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.

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.