocket Batteries probably going up as well as maybe Handgunners and crossbowmen (only marginally though).

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

We generally do d3 pieces of terrain per 2x2 section, minimum 8 pieces. That is if we're playing by standard terrain rules. If we're just building cool battlefields, we'll sometimes have as many as 20 pieces.

Some point decreases for Bretonnians......

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

Basic rules have d3 per 2x2 section, meaning an average of 12. You can get away with 7-8 though, but if Sylvaneth are around then its important to actually get the full allotment as Wyldwoods suddenly become massively OP when there's tons of space.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Basic rules have d3 per 2x2 section.

Where you find this? Only thing I've found is the 2d6 table in the 4 page rules.

The basic rules have a 2d6 chart that tells you how many pieces to place per two foot square. You're likely to get 2 pieces per square and there are six squares on a standard 6x4 table - so you will have on average twelve pieces of terrain.

 auticus wrote:
The basic rules have a 2d6 chart that tells you how many pieces to place per two foot square. You're likely to get 2 pieces per square and there are six squares on a standard 6x4 table - so you will have on average twelve pieces of terrain.

Ninth stated d3 per 2x2 so was trying to see where he found that. I'm aware of the 2d6 table.

Apologies, I was mixing up the basic rules with how we do it at my flgs. Suffice it to say we find d3 per section a bit more straightforward.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Apologies, I was mixing up the basic rules with how we do it at my flgs. Suffice it to say we find d3 per section a bit more straightforward.

I just wanted to make sure I wasnt crazy. I might adapt that rule as well.

Being a bit unit specific here, but I'd like to see Varanguard with reduced points, and the ability to field them with an assigned mark without having to have Archaon around.

As it stands, Varanguard just aren't very good for their points cost while also having an absolutely massive tax attached to them if you want to actually run an army dedicated to any one part of Chaos.

I second this. Maybe 240 would be a better point and allow them to have their own mark separately, though I'm not seeing them changing this until the new battletome. Points yes, which would help a lot with the tax.

I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favours armies with battalions and off table deployment.

Waaargh wrote:
I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favours armies with battalions and off table deployment.

We immediately houseruled that ability to set up battalions as one unit. It basically meant that whoever had the most units in a single battalion always had choice of first turn.

I like the current deployment/first turn rule. I get see where my entire opponents army goes and then my opponent decides to go first or second. I vastly prefer it to the 40k system of rolling off. This way you can play to your strengths and it's another layer of complexity.

This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Very interesting. Did you have to adjust anything else to accommodate that change?

Waaargh wrote:
I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favors armies with battalions and off table deployment.

But off-table deployment still counts as a drop. It would be pretty cheesy if my 2 runesmiters and the 2 units they tunnel would be zero as opposed to 4 drops.

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Seems like it would favor huge blobs, of shooters in particular. Do you find that an issue?

I really like the less-drops-chooses-first-turn rule in theory, and loved it up till the Sylvaneth book, but now we have 1 drop armies. I would rather battalions had to be deployed piecemeal so there was a bit more strategy once more in managing your drops.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Seems like it would favor huge blobs, of shooters in particular. Do you find that an issue?

I havent found it an issue at all because every unit activates the same amount in a turn that they would in normal AOS. It also means you get to respond with each unit at least once before that super blob fires again.

If a blob of 50 archers goes first, fires at you, and then gets double turn and fires at you again it hurts a lot more than alt activation. The reason being is that that archer unit cannot fire at you twice while you take it in the face for an hour removing models like in pure RAW AOS. With alt activation, that unit fires once, and your entire force will have activated before that archer unit fires again.

Now yes the bigger units are going to largely be what you activate first since you'll get more volume of shots out, but that plays into the game of keep out of range at first.

Exponentially more tactical and engaging. So much more satisfying than sitting there for an hour doing nothing but removing models waiting for your turn. IMO. YMMV.

Honestly I think they should have gone with alternate activations instead of turns from the start. I get why they didn't, but it's super annoying as you said auticus when your opponent gets a double turn and you sit there unable to do anything but maybe roll saves and remove models. I think that could even help 40k where a similar problem exists (albeit no double turn, but enough firepower where someone's turn can take a long time and results in one player doing nothing but removing models). I recall reading once about a situation where someone spent more time deploying their force than playng, because all they ended up doing was removing swathes of models during their opponent's turn.

I've been using alternate activation in 40k since 2013 for my public campaigns and we get vastly much more positive feedback than negative for it.

I still prefer alternating phases to alternating activation. Alternating activation just seems to favor MSU too much.

I think no matter what system you utilize, it will favor a certain style or build.

Alternate phases aren't bad. I like it in LOTR. It can definitely be implemented to AOS as well and while I have no experience yet with trying that (i'm toying with the idea for this summer campaign) I have a feeling it would go off just fine.

THe downside to alternate phases would be that the double tap phase can still happen and you still end up removing a bucket of your models, but at least you are more engaged instead of sitting for an hour waiting for your opponent to do two full turns before you do.

Me and my buds use alternating turns for matched play and find it a lot more fun than random initiative. We roll to see who gets turn choice round 1, with the player who finished first getting +1 (how it worked in WHFB). Abilities that affect initiative rolls can be used on this one.

Yeah. Whatever is fun go for it!

IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

See I hate rolled initiative specifically because I know how to exploit it. I have won a lot of absolutely crushing victories that would have otherwise been good games had I not gotten a double turn. The example I've started using is chess; it would not be popular with random initiative.

Random initiative has its place (certainly I've had a lot of fun with it), but that place is not matched pay.

Chess is great, if you're playing white.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

See I hate rolled initiative specifically because I know how to exploit it. I have won a lot of absolutely crushing victories that would have otherwise been good games had I not gotten a double turn. The example I've started using is chess; it would not be popular with random initiative.

Random initiative has its place (certainly I've had a lot of fun with it), but that place is not matched pay.

What i dont get is if you know how to exploit it why try and change it? if its because you cheat yourself out of a good game by doing something underhanded then that is on you. I do like the random inititive because then nothing can be certain. granted you can bring the best list out there but if you can plan for the randomness and lose then thats all part of the game. things are going to happen that are out of your control and i think that makes the game that much more fun. You cant predict everything.

If I base my strategy on the assumption that I will get a double turn, then 50℅ of the time I get a massive advantage. The other 50℅ of the time there is little if any penalty to making that gamble. The risk is small, the reward is large, and the game is decided by a single d6 roll. It's hardly underhanded, it's just good tactics. Sure I could handicap myself by using bad tactics but then what's the point? I think some players see random initiative as some sort of evening factor because they can win against a stronger opponent they would normally lose to, but really a win because of a double turn is hardly much of anything because of the advantage it offers, and that's why I dislike it so much; too many times have I been left with a hollow victory because of random initiative. And at my flgs I've found that's the case with others; the players who dislike random initiative the most are also those the best at using it to their advantage.

My wanting alternate activation has nothing to do with not being able to figure out how to "git gud" / L2P Newb, and is more about wanting a more engaging game than IGO UGO offers.

I have a wall of trophies and plaques from over the years, so I already figured out how to "git gud", I just want a more engaging game where one of us isn't sitting there for an hour doing nothing.

Alt activation is currently my favorite implementation of that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If I base my strategy on the assumption that I will get a double turn, then 50℅ of the time I get a massive advantage. The other 50℅ of the time there is little if any penalty to making that gamble. The risk is small, the reward is large, and the game is decided by a single d6 roll. It's hardly underhanded, it's just good tactics. Sure I could handicap myself by using bad tactics but then what's the point? I think some players see random initiative as some sort of evening factor because they can win against a stronger opponent they would normally lose to, but really a win because of a double turn is hardly much of anything because of the advantage it offers, and that's why I dislike it so much; too many times have I been left with a hollow victory because of random initiative. And at my flgs I've found that's the case with others; the players who dislike random initiative the most are also those the best at using it to their advantage.

The same argument can be said for the IGOUGO system as well.

Davor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If I base my strategy on the assumption that I will get a double turn, then 50℅ of the time I get a massive advantage. The other 50℅ of the time there is little if any penalty to making that gamble. The risk is small, the reward is large, and the game is decided by a single d6 roll. It's hardly underhanded, it's just good tactics. Sure I could handicap myself by using bad tactics but then what's the point? I think some players see random initiative as some sort of evening factor because they can win against a stronger opponent they would normally lose to, but really a win because of a double turn is hardly much of anything because of the advantage it offers, and that's why I dislike it so much; too many times have I been left with a hollow victory because of random initiative. And at my flgs I've found that's the case with others; the players who dislike random initiative the most are also those the best at using it to their advantage.

The same argument can be said for the IGOUGO system as well.

You can't get a double turn when initiative is fixed, so the argument I made inherently cannot apply.

Well NinthMusketeer in the IGOUGO system a single d6 can decide a game. You can also handicap yourself in an IGOUGO system but what would be the point? Perfect example is 40K. Go first and you can end up winning the game depending on the army you play.

I am not saying you are wrong Ninth, just the negatives you say for the rolling for initiative each turn is minor and the rewards of having more interactive between players and not having to do anything for 15-30 minutes of doing nothing but removing minis makes the game more fun.

The IGOUGO method is not that much fun. That said, since it's the only game to have it's better than I don't go and do nothing so I swallow it, but when there is an option, like Age of Sigmar has now (wished people would play LotR ) it's an option for me to have more fun in games now and I buy more AoS product now than I do for 40K.

If you remove the initiative roll, you have to add some other sort of mechanic to limit first turn advantage, even 40k has seize.
If you don't then as people get better, going first will get stronger and stronger. For example, a Stormcast army with aethetstrike can get do 2-3 drops pretty easily and if that army gets to go first with the shenanigans it can do and not have to worry about the double turn, you'll lose half your army just trying to catch them.

Death would also be in a terrible design space if there was 0% chance they could go 2 player turns without regenerating.

If you have strict player turn alternation, then only truly viable (i.e. "fair") solution is to cripple the first player turn (e.g. "play or draw"). E.g. units may not run, and player must re-roll all successful attacks. This way, the first player basically gets a half turn, before players take full turns. This isn't going to give perfect tempo parity, but it'd be close.

The other option is to always have double turns, where the initiative automatically reverses.

Notation-wise, basic Igo-Ugo looks like this:
AB-AB-AB-AB-AB-AB
A has a half tempo advantage that is never mitigated.

"Play or draw" Igo-Ugo looks like this:
aB-AB-AB-AB-AB-AB
The crippled first turn (for player A, only) balances the tempo advantage.

Constant initiative looks like this:
AB-BA-AB-BA-AB-BA
This is a lot fairer, although A technically has a very slight tempo advantage due to going first in rounds 3 & 5, in addition to 1.

To completely remove the tempo advantage, it would have to work like this:
AB-BA-BA-AB-BA-AB
This is Thue-Morse balanced alteration, and is "fair".

For the purposes of AoS, I have elsewhere proposed to fix the first two rounds:
AB-BA
And then randomize, with tiebreakers going toward whichever player went second in the previous round.

I don't see the issue with first turns being OP, and if it was then it would still be so using rolled initiative so I don't understand the counter-argument there either. Anything that is theoretically game-breaking like Stormcast deep-striking (nerfed due to the Azyros change anyways) will be more game breaking on a double turn, putting even more emphasis on that initiative roll determining the game. More importantly, unlike 40k the units that can deal meaningful damage first turn are a tiny minority of those available overall. Hell I play alternating most of my games and I have chosen to go second.

Is the white player in chess considered to have an overwhelming advantage?

White wins roughly 55%-45%, so it's a pretty significant advantage.

Also, anecdotally, it appears that your local playgroup is weak / non-competitive. Being the big fish in a small pond is fine, but it's not really conclusive from a design / analysis standpoint.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
White wins roughly 55%-45%, so it's a pretty significant advantage.

I would gladly take that over random initiative. From what I've seen and played a round 1-2 double turn player wins upwards of 75% of the time.



Edit: To be clear again (this isn't to anyone in particular), I don't advocate for a change of rolled initiative in the AoS rules; I only want to see it changed to fixed in Matched Play because it's about trying to gauge one player's skill verses the other on as even a playing field as reasonably possible. I feel like in open/narrative/path to glory rolled initiative is an asset, because the purpose is not about having the most balanced matchup and may even be specifically about not having that at all.

Except say in Take and Hold and Blood and Glory (where a Battleround 2-3 double turn is considered the most powerful), it's generally accepted that a Battleround 1-2 double turn is the most powerful double turn in the game. I definitely wouldn't want to make it certain. I think that would be a very bad idea.

I like the iniative roll and think it shines most in scenarios like Border War where there is also a big advantage in going first (because you score 3 of the 4 objectives straight away). I think Ninth would probably agree that even if he feels a fixed IGOUGO plays better for him that it must be particualry hard in that scenario to go second without the possibility of getting a double turn to even up the scores.

So in my opinion the only thing I would like to see improved are a few more advantages for the player going first across the scenarios. I would also like for battalions to be deployed piecemeal to add more strategy into managing the amount of drops your army is (as that dictates first turn choice). Otherwise I like the iniative roll and think it should be kept as it is.

TLR, so apologies if old ground....

But I hope they keep tinkering with the scenarios and their victory conditions.

No better way to keep the tournament scene on it's toes if you ask me, and so much easier than re-writing Battletomes to keep armies competitive.

 Bottle wrote:
Except say in Take and Hold and Blood and Glory (where a Battleround 2-3 double turn is considered the most powerful), it's generally accepted that a Battleround 1-2 double turn is the most powerful double turn in the game. I definitely wouldn't want to make it certain. I think that would be a very bad idea.

I like the iniative roll and think it shines most in scenarios like Border War where there is also a big advantage in going first (because you score 3 of the 4 objectives straight away). I think Ninth would probably agree that even if he feels a fixed IGOUGO plays better for him that it must be particualry hard in that scenario to go second without the possibility of getting a double turn to even up the scores.

So in my opinion the only thing I would like to see improved are a few more advantages for the player going first across the scenarios. I would also like for battalions to be deployed piecemeal to add more strategy into managing the amount of drops your army is (as that dictates first turn choice). Otherwise I like the iniative roll and think it should be kept as it is.

That does raise a good point; if they went to fixed initiative they should also change it so objectives are counted at the end of the round instead of each player's turn. It would strongly counteract first-turn advantage if the second player got the 'last laugh' so to speak.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you have strict player turn alternation, then only truly viable (i.e. "fair") solution is to cripple the first player turn (e.g. "play or draw"). E.g. units may not run, and player must re-roll all successful attacks. This way, the first player basically gets a half turn, before players take full turns. This isn't going to give perfect tempo parity, but it'd be close.

The other option is to always have double turns, where the initiative automatically reverses.

Notation-wise, basic Igo-Ugo looks like this:
AB-AB-AB-AB-AB-AB
A has a half tempo advantage that is never mitigated.

"Play or draw" Igo-Ugo looks like this:
aB-AB-AB-AB-AB-AB
The crippled first turn (for player A, only) balances the tempo advantage.

Constant initiative looks like this:
AB-BA-AB-BA-AB-BA
This is a lot fairer, although A technically has a very slight tempo advantage due to going first in rounds 3 & 5, in addition to 1.

To completely remove the tempo advantage, it would have to work like this:
AB-BA-BA-AB-BA-AB
This is Thue-Morse balanced alteration, and is "fair".

For the purposes of AoS, I have elsewhere proposed to fix the first two rounds:
AB-BA
And then randomize, with tiebreakers going toward whichever player went second in the previous round.

So how about something like X-wing then? Everyone moves at initiative order for shooting and moving. So no turn advantages for anyone? Not saying this is the way, just showing another alternative to what you said so well.

Sorry, I was just focused on A/B alternation mechanics, whether Igo-Ugo or unit alternation.

Stepwise initiative is completely different, as is bag/card.

I haven't read the entire discussion but has anyone brought up about single model units and battleshock? I think it would be cool for at least some units to have abilities that battleshock impact those models.

Yeah. Often the bravery stat on a character is meaningless since it does nothing for them.

There are a number of abilities that 'attack' a target's bravery though, like a Terrorgheist's death shriek.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are a number of abilities that 'attack' a target's bravery though, like a Terrorgheist's death shriek.

Thank you, NM. I didn't know they were using those sort of special rules already.
We typically play with just the starter set forces so hadn't run into Death creatures.
Very cool.

Hopefully, they'll be more special rules for units that do stuff like cause retreat moves and what-not.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are a number of abilities that 'attack' a target's bravery though, like a Terrorgheist's death shriek.

Thank you, NM. I didn't know they were using those sort of special rules already.
We typically play with just the starter set forces so hadn't run into Death creatures.
Very cool.

Hopefully, they'll be more special rules for units that do stuff like cause retreat moves and what-not.

Some units can already kind of do this, although in this case its Skaven and they can voluntarily retreat and then charge another unit. Its not forcing another unit to do it but mechanically its sound, and funnily enough if it did exist Skaven would be unaffected!

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There are a number of abilities that 'attack' a target's bravery though, like a Terrorgheist's death shriek.

Thank you, NM. I didn't know they were using those sort of special rules already.
We typically play with just the starter set forces so hadn't run into Death creatures.
Very cool.

Hopefully, they'll be more special rules for units that do stuff like cause retreat moves and what-not.

Some units can already kind of do this, although in this case its Skaven and they can voluntarily retreat and then charge another unit. Its not forcing another unit to do it but mechanically its sound, and funnily enough if it did exist Skaven would be unaffected!

There is one mechanism for forcing retreat--the Stormcast Lords of the Storm battalion.

Make a Greenskinz Warboss cheaper. That's all I want right now, itching at 140pts. it hurts.

I'm now wondering if Forgeworld is gonna update their list about the same time.

Everyone by now has listed the "please nerf" offenders we all know about, so I will just say I sincerely hope Dwarf/Duardin/Dispossessed see almost across-the-board price drops, and significant ones at that.

They're my much loved, for-fun, army, but I feel like they're constantly fighting at a deficit with a desire to field good supporting infantry of several kinds, and in decent numbers, but they cost so, so very much more than they should.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Everyone by now has listed the "please nerf" offenders we all know about, so I will just say I sincerely hope Dwarf/Duardin/Dispossessed see almost across-the-board price drops, and significant ones at that.

They're my much loved, for-fun, army, but I feel like they're constantly fighting at a deficit with a desire to field good supporting infantry of several kinds, and in decent numbers, but they cost so, so very much more than they should.

I remember when the GHB came out thinking 'oh those poor Dwarf players...'

In a game where mobility is proving to be THE decisive strategy/tactic/asset, Dwarves are comically under-achieving. Outside of Bugman's Rangers (who then have abysmal output AND cost too much), you're forced to turtle up with artillery, and hope your opponent misplays.

They're awful, if i'm being honest. :-p

I'd like to see some new matched play scenarios that would cater to the more defensive armies. I don't see how a low-mobility army like Duardin are supposed to cap objectives against Stormcasts and Sylvaneth.

We don't want defensive scenarios, especially with random initiative, because they cater to gun-line armies. The problem with Duradin isn't mobility (Nurgle does fine after all) it's that their infantry (the mainstay of the army) simply cost too much in an environment where infantry are already sub-par.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We don't want defensive scenarios, especially with random initiative, because they cater to gun-line armies. The problem with Duradin isn't mobility (Nurgle does fine after all) it's that their infantry (the mainstay of the army) simply cost too much in an environment where infantry are already sub-par.

This. If you could clog your deployment with a slow-moving, but reasonably reliable wall of models, you could "push" forward, in proper Dwarfy fashion. As it stands, that infantry is slow as mud AND costs almost twice as much as I believe it should.

Yep I agree. The infantry in a lot of forces are a bit too expensive. I don't think thats intentional (its a by product of the formulas used) but it definitely is a factor for the regular forces we see on a regular basis (though a lot of people also think that this is an intentional design decision as many people simply don't want to buy and paint a lot of models and want to have as small a force as possible... but there is nothing to support this claim)

Yeah, my poor dwarves. Destruction really does show the vast issue with the Dwarven pricing. Even without Battalions it's crazy.

Destruction - 100-120pt generally gets you a 5+ save, 20 wounds (10-20 actual models), 5" moveand abilities that scale up with unit size fairly well.

Compared to 100pts in Dwarves which gets you....10 models with a 5+ save, 4" move, and some defensive rules with comparable bravery.

Dwarves need around a 30-40% price break on basic squads. Don't get me started on their elites in comparison. Anyone wanna compare Brutes with 15 wounds for 180 against Ironbreakers/Hammerers/Longbeards? HA!

Longbeards... in theory should have value as a force-multiplier... but who the hell is fielding Dwarf close-combat infantry to benefit?

Yeah, Ironbreakers, Hammerers, Longbeards, and Irondrakes are on my short list of worst-priced units in the entirety of Age of Sigmar at the moment. I suspect they'll see price-drops, but I worry GW will be afraid to go as far as they need to to make them even remotely competitive. I don't even mean GOOD... I just mean not terrible. :-p

Oh and forget how salty I am over things like Thunderers. If you're going to force an army into one play-style, IE shooting... how about making their core shooter at least as good, and with as much access to super buffs as the simple Freeguild Pistolier.... in all their broken gun-line-iness. :-p

I'd rather nothing be broken. I'm really tired of broken and exploiting broken things.

Touche'. I mean, i'd like a comparable level of skill for a unit that is supposedly specialized in that one area. :-p

I don't want broken. But I do want units that aren't price similar to comparable 2 wound models when they only have a single wound. I am ok with Ghouls at 100pts (still a little high) and Skellies at 80pts as they replenish so in essence I'm paying for more than just the 10 wounds. With chaos you've got marauders that are similar at 60pts and Gor that are 80pts but have a better CC save, faster, and can run and charge (for a 20% discount vs. Warriors).

If they wanted dwarves to be more elite they needed to reflect it in their stats. As it is they are horde level rules wise but priced like elites.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't want broken. But I do want units that aren't price similar to comparable 2 wound models when they only have a single wound. I am ok with Ghouls at 100pts (still a little high) and Skellies at 80pts as they replenish so in essence I'm paying for more than just the 10 wounds. With chaos you've got marauders that are similar at 60pts and Gor that are 80pts but have a better CC save, faster, and can run and charge (for a 20% discount vs. Warriors).

If they wanted dwarves to be more elite they needed to reflect it in their stats. As it is they are horde level rules wise but priced like elites.

So much this. I actually just retired my TK, because they weren't "fun" in a meta that is locally just playing armies they enjoy for relaxed play.... and yet even in this quite casual environment Dwarves struggle to do anything. My wife's Saurus Guard, even beyond much greater access to much better buffs and supports, are overwhelmingly better "elite infantry" than literally anything I can field from Dwarves, at any point cost. As stated, you can totally price reasonable units that read, and perform as "elite".

In my mind, if priced accordingly, I imagine Dwarves to have devastating "toys" IE artillery, shooting in general, war-engines, etc... backed up by a costly, but ultra durable wall of guys tasked with working around their inherent slowness, by being a wall against attacks. At this point you still have competitive challenges in tournament scenarios tasking players with higher mobility, BUT at least their is a tactical/racial internal logic to how said army performs.

As it stands we have artillery being the only decent option (albeit still pricey and with only a couple of the options being worthwhile, and insta gimped if you take out one squishy support model), and everything else being some of the worst priced, performing models in all of AoS. :-p

Edit: Incidentally, as others suggest, slashing Dwarf points almost by half, instantly rectifies things, and at least fits them into the aforementioned internal logic.

Actually I don't really care for the defensive dwarf force. I feel like Dwarves developed their empire by marching forth and smiting their foes. Enemies at the gates makes for poor trade

I want to be able to build an offensive dwarf force so that my infantry aren't just a shield for my guns/shooters.

Until GHB2 shows up and (hopefully) fixes the issue, what I can suggest is for Dispossessed players to get permission from their groups to use PPC for their lists (it has better balance at the same scale, including lower costs for Dispossessed infantry). At this point I'm sure opponents will have seen how bad Dispossessed infantry is and are likely to be receptive to an alternative option. Opponents don't need to change their own lists either.

I play pretty exclusively in Tournaments locally because that's the most efficient use of my time with 2 daughters So while I appreciate the PPC I'm stuck waiting for the GHB2.

Well at least for tournaments Dispossessed have plenty of company in the 'armies that aren't viable' room

My group is all about General's Handbook, and isn't up for comps, even well made ones. So yes, even though our tournaments aren't full blood-thirsty, there's definitely a large swathe of "no chance" armies. :-p

Which is a shame because the fan comps did a great job and were updated to fix holes much faster than the GHB, which I am growing to dislike more every day barring succumbing to my old gamer-self and just chasing the meta again.

 auticus wrote:
Which is a shame because the fan comps did a great job and were updated to fix holes much faster than the GHB, which I am growing to dislike more every day barring succumbing to my old gamer-self and just chasing the meta again.

I'd have ripped my hair out months ago, to be sure

I've found that Order is the only one with a ton of poor to bad list possibilities. That's because dwarves and aelfs make up so much of Order and it was the largest alliance by a mile. Most issues stem from lack of synergy with things that don't have battletomes yet and point costs. You can still build some solid armies but Order is pretty pigeon holed into a Battletome army OR Freeguild.

Death has several viable ways to be played and some don't even take a morngul. Chaos has got a ton of play options whether dedicated or mixed. And Destruction actually seems to have very few poor choices and same as chaos dedicated or mixed seems to play very well.

I get that fan comps can fix things faster than GW. But unlike some posters I don't think anything is inherently broken at this point either and can be played around. I think the GHB is actually in a pretty good place outside of some order pointing issues (looking at Aelfs and Dwarves).

Oh well, hope to see the second one soon!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I've found that Order is the only one with a ton of poor to bad list possibilities. That's because dwarves and aelfs make up so much of Order and it was the largest alliance by a mile. Most issues stem from lack of synergy with things that don't have battletomes yet and point costs. You can still build some solid armies but Order is pretty pigeon holed into a Battletome army OR Freeguild.

Death has several viable ways to be played and some don't even take a morngul. Chaos has got a ton of play options whether dedicated or mixed. And Destruction actually seems to have very few poor choices and same as chaos dedicated or mixed seems to play very well.

I get that fan comps can fix things faster than GW. But unlike some posters I don't think anything is inherently broken at this point either and can be played around. I think the GHB is actually in a pretty good place outside of some order pointing issues (looking at Aelfs and Dwarves).

Oh well, hope to see the second one soon!

What he said. The main issues with the game right now seem to be from some allegiances not being updated (yet). We'll see what happens if/when Steamheads are released what happens to the rest of the Duardin. I actually expect the see the Fyreslayers and Dispossessed show up in the same Battletome with (hopefully) some minor updates and rebalancing the way the existing Tzeentch and Stormcast forces were updated.

Yeah. Which makes the alternative chasing the meta.

So for example if you are a dark elf player or a chaos dwarf player or whatever, you're going to get the shaft until they decide to update your stuff which could be years. Or you can choose to chase the meta and buy an army that has an updated set of rules so you aren't feeling the warm caress of the shaft.

If you are playing an army with an updated set of warscrolls then the GHB is fine. I totally agree.

If not - then you are at the mercy of whenever they get around to it.

Also remember the GHB points also came from fan comp.

But unlike some posters I don't think anything is inherently broken at this point either and can be played around.

When you are playing a legacy army that has not yet been updated up against a "modern" force and your opponent is playing min/max style, there is a giant problem that cannot really be played around.

To bypass this and try to encourage new players, i actively discourage them from picking up legacy armies that don't have modern books. We've lost several players to that already, where they'll get high or dark elves (or hell even khorne bloodbound is pretty low on the power scale) and they go up against a sylvaneth or stormcast player playing min/max on them and stomping them off the table without any real counters. It is discouraging for them, and discouraging for event coordinators trying to grow out the game when they sit on legacy items like this and let languish for potentially years.

I think if you are going to play highly competitively, you are always going to be "chasing the meta", whether that is which faction you choose, or how you "min/max" or choose units within that faction. Though, certainly, it would be better if there weren't factions that were at such a large disadvantage that even in fairly friendly games that stand no chance of winning.

But remember, the people who designed the game don't see winning as part of the fun. Telling a story is the fun thing. If you play dwarves, and use points, then your story is always going to be about making a heroic last stand while badly outnumbered.

I agree with you. I run narrative campaigns. However, I live in a highly competitive area where people don't see a difference in tournament, casual game, or narrative campaign and build a min/max list regardless of what it is they are playing.

While telling a story is indeed also my primary directive in playing AOS, I don't know anyone who wants to willingly play the role of the army getting stomped into the mud.

No one wants to tell the story of the dwarf army that has a 99% chance of getting face rolled before the game begins because their opponent is fielding the latest LVO build. and they are playing dwarves (for example).

This is where my conflict and annoyance comes into play most harshly. I don't feel I should have to chase the meta if I want to play narrative campaign style games but because of my environment I do or I write in house rules to boost legacy armies, which I have grown to not like so much because the competitive guys usually fly off the handle at how they are being treated unfairly by having legacy armies receiving houserules to boost them because that would have influenced what they would have collected on their end if they had known and it had been "official".

Before GHB when I designed Azyr, I had the ability to change points as needed and no one griped because there were no "official points". Now that there are official points, I lost that ability to adjust on the fly and we're beholden to whenever GHB updates and how they decide to update as well as how often the legacy armies get updated.

There is a plus: I can write new spells and artefacts for armies that don't have them and that doesn't usually elicit any complaints. Its just when I adjust points.

Sadly the existence of skryrefyre kills the idea of nothing being broken before even going into more widespread issues like Kurnoths, Necropolis Knights, Beastclaw Heroes, etc.

Skyrefyre is bad with a double turn. That said it still isn't broken to me. There are a lot of ways to counter it and it's not excellent at scenario play honestly.

All the units you bring up are good but again not broken.

Then again that brings up the definition of broken. To me it's things that don't have a decent counter in the meta based on scenarios. They do so, not broken. But your definition may vary and they may be broken

@Auticus

I get your frustration on the end of having designed a solid point system. And I feel bad for people in your area possibly going hard on non-competitive events. That can lead to sourness. I've found locally that a few of us dominate the top tables. But we mitigate it with prize support going into a raffle if we win and by bringing more varied and toned down lists because we want our events to blossom. Unfortunately that does require there to be some level of ownership for the top players in an area to make work. But I've also found that generally 95% of people don't chase the meta. And luckily so far none of the d-bags have been the ones to do it

It does require some ownership yeah. Their thinking is that they want the region to stay highly competitive so to keep it that way you have to play that way all the time and players will either adapt and make the community stronger or will get frustrated and quit which is no loss to them.

Sorry man. That sucks. We're highly competitive but I only get the chance to play lots of games at actual tournaments due to life. Same with most of the other highly competitive fellows locally. So we make it a point to make sure that tournaments happen so we can get games in If that means tossing prize support and regularly changing armies we can and do.

Never understood the playing super hard all the time.

Its an interesting dynamic. Its not everybody that plays this way but it only takes two or three guys to cause a pool of twenty-five players to do it, because no one wants to be called "meat" lol.

Well, I think you can have fun with a battle you can't technically win. You just try to come up with a different victory condition for yourself. Like, try to have your unit of slayers take out the biggest monster in the opposing army before going down. Or just survive for X turns, hold some part of the battlefield. Then if you accomplish your goal, you can feel like you succeeded even though you lost, and your opponent will be happy because they won (and probably confused at why you are so happy about doing some arbitrary thing, while losing so badly).

However, I do think it's going to be really hard to have a fun game if one person is playing to try to tell a story, and the other is just trying to win by choosing the best moves regardless of whether or not they are doing things that even make any kind of sense in the setting. I think that's the real problem. Both of those playstyle are fine, but not really compatible.

I have noticed, especially with Skryrefyre, that there are a lot of theoretical counters that simply don't play out on the tabletop--they don't work as advertised and/or don't work against any opponent except the kind they are designed to counter. Even then, IMO something can have a counter and still be broken. If the counter is something else that's broken there's an obvious issue there, but more so if the counters are simply a handful of specific units that's a problem---players have to either run those units or have no answer to whatever is broken. With the central idea of AoS being that a player can be reasonably competitive with any faction that 'breaks' the dynamic that's supposed to exist.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Skyrefyre is bad with a double turn. That said it still isn't broken to me. There are a lot of ways to counter it and it's not excellent at scenario play honestly.

I would be very interested to hear what counters you know of. Most of what I've seen people suggest is based off Gryph Hounds or hordes of models, both of which only work against an unskilled Skryre player who doesn't know how to do it right.

Most times it's deployment and chaff units. You don't need hordes of models but you do need to bring throw-aways and speed bumps. Not to dissimilar to WFB of old.

A lot depends on the skyfyre list (all warpfire or not), terrain, actual mission, etc, etc. All warpfire has a lot more counters that mixed ratling gun and warpfire.

Not going to argue that in pure damage output it's one of the meanest lists out there. But I don't think it holds up long term in a tournament setting. That's a personal feeling based on experience. Maybe I haven't run into a "skilled" skyfyre player yet as you say. Which is possible. Most of my local area isn't a huge skaven fan and the one or two times those lists have been trotted out we've stepped on them hard.

I ended up building it myself to see if the theory matched reality, it was only when I started playing it that I realized how easy it was to screw up on the tabletop. At any rate the idea build will be two units of full warpfire and one unit with shock gauntlets, the latter unit also has the army general with the lord of war command trait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have run it against tournament lists (both in and out of actual tournaments) without much resistance, but not having gone to any large events I couldn't say for sure how it would do at a regional or national competition.

What I am honestly hoping for is that GHB2 does a mass update, even if its just points and giving command abilities/items, to the armies that don't have them. Something, anything to bring them more in line with the new releases so they don't fall completely by the wayside as GW moves forward while ignoring most of what came before this shift in battletome design. I'm at the point where I don't see any way that Death, for example, can even begin to compete with all the new things, and I'm not even talking compete as in competitive, I mean for regular casual games.

I see FEC perform perfectly well in a casual setting as well as malignants, though the latter has the Mourngul so doesn't entirely count.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I see FEC perform perfectly well in a casual setting as well as malignants, though the latter has the Mourngul so doesn't entirely count.

Do you know what the FEC lists run? Because I have been trying for the better part of a year and I get stomped in short order :(

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I see FEC perform perfectly well in a casual setting as well as malignants, though the latter has the Mourngul so doesn't entirely count.

Do you know what the FEC lists run? Because I have been trying for the better part of a year and I get stomped in short order :(

I see large units of horrors and a varghulf with the cloak of mists and shadows to disappear out of danger. Also the big monsters as hammers and ghoul kings buffing ghouls. Do quite well around my area.

I think it's fair to assume a large overhaul in points for the release of the 2nd GHB. Likewise, it's fair to recognize and forgive the massively unbalanced points system in the current GHB considering it's their first attempt at pointing and balancing this new game.

That said, yes, "legacy" units got shafted hard in that exchange. Take a look at Orruks vs Savage Orruks - both 100 points, more or less same survivability and damage output (circumstantially), except the SOs have an extra wound. That's huge.
So, even with that, Dispossessed Warriors are also 100 points, and they have comparable weapon stats to Orruks but have flat out worse banners, movement, survivability... match that up to SOs etc etc... same goes for the horribly expensive Sea Guard, Swordmasters... I could go on.
All that to say that old armies are totally being left behind in the power creep. I want to believe it's not intentional, but a part of me is thinking that GW is just trying to discourage players from using units they don't want to sell anymore.

Except Tomb Kings are top-tier OP.

As for FEC, start with running Ghoul Patrol. Make sure your general has master of the night for a command trait, and make your general the unit champion out of a 6-man unit of flayers/horrors instead of a hero that can be sniped. If you have a mounted ghoul king make sure he's on a Terrorgheist. Do those and you should be in a good spot for casual play.

Oh right, while this is better suited for a FAQ, I wish they would change the Weirdfist wording so you can select a unit after casting which would allow you to benefit from the extra range.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Oh right, while this is better suited for a FAQ, I wish they would change the Weirdfist wording so you can select a unit after casting which would allow you to benefit from the extra range.

Take a balewind, won't matter if you don't get any pluses to range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furious241 wrote:
I think it's fair to assume a large overhaul in points for the release of the 2nd GHB. Likewise, it's fair to recognize and forgive the massively unbalanced points system in the current GHB considering it's their first attempt at pointing and balancing this new game.

That said, yes, "legacy" units got shafted hard in that exchange. Take a look at Orruks vs Savage Orruks - both 100 points, more or less same survivability and damage output (circumstantially), except the SOs have an extra wound. That's huge.
So, even with that, Dispossessed Warriors are also 100 points, and they have comparable weapon stats to Orruks but have flat out worse banners, movement, survivability... match that up to SOs etc etc... same goes for the horribly expensive Sea Guard, Swordmasters... I could go on.
All that to say that old armies are totally being left behind in the power creep. I want to believe it's not intentional, but a part of me is thinking that GW is just trying to discourage players from using units they don't want to sell anymore.

GW wants to sell everything it makes always. This is the kind of tinfoil hat thing that always seems silly to me. Like when tomb kings point costs went up for SCGT people were like 'oh they're gonna price people out of compendium, the monsters!' and then Russ talks on...I believe it was Heelan Hammer that they were going to straight up ban compendium(Likely intending it to become the norm over time judging by their feelings on it.) And GW stepped in and told them they could use the experimental points instead. GW saved Tomb Kings because it turns out that they're not some evil monolithic entity out to steal your fun and replace everyone's army with Stormcasts. I don't know why they stopped selling the line, I really don't, but they still support people who choose to use the older OOP armies.

Fair enough, aside from the paranoid delusion you're projecting onto me.
My assessment was that they seem to want to take their model ranges in a particular direction, style wise, moving away from other aesthetics. So it's either making them less desirable to play, or a clear lack of understanding on how to balance this game. Neither of which is particularly good, but considering it's only the first iteration of points, they deserve a pass for now.