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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
. . . you have no way to stop units from shooting you to bits

An axe to the face seems to work nicely

Seriously, though, I would imagine shooting will be the next point of contention now that summoning is no longer the most broken mechanic in the game.

I don't mind shooting, but like as an army with little or no shooting (and I'd likely play another army with little or no shooting) it seems like you need some way to prevent just being shot off the board. Like in my game, my opponent had his Basilodon shoot halfway across the board, across a bunch of models to kill my Varghulf who was sitting partially in a forest attacking some Saurus.

I'm also not a big fan of rolling for initiative every turn, but I can see why that appeals just it sucks to have your opponent get to go first twice in a row on key turns

Still need to experiment. I certainly feel that AoS is as of this very moment more fun than 40k, and while I don't want to say it's more balanced, i feel there's more of a framework to theme and modify the rules because they are their core so simplistic.

I do wish my local area had more narrative campaign style approaches, maybe because that might sway some folks to not always adhering strictly to points, but the impression I got is now that GH is out, it's here to stay and is the default/only option outside of maybe demo games.

It will indeed be the default pretty much anywhere unless that area has an event organizer willing to step up and run campaign events.

I want them to expand on the Path of Glory charts to include more factions, that would be a good way to support more narrative play IMO.

Heck I've seen quite a few reasonably balanced games in my local store without points.
On topic of FEC if i was you id technically just use the warscrolls for them out of the grand alliance book as they are still legal.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

Unless of course, the king and the Varghulf are so insane that the courtiers have to 'hold up the court' of their higher ranking fellows. I mean sure they are giving commands, but everyone knows who really is leading.

I just have to say how restricting I find points again. Thinking of a 2K point army, and it's like oh I can't really field half of what I want. Funny, because I hated the idea of AoS before it had points, based on what I had heard, but now that it has points I find it less fun than I thought it would have been :(

Serves me right I guess

Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

Perhaps, but I find that they also greatly limit the creativity. Yes, taking whatever you want is bad for any semblance of balance, but I feel there should be a good balance between having restrictions without feeling too restricted, if that makes any sense.

They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

I agree. Again, I think part of the issue is everyone is thinking "Points! Like 40k/WHFB of old!" when they aren't the same thing. They look the same, they seem the same, but they are not the same. AoS points, and I've said this several times before so apologies for repeating myself (I like to discuss things, if you haven't noticed!), are more of a very rough guideline to have some way of gauging approximately equal forces. No different than that wounds system or whatever people were using beforehand. They aren't "Pick to exactly 2000 points". In fact, I think this is the reason they are so bland and rigid; to reinforce the fact that they are there as rough estimates. Points were added as an afterthought, and it seems it was done in such a way that it's clear that they aren't intended to be absolute values like the old WHFB Army Books or current 40k Codexes (Codices?) try to be.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

You are starting on the premise that list building is interesting. It isn't.

You are also jumping the conclusion that no points means somehow take what you want without regard for a good game, it doesn't.

List building is interesting to me.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I just have to say how restricting I find points again. Thinking of a 2K point army, and it's like oh I can't really field half of what I want. Funny, because I hated the idea of AoS before it had points, based on what I had heard, but now that it has points I find it less fun than I thought it would have been :(

Serves me right I guess

If you only have half what you want to play with then play a larger game at 4000 points! I don't see how point has much to do with what you are arguing about, as opposed to it being a size of battle issue which may equally apply without points.

Me again

I feel list building is interesting when it's still flexible enough to not be restrictive. For example, I really liked how KoW (1st edition, at least, not sure about 2nd) had list building. It was basically take what you want, at X points, and you get 1 hero/monster/artillery for every unit you had (I can't remember if they had to be a certain size, I think so). It wasn't so restrictive that it didn't allow for, say, an all cavalry army to represent a specific force, but it wasn't "Here's 10 dragons GG" either.

That's where I think the General's Handbook fell short. List building feels, as is common with a lot of GW games, like a tax. It doesn't allow for some themes because it requires you to take X troops, and sometimes the troops you want can only be made Battleline if you do something that might not fit your army concept either. I do like paying for Battalions; I think that's a good balancing factor to them to avoid something like 40k has where you can get tons of free stuff. It feels bland with GHB, for whatever reason.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

I agree. Again, I think part of the issue is everyone is thinking "Points! Like 40k/WHFB of old!" when they aren't the same thing. They look the same, they seem the same, but they are not the same. AoS points, and I've said this several times before so apologies for repeating myself (I like to discuss things, if you haven't noticed!), are more of a very rough guideline to have some way of gauging approximately equal forces. No different than that wounds system or whatever people were using beforehand. They aren't "Pick to exactly 2000 points". In fact, I think this is the reason they are so bland and rigid; to reinforce the fact that they are there as rough estimates. Points were added as an afterthought, and it seems it was done in such a way that it's clear that they aren't intended to be absolute values like the old WHFB Army Books or current 40k Codexes (Codices?) try to be.

I completely agree.


Also add me to the list of people who find list building to be fun/interesting. But what kills listbuilding for me more than anything else is when there are obvious good and bad choices, which is compounded in Matched Play with all options being the same; a unit with the best weapon option and full command costs the same as a unit with the worst weapon option and no command. My Night Goblin units pretty much want as many nets as I can physically put on the models, which is a fine example of list building becoming 'how much money did I spend?' which is something I really dislike. Now to be clear I still think Matched Play is a great system and a great release for GW, particularly because it is rough, as I have described previously. But it simply isn't the system for me. Though I am coming from a different perspective than many because my group has been playing with points for a year or so now, so the GHB hasn't actually introduced anything new for me beyond the basic force-org chart.

Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I don't think list building is supposed to be "an exercise in tactics and strategy". I know people use the rules different ways, but it seems clear that building your list is intended to be an exercise in creating a background and story for your force or for the particular scenario you are playing. Or even just an exercise in using the models you really like. It's not supposed to be tactical.

Don't take that as an argument that people shouldn't like tactical list building. It's just that I don't think the designers of the game intended that to be part of how forces are chosen.

For matched play it is definitely meant to be strategic - and it is in my opinion.

If i may address the core question and break the convo up a sec...

I work in a large gaming shop in the uk .
When i started 6 months ago ,AoS was dead stock.Even people stocking up for their fantasy armies were rare, we almost stopped stocking it and really only kept it on the shelves just to show that we did have it available.

6 months later it's our second biggest seller and one of the most played games after 40k and x wing. (it's easily balancing out with warmachine).
Much of this new interest came with the announcement of the generals handbook and the storm of sigmar starter set as people finally had what they felt was a "proper" rulebook and a cheap way to test the water of the game.

I have a theory that the delayed release of the GH was a deliberate tactic by GW. They knew AoS would be the biggest gak storm since sigmar had a case of beer diarrhea, so why bother releasing all your products straight up?
Instead you let the community grow with new players ,and int he m ean time you release nice little products like silver tower and mighty heroes that make people buy into AoS covertly.
A year later when the game has found its core player niche and has been accepted as not going anywhere, they tell people points and OP are coming and all those players who have picked up a few of the new releases whilst still crying for AoS to be exorcised look at their collection of WQ figures and think "well, i may as well try it..." .So they pick up the handbook and see that they can play anything they want with it! Full games, campaigns, narrative,even realm of chaos style warband skirmish, and a well times campaign making them feel like this is just the right time to build an army.

I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

Old GW... i'd agree, but the Age of Roundtree is showing too many good decisions in a row to be a fluke.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

I would say they've never really had too before. Never have they made such a drastic decision. Even new editions that were recieved as happily as a bumble bee enema didn;t destroy the core mechanics of a game.
I highly doubt they were sat thinking the game would just go off without a hitch, so it only makes sense to me that they would put in place a stepped release schedule to ensure the game grew naturally and they could respond to fans without dumping all their products into a game people would refuse to look into on principle.

People who told me 6 months ago they would NEVER collect or play AOS, who said it was rubbish and they hated it, who said they hoped it got retconned, are now playing with the generals handbook. I think had it come out on the release date it would have done no good because these arguments weren't based on any real long term insight, just fan rag. (justified, but rage non the les.)

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

Old GW... i'd agree, but the Age of Roundtree is showing too many good decisions in a row to be a fluke.

I was referring the idea that GW planned ahead knowing AoS would launch badly and had the General's Handbook lined up as a future release over a year ahead of time. I don't think that's very plausible.

It seems more likely to me that AoS launched terribly, surprised GW and served as a wake-up call, and gave Roundtree the foothold he needed to make a large number of positive changes, including listening to customers. The aforementioned listening leads to them realizing 'hey, people want X, Y, Z" and then creating the GHB to satisfy that demand.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

It seems more likely to me that AoS launched terribly, surprised GW and served as a wake-up call, and gave Roundtree the foothold he needed to make a large number of positive changes, including listening to customers. The aforementioned listening leads to them realizing 'hey, people want X, Y, Z" and then creating the GHB to satisfy that demand.

Wasn't a points/organised system mentioned during the initial release as being a future release?

 nicromancer wrote:
Wasn't a points/organised system mentioned during the initial release as being a future release?

No. Not that I recall.

Yes it was. Upon release last fall our GW manager said that there would be points coming soon. Additionally at Gen Con the GW reps said the same thing... that there would be points.

No one figured that they'd take a fan comp and turn it into official points, but thats what ended up happening.

There are quite a few differences between SCGT and the GHB I think it is important to note. On the whole armies got smaller under GHB - my old 100 Pool List doesn't now fit into 2000 points, and yesterday I was listening to a Facehammer Podcast where one of them mentioned his 150 pool army had been particulary affected as it clocked in at 3800+ points.

Monsters are also more expensive under GHB (despite Auticus and Ninth lamenting the price of them still). The Heelanhammer team mentioned they constantly told GW they thought the prices were too high, especially with objective capturing being done on "models".

Other than that the similarities are there to be seen clearly. It was mentioned that when pointing for the GHB they had a spreadsheet that compared the cost of a warscroll across all the major comps (so no doubt you two were included), but SCGT was their benchmark and go-to.

 nicromancer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

I would say they've never really had too before. Never have they made such a drastic decision. Even new editions that were recieved as happily as a bumble bee enema didn;t destroy the core mechanics of a game.

I would say that 6th edition Fantasy Battle and especially 3rd edition 40k were very drastic changes. In fact the 3rd edition of 40k was in my eyes very much like the release of AoS. Lots of streamlining in the rules, invalidation of all codexes etc. Only that in that update they also discontinued lots of units from the game (and even some armies like squats, genestealer cult, harlequins, etc.).

The rulebook had the armylists in it, but they were wildly inbalanced and simple (av14 wave serpents anyone?). It took few years to get all of the codexes out. The difference was that we didn't have the internet to rage on at that point.

 Bottle wrote:
There are quite a few differences between SCGT and the GHB I think it is important to note. On the whole armies got smaller under GHB - my old 100 Pool List doesn't now fit into 2000 points, and yesterday I was listening to a Facehammer Podcast where one of them mentioned his 150 pool army had been particulary affected as it clocked in at 3800+ points.

Monsters are also more expensive under GHB (despite Auticus and Ninth lamenting the price of them still). The Heelanhammer team mentioned they constantly told GW they thought the prices were too high, especially with objective capturing being done on "models".

Other than that the similarities are there to be seen clearly. It was mentioned that when pointing for the GHB they had a spreadsheet that compared the cost of a warscroll across all the major comps (so no doubt you two were included), but SCGT was their benchmark and go-to.

It's the internet, I will exercise my right to complain! Loudly if needed!

But more seriously, I think the winning tourney lists tell us all we need to know about monster pricing in SCGT.