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.

 Ghaz wrote:
Can we please keep this thread on topic (feedback for the new General's Handbook) and take the discussion about people's opinions on the game to it's own thread.

You can always hit the little triangle and actually let a mod to their job. Now you just made an off topic comment without adding any topic as well. And so did I. Remember yellow triangle with explanation mark next time.

Now to bring the topic back, just amazing how we view how the game should or should not be played. A lot of things I just don't agree with as was said previously.

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Can we please keep this thread on topic (feedback for the new General's Handbook) and take the discussion about people's opinions on the game to it's own thread.

You can always hit the little triangle and actually let a mod to their job. Now you just made an off topic comment without adding any topic as well. And so did I. Remember yellow triangle with explanation mark next time.

Who says that I didn't with the first comment dragging the thread off topic?

If this is what Sigmar looks like, then he doesn't really look "godly" to be honest

Gods are not always huge hulking monsters that tower over everything else.


1: I'd like to keep the changing initiative each turn as it really makes you think alot more.
Although i will admit that certain armies win just by getting one.

Kunnin Rukk is a good example of such.
If you can go 2nd on the 1st turn they close the gap and you pepper them with arrows, then you win initiatie and decimate whats left.


Summoning is good as it is, i find it seems to work well now.

Give everything usable a points cost please.
Certain models not having them is a pain.

Some armies need a battleline choice that doesnt require a specific allegiance or general.
Beastclaws and Ironjawz both need pure armies to have a battleline unit.

Make terrain available at a points cost (much like PPC have done)
Just throw a limit of 1 per army on the terrain.





Just off topic, but never knew grombrindal had rules until i read this.
Pretty damn good but shame he has no points, so i will never be able to use him.
Would be nice to give us his war scroll though rather than make us pay £13 for him, then have to hunt down the WD issue with his rules in it.

I know his rules are somewhere in the AoS rumors thread but I went lazy with spikeybits.

http://spikeybits.com/2016/08/new-grombrindal-the-white-dwarf-rules-spotted.html

@LightKing, don't want to derail this thread so I'll post in your Sigmar thread.

What I want is no random initiative and can't shoot out of combat and make the game work off of base to base baseline.

All this other stuff about alternating activations, nerfing shooting into nothing, giving free points for summoning or adding things from WHFB are kind of silly. The game works, a few quality of life fixes and a balance pass and we'd be good.

Agree on the base to base mechanics. Model to model is so awkward and biased to certain poses over others, round versus square be damned. Edge to edge needs to become the norm, or even measuring from the center of a base is better.

IMO that players feel the need for GW to spell out b2b in the rules before it can be used is the real problem. Seriously guys and gals its just a game, no need to take things so seriously that such a rule can't just be commonly agreed upon!

Im with ninth on the b2b.

We have simply house ruled it that its b2b, rather than models.
Since doing so we have yet to have any other issues come up in a game in regards to it.


To be fair though, alot of things thus far in AoS seem good.
There are no real game breaking issues as such.

Would like the thundertusk to have its ice dropped to D6 damage at full wounds though (i play beastclaw too) but thats a scroll issue rather than book.
Too many times im moved forward on first turn and killed a character right off the bat with it.




Also, one thing i would like is the possibility of charcters joining units.
I know it adds a large chunk of rules to the game, but as it stands its far too easy to kill off a basic charcter (wizards etc)
Naturally this would have to have limits, so a hero with the monster keyword unable to do so (no archaeon hiding in a unit of warriors etc)

And finally, make war machine crew part of the machine, like chaos dwarves have.
This causes constant issues with rules working on crew but not machine etc.
Would also prevent a few shots making the machine useless.


Other than that and making sure all models have points and available rules, im good

Yeah I would say that warmachines&crew are one of the two realy issues with rules themselves. Rolled initiative causing game-winning double turns is the other. Pretty much everything else is just a points cos vs effectiveness problem, which is a serious problem (I would say the most serious by far) but it isn't with the rules themselves.

 Jackal wrote:
Im with ninth on the b2b.

We have simply house ruled it that its b2b, rather than models.
Since doing so we have yet to have any other issues come up in a game in regards to it.


To be fair though, alot of things thus far in AoS seem good.
There are no real game breaking issues as such.

Would like the thundertusk to have its ice dropped to D6 damage at full wounds though (i play beastclaw too) but thats a scroll issue rather than book.
Too many times im moved forward on first turn and killed a character right off the bat with it.




Also, one thing i would like is the possibility of charcters joining units.
I know it adds a large chunk of rules to the game, but as it stands its far too easy to kill off a basic charcter (wizards etc)
Naturally this would have to have limits, so a hero with the monster keyword unable to do so (no archaeon hiding in a unit of warriors etc)

And finally, make war machine crew part of the machine, like chaos dwarves have.
This causes constant issues with rules working on crew but not machine etc.
Would also prevent a few shots making the machine useless.


Other than that and making sure all models have points and available rules, im good

Rather than making all these rules for characters joining units instead add a look out sir rule. On a 2+ the shooting attack hits a model that is within 3 inches instead of the character.

Totally against characters joining units. A little harder to hit or the ability to shift wounds on like a 4+ to a nearby unit is ok (you do still need to be able to take them out) but joining changes the entire game and under the current set-up would turn it into deathstar hammer.

Mostly for me it's points (the battalions primarily but some units). Adding Allegience/Artifacts/Command Traits to all existing battletome armies. Also a every battletome faction should have a standard battleline unit.

Keep Bretonnians in the book!

I dont mind not getting a shiny new AoS book, but keep them current in the points at least.

That being said, I would say Bret bowmen are a bit overpriced. You might want to look at the price comparison between KoR and the other mounted units. I like my KoR, but cant seem to get a decent return on my other mounted units.

Base to base measuring is what we use universally, the model bit makes rhings a little strange.

Heroes are already good enough IMO, for those suggesting a look out sir mechanic imagine being in the position of trying to pick off stormcast support heroes! Back in WHFB heroes needed that protection because they had merely 2 wounds, or even 3 if they were particularly good! The average AoS hero, on the other hand, has 5, and cover or even LoS blocking outright is very easy for them to get.

1) a complete balance pass on all units. There are lots of examples of units over preforming for their points cost and others that cost too many points to justify including because they can't compete point for point with alternatives. This is a shame because interesting, fun, flavorful units are getting left on the shelf and I would bet that is impacting sales of those units. I wont comment about means and methods to get this accomplished but I know there is a lot of talent in the world that can crunch every variable in this matrix and solve for the balanced solution vector.

2) Lets get some diagrams to supplement the official rules to explain some of the things giving people headaches. A solid diagram explaining how to pile in, and another for charge moves, retreat moves, these would go a long way towards mitigating some of the comprehension gap out there. The old WHFB rule books had great diagrams, shouldn't be hard to add these.

3) This will be controversial but I think that a return to the old percentage restrictions for armies would be a good move. Max 25% characters, minimum 25% battleline, one monster per 1000 points. Something like that but with a lot more thought put into it would go a long ways towards clearing out the monster mash meta, for a lot of armies the best way to be competitive is to field as many of the big behemoth monster leaders as possible with the minimum battleline tax and that is just not cool imho.

4) This is more of a request for a rules change but why not: please add some kind of cover system to give low wound "on foot" leaders better survivability in the shooting phase. I think that something like if the unit is within 3" of another friendly unit with at least 5 models then when they are targeted in the shooting phase a -2 to hit modifier applies. No line of sight shenanigans, no % of the model obscured, just if you're within 3" of a friendly unit that contains at least 5 models you get the cover save bonus.



This portion is dedicated to common requests that I do not agree with:



A) I do not want summoning to cost no points. The way summoning costs points now is good and should stay.

B) Shooting while in combat is fine and should stay. Shooting only happens half as often as the combat phase already its working fine.

C) I do not agree with the sentiment that all battleline restrictions should be removed. That moves the games further towards the monster mash meta.

D) I do not agree with the sentiment that the game needs more rules, in general. Counter charge, charge reactions, other stuff that has been floated would just bog down the game and create barriers to entry it doesn't need. The clean easy smooth, yet complex enough, rules set is refreshing, compared to say the cluster bleep that is the 40K rules set.





If you're still with me at this point then you deserve a medal, thanks so much for reading all my rambling musings.



P.S.

Please aleves and an awesome Malekith the Eternity King release of elves.

Not on FB myself, but it would be great if anyone can pass this on

I would change the only cast each spell once, to only cast each spell once on 1 target. If no target once per turn.

It opens up possibilities for wizardlists like tzeentch daemons that now have to pay a huge cost for pink horrors as battle line that in 2500 pts games will almost never cast spells.


It would be awesome to have a generic hero point calculator.
Like make your own stats for your self invented hero, choose from some "fixed" abilities (or rolled by d6) different for each alliance . and have a formula to calculate the point cost.
This would be great for narrative campaigns and opens the door for some creativity/fantasy.

I'd like to see an overhaul to Path of Glory to make it more role-player friendly and less random. Some of the rewards tables seem a bit odd too eg. getting 5 gryph-hounds.

motski wrote:
I'd like to see an overhaul to Path of Glory to make it more role-player friendly and less random. Some of the rewards tables seem a bit odd too eg. getting 5 gryph-hounds.

Actually, is there any way to even buy Gryph-Hounds outside of the Lord-Castellant?

But yes, I think Path of Glory could use some scaling adjustments.

I don't think they will actually change that much the core rules. The companion is about different ways to play.

What I would like to change;

- Optional rule about rolling to know who plays first each turn. Possibility to remove completely the change after first turn, because I'm not convinced it's "funny" to win because you play twice in a row on a single dice roll.
- Add new armies for Path to Glory (obviously)
- Add points for new armies/models/battlescrolls for Matched Play (obviously)
- Add Mordheim-like rules for a campaign where your models can evolve. I would highly recommand the inspiration from Hinterlands made by Bottle. Simple, elegant and the layout is already done. It really deserves recognition. Maybe I would just change the Wound table because I find it way too harsh, but that's just a detail!

Hmm, I think it's a good start like this.

How about being able to buy models in a unit, not blocks?? Sure the minimum is a block, but being able to buy individual
Models would be a help so I'm not 20-40 points short every match.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
How about being able to buy models in a unit, not blocks?? Sure the minimum is a block, but being able to buy individual
Models would be a help so I'm not 20-40 points short every match.

Pretty much everyone is 20-40 points short every match unless you happen to get lucky with your point values. Having said that, if you're consistently losing, it's not because you're 20 points shy of your opponent. Anyways, having the smaller army gives you a free roll on the Triumph table. That seems worthwhile and can be game changing if used at the right time. I'd prefer being 20 points shy of my opponent pretty much every time. I'd much rather have a Triumph Table roll than an extra Ardboy any day.

Leaders don't need survivability help, if you're getting your heros sniped that's on you, not the game.

ERJAK wrote:
Leaders don't need survivability help, if you're getting your heros sniped that's on you, not the game.

Except if, for example, you play Ironjaws and your high elf opponent brings three bolt throwers. Try tanking 12 wounds with a warchanter. It's just not fun to see special units taken away by saturation of fire. And if said units are vital for your army, saying: oh it diverted fire (when most likely the targetting unit would have made their points cost back) isn't an excuse.

Lord Kragan wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Leaders don't need survivability help, if you're getting your heros sniped that's on you, not the game.

Except if, for example, you play Ironjaws and your high elf opponent brings three bolt throwers. Try tanking 12 wounds with a warchanter. It's just not fun to see special units taken away by saturation of fire. And if said units are vital for your army, saying: oh it diverted fire (when most likely the targetting unit would have made their points cost back) isn't an excuse.

I have mixed feelings. I think making Heroes more survivable across the board is a mistake. It'll make many enemy Heroes feel practically immortal. However, I also play Ironjawz and know what you mean. Heroes die. It happens. It's frustrating. Plan around it. Try to start them out of line of sight and have them bring up the rear. I play an Ironfist. Realistically, I only need the Heroes alive in my first turn to give my dudes more movement. I'm usually in combat in the second turn and rarely need the extra movement after that.

If a specific model is vital to your army, you might be putting all of your eggs in one basket. Of course, with Ironjawz, I'm not sure how you're building. It's not like the Allegiance has much variety. You can have big swarms of tough Orruks, medium swarms of tougher Orruks or small swarms of tougher Orruks riding tough boars... or some combination thereof. Add Heroes for flavor. Add Battalions if you want a fancy rule or two with the understanding that the extra rules are tied to the survivability of certain models... and no Ironjaw is particularly survivable. Better than average, but not exactly great.

I'm glad Leaders are not survivable. Look at 40k: Deathstar Edition and seriously tell me you want that in the game. I really like how lynchpin models are super powerful but also able to be sniped out easier. It makes for interesting gameplay, but obviously if you play against super shooting armies it can be frustrating.

Requizen wrote:
I'm glad Leaders are not survivable. Look at 40k: Deathstar Edition and seriously tell me you want that in the game. I really like how lynchpin models are super powerful but also able to be sniped out easier. It makes for interesting gameplay, but obviously if you play against super shooting armies it can be frustrating.

I'd like to see shooting scaled back somehow. Heavy shooting armies can be extremely strong. I don't think we necessarily need major rules changes, but I'd love to see some sort of to wound penalty for shooting at longer range. Long range, low damage output can be weathered. Short range, high damage output can be weathered. Long range, high damage output feels unbalanced (cough cough, Kurnoth Hunters). It might just be a design issue. It could just be that certain units are under-costed and therefore feel overpowered. I've yet to see a game where Kurnoth Hunters don't perform very well.

And as other have mentioned, limit shooting into/ out of combat.

I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting into and out of combat. Shooting units are, in general, pretty garbage once in combat and will fold to most things that reach them. I think it's a fine balance, even if there are outliers.

If they want to tone down shooting, fiddle with the price points for too strong shooting units or units that buff shooting. That's the beauty of TGH having all points released in a regular schedule. I think Kurnoth Hunters and Stormfiends could use a hit. They're pretty expensive already but anything that's too ubiquitous should probably be looked at.

Requizen wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting into and out of combat. Shooting units are, in general, pretty garbage once in combat and will fold to most things that reach them. I think it's a fine balance, even if there are outliers.

If they want to tone down shooting, fiddle with the price points for too strong shooting units or units that buff shooting. That's the beauty of TGH having all points released in a regular schedule. I think Kurnoth Hunters and Stormfiends could use a hit. They're pretty expensive already but anything that's too ubiquitous should probably be looked at.

Agreed. I think Kurnoth Hunters and Stormfiends are particularly nasty because they're shooting units that DON'T fold in close combat. Instead of increasing their points, I'd just nerf them a bit.

Unrelated...

...and not exactly GHB specific, but I'd LOVE to see a version number on warscrolls so that I always know which version is most recent. Yes, I know I can use the app, but I'd like to be able to print out my warscrolls. The app can be super awkward when I'm actually playing.

The app doesn't even have the most recent warscroll in many cases. I know a lot of the daemons are still on their originals and don't have updated wording changes on loci, for example. So a version number would be really nice.

I think a better route of helping with character sniping would be a 'go to ground' option of some sort on heroes where they forfeit actions off their next turn to gain cover (if they don't already have it). Probably an 'always swings last' penalty in melee for the rest of the turn as well.