The General's Handbook II, wishes and hopes?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ZebioLizard2**

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.

**ERJAK**

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.

**Furious241**

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.