Hiya. Yesterday while going to AOS game it occured to me that shouldn't the general's handbook release date have been around this time of year? Albeit corona likely has affected things but is there any word on it? Guess month it's coming is too much to ask but anything of interest on contents leaked/rumoured anywhere?

Well, WHC had a preview on the 2018 one on June 15th, and for the 2019 on June 9th - so assuming there is a pattern we are already late.

Things are all messed up this year of course, and since all books are printed in China, there is a good chance this years GHB is delayed a good bit. With the lead time on production it could have been scheduled for printing in early 2020...

They might even delay it since its purely a rule book and people just can't game right now. Delaying it until later in the year when people can at least get out and game once again - that is assuming lockdowns don't get restarted.

 Overread wrote:
They might even delay it since its purely a rule book and people just can't game right now. Delaying it until later in the year when people can at least get out and game once again - that is assuming lockdowns don't get restarted.

9th ed is also rulebook. I don't think that idea holds water especially as many countries restrictions are already being lifted and gaming starting up. Now delays are obviously quite possible anyway. Personally I'm expecting it now somewhere around august-september. But was more interested on any hints on what is in it besides new point cost tables.

9thed isn't a rulebook - its an edition change that also comes with a massive release of new models.

My point was that the generals handbook is mostly just pure rules. There's no model additions or updates that twin with it (typically though I have wondered if the new giants might so tha tthe GHB has their rules/provisions as allies). So it's just a book on its own so GW can hold it back until later without it impacting things so heavily.

Something like 9th edition is massive in marketing and new models and as a result its not something GW can hold in reserve for a few months more .

I think if they had it, they would sell it. I can't think of a good reason to just sit on a stack of books.

Other than a delay in production I can see an argument for "they can not get stuff out the door fast enough" though. We have heard about and seen so much new stuff already, all still waiting for a week to get released - maybe the GHB is just not important enough right now.

Normal release is in july, so dont expect the book before late agust/september this year.
Had things been normal we would have had the elf release in march/april and that new giant faction around now, keeping end of july open for GHB20.

The General's Handbook also missed out on a lot of tournament feedback due to the pandemic. We'll have to waith and see if they decide to wait until next year or go ahead without that feedback.

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook also missed out on a lot of tournament feedback due to the pandemic. We'll have to waith and see if they decide to wait until next year or go ahead without that feedback.

Eh lockdowns started around end of march/april. Lead times means not that many tournaments that are missed. You don't produce and release books all that fast. 3 months would be pretty short lead time for GW

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook also missed out on a lot of tournament feedback due to the pandemic. We'll have to waith and see if they decide to wait until next year or go ahead without that feedback.

Eh lockdowns started around end of march/april. Lead times means not that many tournaments that are missed. You don't produce and release books all that fast. 3 months would be pretty short lead time for GW

Plugging in some updated points before a book goes off to the printers doesn't take that much time.

A better concept to review would be the comparison when 40K 8th Edition came out rather than the last two years' worth.

They don't want each system to cannibalize each other too much.

From what I understand the books are already printed and have been received by GW. Warhammer Weekly mentioned this on a video last week or the week before. At this point the hold up is likely due to GW trying to figure out when to slot it into the release schedule. The used an off week from 40k to release the Lumineth box, and we’ll get 40k stuff for the entirety of July. If they slide in an AoS release it’s likely to be more Lumineth or the new giants. This means that GHB is probably destined for August at the earliest.

In the grand scheme it makes sense as the models from the two new armies are going to be way more profitable than a GHB would be. It is less than ideal for the rest of us, but that’s the way the news goes.

I might be able to play again by August, so that's cool with me.

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook also missed out on a lot of tournament feedback due to the pandemic. We'll have to waith and see if they decide to wait until next year or go ahead without that feedback.

There's about a six months delay between them finishing writing and them being printed/shipped. It's why you get things like GSC being over nerfed in CA2019 despite the tournament meta having long since moved on from them.

The General's Handbook goes on pre-order next weekend:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/28/sunday-preview-calling-all-generals/

SWEET!

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook goes on pre-order next weekend:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/28/sunday-preview-calling-all-generals/

"rules to create your own bespoke heroes" - that's exciting! I hope it's not one OP option in a list of otherwise crap choices, but I won't hold my breath. Should be fun in any case.

 eohall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook goes on pre-order next weekend:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/28/sunday-preview-calling-all-generals/

"rules to create your own bespoke heroes" - that's exciting! I hope it's not one OP option in a list of otherwise crap choices, but I won't hold my breath. Should be fun in any case.

Most likely only for Open Play, much like the custom character rules in the 2018 Chapter Approved book.

A toolbox of options for narrative players to throw a party with is more like it!

 Ghaz wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook also missed out on a lot of tournament feedback due to the pandemic. We'll have to waith and see if they decide to wait until next year or go ahead without that feedback.

Eh lockdowns started around end of march/april. Lead times means not that many tournaments that are missed. You don't produce and release books all that fast. 3 months would be pretty short lead time for GW

Plugging in some updated points before a book goes off to the printers doesn't take that much time.

It takes a lot of time when those numbers are the result of data analyzation and play testing.

Can't watch at the moment, any big headlines?

Thanks

Skies of Slaughter looks fun. Previous WD articles, of course.

Matched play gets "Coalition of Death", where allied teams go at each other.

Something about creating your a hero character from scratch. Sounds like an excuse for kitbashing if you ask me!

SamusDrake wrote:


Something about creating your a hero character from scratch. Sounds like an excuse for kitbashing if you ask me!

I'm going to assume its like the unplayably broken, open play only character creation rules for 40k, at least until I hear otherwise

So Sam Pearson, who did this section, said that it's by opponent permission to even do this, and that there is a section on how to convert your hero to points. finally all the fun heroes I created can actually be given points.

I trust Sam to produce good results.

Carnith wrote:
So Sam Pearson, who did this section, said that it's by opponent permission to even do this, and that there is a section on how to convert your hero to points. finally all the fun heroes I created can actually be given points.

OK fair enough. The fact they have considered how it might affect points alone does actually make me a little bit more positive about it!

Table of Contents from The General’s Handbook 2020: What’s in the Book? article on Warhammer Community:

What in that table is point adjustements and the removal of realm magic items (etherial amulet)? Asking for an ogor player.

 Ghaz wrote:
The General's Handbook goes on pre-order next weekend:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/28/sunday-preview-calling-all-generals/

guess they decided to delay the elf releases for a bit longer then.

They might be trying to get as much diversity out before 9th edition to try and keep other markets happy. Since July-August is going to be heavily dominated by 9th edition releases that GW can't shift around.

Also with cities now going into lockdown in the UK, GW likely wants 9th edition out on time without fail because of the risk of Nottingham getting a selective lockdown. 9thed is likely their biggest warehouse storage and shipment of the year (until Christmas) so they likely don't want to end up sitting on all that stock unsold.

At the same time they likely can't push the model releases faster because their back-end is still slowed up through safety measures. We might see this improve, who knows GW might be looking to put up temp outdoor covers or move rooms/offices/machines around to try and allow for a greater number of warehouse packers to work safely at the same time.

It'll be interesting to see if there are Sons of Behemat references in this.

Yeah well it was already pretty much stated by GW rest of elves would follow later.

 Niiai wrote:
What in that table is point adjustements and the removal of realm magic items (etherial amulet)? Asking for an ogor player.

Points are released in a separate booklet that is packaged with the GHB.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
What in that table is point adjustements and the removal of realm magic items (etherial amulet)? Asking for an ogor player.

Points are released in a separate booklet that is packaged with the GHB.

Yep. From the Sunday Preview article...

 lare2 wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if there are Sons of Behemat references in this.

There are; preview from the other day for team games showed a force-alliance matrix and they were on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Niiai wrote:
What in that table is point adjustements and the removal of realm magic items (etherial amulet)? Asking for an ogor player.

I do not know about removal of realm items (those charts sure could use some work though) but I see pages for updated realm rules which I am extremely excited to see.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
What in that table is point adjustements and the removal of realm magic items (etherial amulet)? Asking for an ogor player.

I do not know about removal of realm items (those charts sure could use some work though) but I see pages for updated realm rules which I am extremely excited to see.

I have never used the realm rules as they are quite silly in my opinion. They open up a level of combos that should not exist (mostly due to the fact that when creating battletomes, the writers do not account for the power of various realm relics). Also, when tournaments use realm rules stating that a battle takes place in realm X, it cant unfairly help/hurt people depending on how they build their lists. All of these things should ABSOLUTELY be available in Narrative/Open play. They don't belong in matched play.

They do exist in matched play as they are part of the core rules, omitting them is a house rule. Albeit a common one, for reasons you described quite well.

Several years back I began making a conscious effort in resetting my expectations for matched play to a level... more appropriate for GW. I highly recommend it.

I'm a fan of realm rules, but treat them as an optional thing. Like, I'll ask my opponent ahead of time if they wish to play a specific realm, or roll for one, ahead of time while we're planning the game.

Speaking of... I wish GW would re-release their Realm spinner thing that was in WHFB at one point. That was cool.

If they're going to write their books all over the map in power level it would have been nice to keep one of the things helping the crap books hang in there.

 Eldarain wrote:
If they're going to write their books all over the map in power level it would have been nice to keep one of the things helping the crap books hang in there.

What?

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
If they're going to write their books all over the map in power level it would have been nice to keep one of the things helping the crap books hang in there.

What?

The Realm Artifacts were one of the few ways for the terrible books to compete.

You contend they don't account for the power of realm relics when writing Battletomes. I contend they don't account for the power of the other Battletomes when writing them so cutting out the Artifacts is unwise.

 Eldarain wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
If they're going to write their books all over the map in power level it would have been nice to keep one of the things helping the crap books hang in there.

What?

The Realm Artifacts were one of the few ways for the terrible books to compete.

You contend they don't account for the power of realm relics when writing Battletomes. I contend they don't account for the power of the other Battletomes when writing them so cutting out the Artifacts is unwise.

This would be great if the broken battletomes did not get to also use the broken relics.

So... am I missing the part where the custom character creation rules are? I can't seem to find it in the table of contents you listed...

leerm02 wrote:

So... am I missing the part where the custom character creation rules are? I can't seem to find it in the table of contents you listed...

Page 56.

Ah, I had no idea it was called that. Thanks mate! Looks like we get 10 whole pages on it, which is more than I expected. Could it actually be fleshed out? Do we dare hope?

Hoping for some nerfs to bonereapers. Okay maybe i'm overreacting but in 3 games never felt i had any chance. Not even today list tailoring vs them.

Don't mind if some fec units gets nerfbat in return. Especially if some of their weaker ones would get buff helping internal balance

leerm02 wrote:
Ah, I had no idea it was called that. Thanks mate! Looks like we get 10 whole pages on it, which is more than I expected. Could it actually be fleshed out? Do we dare hope?

They talked about it in the short video, albeit briefly. And since it is not Matched Play, you can pretty much do what you want anyway.

tneva82 wrote:
Hoping for some nerfs to bonereapers. Okay maybe i'm overreacting but in 3 games never felt i had any chance. Not even today list tailoring vs them.

Don't mind if some fec units gets nerfbat in return. Especially if some of their weaker ones would get buff helping internal balance

Bonereapers will be difficult to handle correctly because so much of their excess is down to sub-faction and not the units themselves. Further, where units are the problem it's more due to rules integration than being straight-up too powerful. I expect that enough problem areas will be missed that they can still be min-maxxed to create an overpowered list, but it will take a bit of work.

Yeah that's my fear. 3+ save with easy reroll is hard to balance with points because then you nerf other less obnoxious subfactions. And pointing multiple buffs is hard. Rend2, explodes on 5+, hitting on 2"s and rr1 is not bad on itself but put all 3 to same tough unit...

Katakros going up in points (and Vokmortian going down) would be the main, if not only, points adjustments they need. Petrifax needs an errata to nerf it heavily. They would still be a viable sub-faction if the +1 to save buff was the only thing they got. Or if they got everything else but not the +1 to save buff. The artifact is fantastic, the command trait is a great combo with it, and the command ability is downright broken because it can be used at any time (seriously, you can wait until your enemy rolls saves THEN use it).

Not to mention the catapults and harvesters which both have serious issues in rule design that make for seriously unfun gameplay.

Blightkings going down in points was not what I expected. Petrifex should be ignore rend 1. Watching those annoying bastards get a 5+ rerolled save against the heaviest hitters is awful.

Uggg nerfing the Realm rules is going to suck. I kinda of rely on them for my Cities of Sigmar army.

Lovely

Considering the realm rules are the most commonly bemoaned thing I read about from the tournament crowd, this does not surprise me.

From https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/02/generals-handbook-matched-play/

"some favourites may now take up a bigger slot in your list, while other options have gone down in points (looking at you Liberators and Putrid Blightkings)"

Oh look. Some people just realised Liberators were overpriced. How perceptive. Ha-ha.
I hope the same people also realise points nerf on key SCE units(evocators, ballistas) in 2019 was a mistake during the heyday of HoS, Skaven, FeC.

Do be honest, I believe simple points reduction can only do so much for SCE units with AoS 1.0 warscrolls.
They also need fundamental revamp on their warscrolls.
And even some of the latest Sacrosanct chamber units need rework desperately.
Castigators and Lord-Exorcist for example.

The sorry state of current SCE battletome, along with the spread of COVID19, is what stopped me from buying AoS products for the last 4 months.

Blightkings weren't underperforming, if anything they were Nurgle's crutch. I am thoroughly disappointed GW felt that unit of Nurgle's lineup needed a points drop.

Anyways, happy to see realm rules getting reworked and condensed. One of my biggest complaints has been how bloated they are, so I am very happy to see GW addressing that.

If you’ve not tried Meeting Engagement yet, you’re missing out.

I'm not sure what drugs GW was on when they decided meeting engagements are anything resembling a functional wargame. But if it lets them enjoy that mess of a ruleset I definitely want some.

Ehh Liberators are fine, they just aren't made to kill stuff. They are suppose to hold the line. A unit of 10 backed up with a Lord Castellant can have a 3+ save and re-roll 1's. They can be hard to shift which is the point of them.

The only problem is that Sequitors are just so much better for only slightly more in points.

There is a reason why many competitive SCE lists take 3 units of min-sized liberators as mandatory battelines.

True, they are not killy at all. And they are not that hard to shift at all, too.
4+ save for re-rolling 1's and 2 wounds per model is far from durable in my opinion.
Other armies with more recent battletome have battleline units which have either more wounds per point or better rend, attacks or special rules.
For the same points value, I would rather have Cities of Sigmar freeguilds than liberators. The former has more number of wounds, and their save can be improved to 4+ if they have swords and shields. The only saving grace of liberators in this case would be the special weapon held by liberator-prime, which unfortunately has either 3+/4+ or 4+/3+ stats.

If someone actually took 10 or more liberators for a single unit, then congratulations.
That is 100 or more points not spent on evocators or Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Raptors which are some of the few saving graces of current SCE, albeit being far from most optimal choices in the entire AoS. I am quite sure sure anyone having trouble removing 5+ liberators is playing the most casual games or is relatively new to this game.
There are many, many factions in this game that would eat such unit for breakfast even if there were support from Lord-Castellant.

And I am not even mentioning some of the best armies' batteline choices. HoS battlelince choices or the dreaded Petrix Mortek guards.
Even Ironjaw and Khorne have battleline choices which are no less durable than liberators, and they are far more lethal than the liberators.
Or even chaos warriors with shields from Slaves of Darkness battletome.
And these factions are reputedly not as egregious as HoS, Ossiarchs or Seraphon.
I personally struggle to find battleline choices which are actually worse than liberators. Maybe I can find ones from nighthaunt or Beasts of Chaos, which also seem to be suffering as underling factions.

Sequitors indeed are better. But that is all. We are not living in summer 2018 where sequitors and evocators were one of the most cost effective units in AoS.
HoS, Skaven, FeC, Fyreslayers, Tzeentch, Ossiarchs, and even Lumineths have battleline choices with excellent rules which are no less inferior to sequitors.
In fact, I would rather rate theirs having more impact in the meta than the sequitors as of now.
Sould Shields' re-rolls seem nice at first glance, until you realise they can only re-roll "failed" save rolls which makes them highly vulnerable to attacks with even moderate rend values.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

If you’ve not tried Meeting Engagement yet, you’re missing out.

I'm not sure what drugs GW was on when they decided meeting engagements are anything resembling a functional wargame. But if it lets them enjoy that mess of a ruleset I definitely want some.

Meeting engagements are an amazing way to play the game. My FLGS community prefers it to the traditional 2k games for tournaments because they are quicker and more importantly they curb all kinds of stupidly broken combos due to warscroll and points restrictions.

Wait, lower point games take less time? Who'd have thought.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/03/the-generals-handbook-2020-building-your-heroes/

Custom hero building rules in here, using a system called Destiny Points. Wonder how robust it is. GW made a note, recommending to multiply the "Destiny points" used by 10, if you wanted to use the hero in Matched Play. I doubt it'll be allowed for most tournaments, but I hope it'll be cool.

I'm pretty excited for it, seems like a great tool for narrative play. I am doubly excited if Sam indeed designed it since I trust him to produce good results.

I want to be excited, but they still haven't figured out a way to make a Lord-Aquilor work for Skirmish.

I'm pretty excited. I love making custom characters for army lore and I'm disappointed when they can't be used.

I am extremely and pleasantly surprised they will have matched play points for the custom characters.

There's supposed pics of ghb points going around. No changes to obr and fec seems dubious though

Any leaks about Greenskinz still in AoS? That's what I want to know.

I do like the hero creation part. Definitely going to bring Grimgor Ironhide back for matched play points.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am extremely and pleasantly surprised they will have matched play points for the custom characters.

I was actually surprised to see that. The article says it's 10x how many Destiny Points you've used, so between 200 and 400 at max spending. That seems pretty reasonable for custom characters!

Can't confirm the veracity of this, but supposedly this is the full extent of changes.

In essence, problem units were ignored or barely touched, and a handful of garbage units were slightly improved.

Shocked even obvious changes like increasing the cost of Phoenix Guard, were skipped.

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/107092146_2783815275184221_7928044862809172012_n.png?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=ZFmv9fd8vhUAX-HCSpn&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=e9abf189bb4a6fee98ba20daf287d966&oe=5F235750

I think there may be more.

https://mobile.twitter.com/chumphammer/status/1279130640462405632?s=21

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/107092146_2783815275184221_7928044862809172012_n.png?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=ZFmv9fd8vhUAX-HCSpn&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=e9abf189bb4a6fee98ba20daf287d966&oe=5F235750

For Seraphon... Sallies are still going to wreck, just means we cant take as many skinks. Trog is not down enough in my opinion, though he may have a place at 220.

Carnoblood and Skink chief on Steg seem like good changes for them though.

Some leaks I saw for Tzeentch and OBR


Immortis Guard, Stalkers, and both Morghast types are down 20 pts. No other changes.

Flamers, the Changling and Pink Horrors up 20 pts each.

None of those Tzeentch changes do jack squat at preventing it from being a hellscape of a negative player experience, for 95% of opponents.

Must have an advocate on the team. Anyone seen Gobbo changes?

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
None of those Tzeentch changes do jack squat at preventing it from being a hellscape of a negative player experience, for 95% of opponents.

I mean the standard reply here is "they aren't dominating tournaments so those people just need to make better lists".

But I agree with you. However the game (both 40k and aos) are a minefield of negative play experiences if you are playing with the wrong people. There's the challenge.

OBR buffs, huh?

Buff to the models not used. Immortis Guard, Stalkers and Morghasts pale in comparison to the rest of OBR. Guard could do with a points bump... or just a nerf to Petrifex.

The Vanguard Auxillary Chamber looks mighty fine right now.

Also, kind of over points up/down every year. Get to the root of alot of the issues and buff/nerf Warscrolls, battalions, sub-factions instead. Something like the Plague Monk adjustment should be the norm.

Honestly most of the Ossiarch problems are just Petrifax getting that blanket +1 to all saves which is an insane bonus in an army that already has generally good saves to start with.

GW seems to like leaving elephants in the room with regard to balance like Petrifax and Depravity in Slaanesh. It's a shame because otherwise both tomes are not too bad overall.

The worst thing is that you can't really fix either with point changes.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly most of the Ossiarch problems are just Petrifax getting that blanket +1 to all saves which is an insane bonus in an army that already has generally good saves to start with.

GW seems to like leaving elephants in the room with regard to balance like Petrifax and Depravity in Slaanesh. It's a shame because otherwise both tomes are not too bad overall.

The worst thing is that you can't really fix either with point changes.

More or less this.

The Petrifax they can potentially FAQ somehow as it is a sub-faction bonus, but with Depravity they need to rework the entire tome. I tried out HoS during lockdown using TTS and it's a very very boring tome that relies all too much on having many keepers farming DP. Only exception being Sylleske, but then you are playing HoS with S2D.

Honestly I think most of the Slaanesh units are ok balance wise. I don't think you have to rebuild the tome to make it work ,the main issue is that you've no reason to take anything but keepers or at least anything bit majority leaders and to summon keepers/leaders.

Any other option or focus is basically throwing away potential power and most gamers rank the high depravity focused armies (Esp keeper) as overpowered.



Personally I'd make it so depravity is generated based on all damage assigned including kills. Right now if you play a skaven army with majority clan rats you'll generate far less depravity than a stormcast army; because the skaven is throwing 1 wound models that won't generate depravity at you whilst the Stormcast almost every unit is generating depravity.

The second change is I'd make it generated by all Battletome Slaanesh units. Then you've at least made it so that any unit can generate it and there's no bias for multi-wound models. That removes the two big glaring issues with it and whilst the depravity table would need adjusting; at least it would be a bit more evenly balanced.

Of course I'd still say it might need a total overhaul- but its that one element breaking the rest of the tome.

Well the Battlemage going up and Greatswords going down means my list is still the same number of points so I guess I lose nothing then.

Excellent.

Today I've spent way too much time looking for a leaked DIY hero creator. This is probably the most exciting announcement, however as a cynic...

Ladies and gentlemen place your bets how the system is going to get broken, will it be summoning, CP battery, magical shenanigans and so on.

It won't be 'broken' unless GW adds an official Destiny Point to Matched Play points chart, making it allowed to be used in any Matched Play game, without the other player agreeing to it. For now, they have it requiring permission by other players to be used.

Do you happen to have the leaks? I'd love to take a look too. Got an itch to try and recreate heroes that already exist, and see how much they cost with GW's point conversion suggestion.

So no more stacking resisting damage. I learned that works in aos on previous game. Figures it goes away before i get to try it properly

Remember that matched play is a crapshow, has always been a crapshow, and will remain a crapshow in the foreseeable future. Any expectation otherwise is unreasonable. I personally suggest being happy that there are at least SOME positive improvements.

Any list of complete leaks yet ? Or at least for Nighthaunt ?

I’m pleased that thundertusks are finally being recognized as weak compared to the stonehorns. If the 40 point drop for the huskard and 30 point drop for the riders hold true, that’s a positive for Ogors. I feel like the rest of the book is quite balanced.

I’m curious as to how my other army, Sylvaneth, will fair...

Personally I'm interested in Kharadrons and Sylvaneth, with 40k going down the toilet AoS begins to appeal and I do have a drawer full of Dryads....

I looked at leaks, then at my Skaven list... and had to wonder why they felt like those units needed to be buffed. Good god.

 Thadin wrote:
I looked at leaks, then at my Skaven list... and had to wonder why they felt like those units needed to be buffed. Good god.

Because there are a lot of them in warehouses that need to be sold? And we need the new trifecta of pain, this is a regular occurrence with every GHB release every year. Out with the old power lists, in with the new. Gotta keep up and collect every one! Is slaves to darkness improved? Or are they still largely gimp in a powerlisting environment.

 auticus wrote:
However the game (both 40k and aos) are a minefield of negative play experiences if you are playing with the wrong people. There's the challenge.

To be fair, that applies to any game (not just GW stuff) that you can point to.

I play battletech, conquest, and kings of war in an open environment and have had no issues.

If I want to play 40k or aos it has to be in a closed private group.

So I disagree that it applies to any game. At least based on my own experience, most every other non-gw game in an open environment has not been a problem. For whatever reason the various design issues and balance issues in gw games attract certain people a lot more than other games (our conquest and kings of war groups are also larger than our aos group overall so its not just a pure numbers thing where you are going to get the people that make those environments more often the more people you get, though that is logical)

 auticus wrote:
I play battletech, conquest, and kings of war in an open environment and have had no issues.

If I want to play 40k or aos it has to be in a closed private group.

So I disagree that it applies to any game. At least based on my own experience, most every other non-gw game in an open environment has not been a problem. For whatever reason the various design issues and balance issues in gw games attract certain people a lot more than other games (our conquest and kings of war groups are also larger than our aos group overall so its not just a pure numbers thing where you are going to get the people that make those environments more often the more people you get, though that is logical)

To be fair, you did say, "with the wrong people", and that can apply to any group. You're just more likely to get "wrong people" with games that have tournament setups like Warhammer, Warmachine, or X-Wing.

I haven't seen a lot of Battletech tournaments around, so they probably aren't attracting as many of the "wrong people".

Those are all fair points and I agree with you. With the exception that Kings of War in my area is 100% a tournament game and the people that play it seem to also play by a certain conduct that is absent from a lot of my region's aos or 40k players (they know when to play hardcore cut throat, and they know when to play for fun).

But yes the more tournament oriented the game I agree the more "wrong people" you can run into.

I forgot to mention Infinity, which is also predominantly a tournament game in my area; I have had no problem there either.

I think with KOW and Infinity its also that the rules and balance are a lot more tighter, so even playing the "wrong people" you can still get in some good games and not just have to sit an edition or two out because you liked the wrong faction.

And I know this has derailed the conversation from the ghb release so I will leave it at that so we can discuss the ghb release

Endless Spells being limited based on the points level of the game is a good little change.

 Charistoph wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I play battletech, conquest, and kings of war in an open environment and have had no issues.

If I want to play 40k or aos it has to be in a closed private group.

So I disagree that it applies to any game. At least based on my own experience, most every other non-gw game in an open environment has not been a problem. For whatever reason the various design issues and balance issues in gw games attract certain people a lot more than other games (our conquest and kings of war groups are also larger than our aos group overall so its not just a pure numbers thing where you are going to get the people that make those environments more often the more people you get, though that is logical)

To be fair, you did say, "with the wrong people", and that can apply to any group. You're just more likely to get "wrong people" with games that have tournament setups like Warhammer, Warmachine, or X-Wing.

I haven't seen a lot of Battletech tournaments around, so they probably aren't attracting as many of the "wrong people".

Personally, I find it happens the other way. The worst donkey caves are the people who are super invested into either the lore or painting. They take anyone who plays the game in a more thought-out way than 'pretty models go brrr' to be a lesser form of life and are impossible to deal with once they start either playing or talking.

Extremes are generally bad. Holds true here as well.

Admittedly off-topic, but this thread (plus the context of many of his other posts, but it was this thread and him mentioning Infinity that did it) has made me realize Auticus views AoS the same way I view Infinity, and that's a really strange but magical thought.

Anyways, I'm very excited for GHB2020. It does a lot of points changes to make my kharadron lists feel more comfortable, and open up a few more interesting options... but I also decided that Kharadron were completely unplayable from a model maintenance + transport standpoint. Even with magnets I'm finding myself having to repair 1 or more model every game and my ships are just in constant disrepair. Not worth it. Going to have a look through the GHB to draw inspiration for a new army, hopefully!

Rihgu wrote:
Admittedly off-topic, but this thread (plus the context of many of his other posts, but it was this thread and him mentioning Infinity that did it) has made me realize Auticus views AoS the same way I view Infinity, and that's a really strange but magical thought.

Anyways, I'm very excited for GHB2020. It does a lot of points changes to make my kharadron lists feel more comfortable, and open up a few more interesting options... but I also decided that Kharadron were completely unplayable from a model maintenance + transport standpoint. Even with magnets I'm finding myself having to repair 1 or more model every game and my ships are just in constant disrepair. Not worth it. Going to have a look through the GHB to draw inspiration for a new army, hopefully!

Just embrace it. Make them undead Kharadron or scurvy Skaven pirates that have taken over some Kharadron ships.

DIY hero creator got leaked. The system is rough around the edges and as a result the monsters feel fairly generic, with only traits setting them apart. Honestly, the DIY monster heroes don't seem that abusable at first glance (foot heroes are different issue), as it's likely you're going to get cheaper mounts in the army book you're playing.

Can't wait to put my High Warden, BsB and mage on a steed back onto the table!

By agreement will probably work better than them making it official honestly.

Will make people try harder to find a reasonable level instead of feeling empowered to take the obvious power choices.

GW games tend to attract the power tripping crowd. I don't mind paying the DIY tax but at the moment it feels the mathematic is a bit off as the end result that I've created doesn't feel all that powerful in comparison to what's in the books (CoS used for comparison), there's also no removing stats to gain points to spend elsewhere, although I can understand the concern in regard to min-max, it's also freedom taken.

Foot/mounted heroes are a bit more expensive as their legal counterparts but you can get fun builds out of them. The totem - inspire combo is great to represent a BsB and the archetypes are powerful (also free). Haven't found anything that prevents DIY heroes to get artefacts or traits.

Anyway, can't wait to pick my copy on Saturday. Maybe I'll also treat myself with a model. Hopefully we're not going to get hit by second wave of Covid-19.

If they work out to be just-a-bit-high in point cost that is perfect. It means people will use it because they like the character they made instead of it being an upgrade or filling a role the army is supposed to struggle with.

Through image leaks online, Greenskinz and Gitmob Grots (they're back) have points. But from what I looked at shows theyre under a Destruction compendium. Either way I'm happy that Greenskinz are still around points-wise.

If they are slightly overcosted more likely it will be allowed

The heroes on foot are good, it's mostly when you start tinkering with the weapons and monstrous mounts, armour, speed and so on does the allowance evaporate and the result is a bit underwhelming, but considering that you likely can also assign artefacts to them, maybe you don't need to create an absolute beast from the start.

For instance an elf mage (3 DP) on a 'steed' (8 DP), speed upgrade (2x2DP only 10" movement after the upgrades), archmage perk (+1 to cast and dispel, 3DP), mage's staff (2DP, classical weapon) is going to cost you 200 points.

 Grensche wrote:
Through image leaks online, Greenskinz and Gitmob Grots (they're back) have points. But from what I looked at shows theyre under a Destruction compendium. Either way I'm happy that Greenskinz are still around points-wise.

What will be interesting to see is if there is anything preventing Greenskinz units from being taken in the Great Waagh allegiance, because currently they can.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grensche wrote:
Through image leaks online, Greenskinz and Gitmob Grots (they're back) have points. But from what I looked at shows theyre under a Destruction compendium. Either way I'm happy that Greenskinz are still around points-wise.

What will be interesting to see is if there is anything preventing Greenskinz units from being taken in the Greah Waagh allegiance, because currently they can.

What is interesting according to the image leak it showed that Greenskinz can ally with Gloomspite Gitz, but nothing about Big WAAAGH!!.

I wouldn't be surprised if GW made it to where Greenskinz can't be used in Big WAAAGH!! I'm happy with the fact that they still have points, if not I was going to use them for Warhammer Legends Open Play.

They wouldn't need to ally with big waaagh since they can be taken as normal.

They are saying if someone uses JUST Greenskinz, they could ally with GSG. If they were using Great Waaagh allegiance abilities, they would also use that allegiance's allies.

Bought my GHB, even though I'd seen all the spoilers of stuff, I want to support the book. I wish there was a way to tell GW, "I am buying this book cause hero creator, please expand upon this!" outside of posting into the void on their Facebook.

Carnith wrote:
Bought my GHB, even though I'd seen all the spoilers of stuff, I want to support the book. I wish there was a way to tell GW, "I am buying this book cause hero creator, please expand upon this!" outside of posting into the void on their Facebook.

Have you tried the rules feedback email?

AOSFAQ@gwplc.com

I have not, but I guess I will.

That is similar to posting into the void. But someone on the other end at least can visually see it whereas in facebook they likely can't catch the 10,000 messages that pass across them per day.

Carnith wrote:
I have not, but I guess I will.

You can hit up some of the powers that be on Twitter as well. Its been pretty popular on my feed.

Can someone tell me if you can take lumineth as allies for deepkin.

 Astmeister wrote:
Can someone tell me if you can take lumineth as allies for deepkin.

Right now no, Deepkin can ally into Lumineth tho. They might FAQ it at some point.

What a pity. I have 1000 deepkin and just 500 lumineth.

 Knight wrote:
The heroes on foot are good, it's mostly when you start tinkering with the weapons and monstrous mounts, armour, speed and so on does the allowance evaporate and the result is a bit underwhelming, but considering that you likely can also assign artefacts to them, maybe you don't need to create an absolute beast from the start.

For instance an elf mage (3 DP) on a 'steed' (8 DP), speed upgrade (2x2DP only 10" movement after the upgrades), archmage perk (+1 to cast and dispel, 3DP), mage's staff (2DP, classical weapon) is going to cost you 200 points.

The gargatuan monster is busted tbh. The upgrades for the mount itself are half the DP price of the upgrades to the character for a better baseline damage profile. You can get a 3+ save Ethereal, run and charge, gargatuan with about a bloodthirster of unfettered fury combat statline and either make it a mage, priest, or +1 attack buffer for 400pts. The other end is also pretty nuts considering you can make a 30pt mage or a 30pt commander that gives you +1 attack or +1 save.

If you kind of hover in the middle, the character is fine. But the greater than 300 point range goes a little wacky and the less than 80pt range is straight busted. Especially if whatever you're doing lets you take more than 1.

Don't know if anyone who has the book can confirm, but I read that for matched play Heroes made using this get rounded up in cost to 200 or 400 pts.

If true, that stops the cheap characters being at all breakable.

ERJAK wrote:

 Knight wrote:
The heroes on foot are good, it's mostly when you start tinkering with the weapons and monstrous mounts, armour, speed and so on does the allowance evaporate and the result is a bit underwhelming, but considering that you likely can also assign artefacts to them, maybe you don't need to create an absolute beast from the start.

For instance an elf mage (3 DP) on a 'steed' (8 DP), speed upgrade (2x2DP only 10" movement after the upgrades), archmage perk (+1 to cast and dispel, 3DP), mage's staff (2DP, classical weapon) is going to cost you 200 points.

The gargatuan monster is busted tbh. The upgrades for the mount itself are half the DP price of the upgrades to the character for a better baseline damage profile. You can get a 3+ save Ethereal, run and charge, gargatuan with about a bloodthirster of unfettered fury combat statline and either make it a mage, priest, or +1 attack buffer for 400pts. The other end is also pretty nuts considering you can make a 30pt mage or a 30pt commander that gives you +1 attack or +1 save.

If you kind of hover in the middle, the character is fine. But the greater than 300 point range goes a little wacky and the less than 80pt range is straight busted. Especially if whatever you're doing lets you take more than 1.

To be fair, that still sounds better than having skarbrand run at you and let loose.
Waiting on my book still but it really doesn’t look insanely bad (was expecting a mess)

Also, keep in mind that running them in matched play requires consent, so it likely won’t see the light of day in any competitive environment.
Unless someone tweaks it slightly for balance, I just see it being banned.

I do agree though that the cheap characters can be abused for what they can do.


I’m also interested in this as it could be good to finally get rules again for Kholek.

I've been playing about with the Anvil a bit today. Its pretty cool. More robust than I expected.

I think my one issue really is that the characters you can make are a bit...stock. Sure, you can get some things in combinations that weren't possible before. A stormcast wizard on a monster, a vampire priest, and so on. Ethereal... everything.

But all the individual abilities you can pick feel a bit generic. Stat increases, exploding 6s, a few different but similar ways to dish out a few mortal wounds.

I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but I would have liked a bit more creativity in the choices of abilities. A few more spells, a few more prayers, command abilities, and just some more off the wall possibilities.

I had hoped they'd do two or three special ancestry abilities and heirlooms (artefacts), gargantuan beasts being split into two categories (light and heavy) and wizards being able to theme their spells a bit more.

It' works as it is, I'd appreciate more freedom even if it'd come with the risk of not all options being of equal value to all.

 Stux wrote:
I've been playing about with the Anvil a bit today. Its pretty cool. More robust than I expected.

I think my one issue really is that the characters you can make are a bit...stock. Sure, you can get some things in combinations that weren't possible before. A stormcast wizard on a monster, a vampire priest, and so on. Ethereal... everything.

But all the individual abilities you can pick feel a bit generic. Stat increases, exploding 6s, a few different but similar ways to dish out a few mortal wounds.

I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but I would have liked a bit more creativity in the choices of abilities. A few more spells, a few more prayers, command abilities, and just some more off the wall possibilities.

To be fair, nothing is holding them back from adding army related traits in other books or downloads.
Would be cool to see army specific stuff being added to the hero maker.

I would rather them start with a more 'bland' base as it is easier/possible to actually balance. Funky stuff can be added later if the system proves popular. I am very glad they did it this way, Bottle has clearly delivered again.

ERJAK wrote:

 Knight wrote:
The heroes on foot are good, it's mostly when you start tinkering with the weapons and monstrous mounts, armour, speed and so on does the allowance evaporate and the result is a bit underwhelming, but considering that you likely can also assign artefacts to them, maybe you don't need to create an absolute beast from the start.

For instance an elf mage (3 DP) on a 'steed' (8 DP), speed upgrade (2x2DP only 10" movement after the upgrades), archmage perk (+1 to cast and dispel, 3DP), mage's staff (2DP, classical weapon) is going to cost you 200 points.

The gargatuan monster is busted tbh. The upgrades for the mount itself are half the DP price of the upgrades to the character for a better baseline damage profile. You can get a 3+ save Ethereal, run and charge, gargatuan with about a bloodthirster of unfettered fury combat statline and either make it a mage, priest, or +1 attack buffer for 400pts. The other end is also pretty nuts considering you can make a 30pt mage or a 30pt commander that gives you +1 attack or +1 save.

If you kind of hover in the middle, the character is fine. But the greater than 300 point range goes a little wacky and the less than 80pt range is straight busted. Especially if whatever you're doing lets you take more than 1.

Its not busted, just to have a Garg mount, 3+, ethereal, and run and charge with a 4DP hero on them is 35DP out of your 40DP. That 350pts for something just to have a 3++ run and charge with fly. To make him even able to really be worth it in combat you'll need to buy 50pts more into Upgrades. Then its 400pts for something that might not kill a 30man unit of Ungors.

The real broken thing is buying more CP and a +1 to hit command trait. You can have 80pts hero give you 1CP,s ome armies rather have CP than heroes. Heck for BoC i can go Gavespawn with 4 Heroes to get 4 more CP then have 4 heroes able to give out +1 to hit. My Bestigors can now get +4 attacks turn 1 or turn 2 and still have 2-3 CP left over.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would rather them start with a more 'bland' base as it is easier/possible to actually balance. Funky stuff can be added later if the system proves popular. I am very glad they did it this way, Bottle has clearly delivered again.

If the plan is to expand on it, then great. It certainly had crossed my mind, and if it is the case then I look forward to it!

Erring on the side of caution was indeed necessary. Otherwise they risk a situation like with 40k, where most people have forgotten they had rules in Chapter Approved because they were so janky.

All I'm really saying is that I just don't find it very exciting currently. I totally appreciate the line between exciting and broken is a fine one to walk, but knowing that doesn't make it exciting.

I'd love to see things more expanded. I started working with a friend on some more theme'd stuff. Khorne priests should have dispells and unbinds, and a way to grant them to them should happen.

Well as a cities dwarf player this is pure win for me, longbeards were already cheap, but now with their drop and the KO drops I'm going to have more flexibility with builds.

That sounds good. Overlords/oldschool dwarfs are exactly what I'm interested in.

I mostly like the hero builder. Yeah, it's wonky around the edges, and I'd like to see expansions with faction specific upgrades - as an OBR player I'd especially like to have an official option for the 'Liege' keyword. But it's mostly nice, and is very specifically an optional, opponents consent required ruleset, so the problematic edge cases won't be hassling the competitive scene.

On the other hand, I find the new realm rules to be extremely disappointing, and they're not an easily ignored optional change. Yeah, the realm lores had some problematic spells in need of removal or nerfing, and the implementation of them was entirely wrong - you should have chosen them like faction spells, one per wizard, based on your realm of origin, with maybe a +1 to cast, or -1 casting DC, on the matching realm, instead of having the whole lore dumped on each and every wizard based on whatever realm you happen to end up with. So yeah, changes were needed, but the core idea, adding some extra spell variety to the core game, and giving factions without tomes or with underwhelming faction lores something to do with their wizards? That was a good, important idea, and I'm super sad to see it abandoned. Same with the magic items. Yes, there were too many, and some were problematic, but that would have been easy enough to fix, and at least there the implementation was correct - replacing items you might otherwise choose, with the effect of giving factions with few or bad item choices some actual options to play with. Instead they've been cut back to one per realm, and those one per realm are so underwhelming that few if any of them will ever see play.

And yeah, the realmscape effects and tables were wonky, too hasslesome and random for matched play, but the replacement effects, just adding a generic terrain effect to scenery on the table, are dull to the point of hardly being worth bothering with, and in some cases are actively bad and unfluffy. Like, Null terrain for Shyish? Because if the epicenter of the necroquake that has dominated the AoS lore in 2e should be known for anything, it should be for how weak and easily suppressed the magic is there, and for how endless spells are hardly ever seen there because they fizzle the moment they come within an inch of any of the realms natural terrain. When you look at the effect instead of the name, Null terrain is literally the least appropriate rule for Shyish out of the entire table. Deadly, Sinister, or Damned would have been dramatically better choices, as would Arcane - thematically the literal opposite of Null. Other realms aren't all that much better, though Shyish is probably the worst, not helped by the new Shyish realm spell being a bonus to casting endless spells, which the scenery rules will subsequently eat, or the realm CA being a shrug which undead factions can't use due to the new rules against layered shrugs, putting them at a mechanical disadvantage on their home field, which is dumb.

It's not a huge problem given how minimal the rules left over are, but it's still kind of depressing. The previous realm rules weren't great, they needed adjustment, but there were good important ideas at the core of them, and the new realm rules abandon those ideas and their potential entirely, and what little is left over is still somehow actively bad. IMO, leaving the realm rules unchanged and simply removing them from matched play altogether would have been better than this.



Otherwise... multiplayer stuff seems interesting, and I'd like to give the new Meeting Engagement scenarios a try. Again, I quite like the custom character rules and hope to see an expansion on them in the future. Points changes... don't seem great, really, but I'm not too judgmental about that given how COVID has chocked off feedback from the competitive scene.

pm713 wrote:
That sounds good. Overlords/oldschool dwarfs are exactly what I'm interested in.

Tempest keeps got some interesting tricks, extra 3 inches on the first turn can get you quite far toward an objective, -1 to hit helps against first turn shooting.

Using the seerstone and taking a hero to act as an advisor can get you a nice amount of command points.

And as KO units are part of the army you could use ally allocation to include some slayers if you like.

Sorry if it was discussed here already but..
What was the reasoning behind the change to saving throws in matched play in GH 2020 aka the 'special rule' added.

I mainly play StD or Nurgle and it makes a lot of stuff now redundant/nerfed, despite only recently being printed. I thought the armies were already middle tier at best.
I had a game last week and we house ruled not to use it due to the book just coming out, but going forward we will follow the rules.

I'm not into the tournament scene are the top lists stacking lots of extra saves? Wondering who the nerf was directed at.

I don't believe it's anything specific or tournament breaking, its just removing annoying FNP stacking which could get to abusive levels depending on the army.

Ossiarchs with their 3+ rerolling mortek guard could get a 5+ FNP against mortal wounds on top of their 6+ Death Save against all wounds.

Phoenix guard could stack FNP saves, IIRC.

Skaven Verminlord Warpseer has a 4+ Armor Save, a 5+ FNP built in to the model, and a built-in reroll on all save rolls. Then he could take a 5+ FNP relic, and every wound dealt to the Warpseer needed to go through a 4+, a 4+, a 5+ then a 5+ save to do any damage. Mortal wounds would skip the first two 4+ saves, but still.

It's could also be a game speed thing. You could stack various bonuses and penalties on armor saves and they're still just one roll of the dice, maybe two with rerolls. Stack three negates on the same unit and that was three extra rolls every time.

I do think it's a rather unnecessary nerf to many units, one that was not compensated for in the points, and one that dramatically devalues a lot of shrug rules and leads to some thematically counter-intuitive results. The Shyish command ability, for instance, is now worthless for death armies, which puts them at a comparative disadvantage on their own home field terrain.

So while I'm not opposed to the rule in principle, a lot of existing shrug rules, and points values of units with shrugs, should maybe be rethought once GW gets some feedback from people playing with these rules.

At the worst it could get, before Erratas you could make an armor save on an Ossiarch lord, make a FNP save, then roll to pass the damage off to a unit of Immortis Guard. Then, the Immortis Guard could roll a 5+ FNP if it's a mortal wound, then roll their own Death Save. Thankfully, all of those things have been errata'd out.

I think it is more about cleaning things up and streamlining play in the middle/casual areas. It isn't really going to impact the top-tier tourney stuff anyways.

 Thadin wrote:
At the worst it could get, before Erratas you could make an armor save on an Ossiarch lord, make a FNP save, then roll to pass the damage off to a unit of Immortis Guard. Then, the Immortis Guard could roll a 5+ FNP if it's a mortal wound, then roll their own Death Save. Thankfully, all of those things have been errata'd out.

This is not accurate. The immortis bodyguard roll comes "before" you allocate the wound or mortal wound, and thus before the character they're protecting would be able to apply any shrugs/wards/fnp saves.

The old legions of nagash necromancer ability to bounce wounds away and battalion ability to shift wounds from nagash to morghasts (though the latter was too expensive to really see pitched battle play) used to work like you describe, but iirc both have been erratad to work like the ossiarch bodyguard rule, where redirecting wounds to other units comes before any ward saves.

The General's Handbook Errata and Designers' Commentary have been posted on Warhammer Community.

Thanks for the heads up Ghaz!

Edit: Summoned units do not have a battlefield role, good to know.

What do you mean they don't have a role?

They won't count as battleline, leader, behemoth, etc for any effects/rules that may require it. So, if a mission says only Battleline units can hold a point, you can't summon plaguebearers and hold that point even though they are Battleline when written onto your list.

Cool thanks for the heads up.