General's Handbook 2017 Announced

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.

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

I really don't know what they would change. They might not change anything. I do think that since AoS and 40k now have somewhat similar rules (definitely different, but somewhat similar) they might use each system as a way to test out new things for the other.

I still haven't played AoS yet so I don't have strong opinions about how things should be.

**Carnikang**

Siege Battles maaaaan, maybe they'll re-release this behemoth from the vault!

Spoiler:

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

Sieges do seem like they would be really fun, although my Nighthaunt might be at an unfair advantage.

**auticus**

The old 5th edition siege book had a lot of depth-rules. I'm hoping for something similar. I added them to azyr empires for siege battles in AOS and they are fun, but of course "official" rules would go much farther in the community.

**Wayniac**

I am hyped beyond hype for GHB2017. I have been dabbling a little bit in 40k but I am much more drawn to the AOS aesthetic and feel, so I'm hopeful that it fixes a lot of the issues to make AOS a solid game, because right now I'd much rather play it than 40k and while 40k will be way more popular, I have at least one friend and maybe 2-3 others who share my love of AOS.

On the subject of rules, I think there are three major "issues" with AOS when they all are taken together; each one is not that bad individually, but the combination in my view is problematic overall:

1) Shooting into combat; the issue here is that there is zero way to really counter the high-powered shooting units. You have to take it on the chin every turn until you wipe them out or they wipe you, and a lot of the biggest offenders in the shooting category are also fairly hardy in combat as well. Armies with little or no shooting basically have to eat shots the entire game; maybe completely stopping shooting in combat would make some melee armies too good (e.g. Ironjawz who can charge first turn with Ironfist), so maybe a penalty instead, but something to "reward" you for engaging enemy units and provide a semblance of strategy, traditionally you engaged missile troops to stop them shooting and other than Age of Sigmar I can't think of a single other wargame that has a similar rule.

2) Hero sniping; This is primarily an issue for armies that are wholly dependent on heroes, namely Bloodbound and FEC and possibly a couple others. Granted I'm biased because I play FEC, but having my army essentially be useless if you kill 3-4 characters doesn't feel like a good game, and the extremely lax (dare I say lazy) LOS rules means that it's almost impossible to prevent it no matter how hard one tries. This is something I do NOT think can be made a global rule because of the outliers (e.g. Kunnin Rukk, which is a problem in and of itself, Tzaangor Shaman, etc.)

3) Double Turn; probably the most controversial, I actually like the double turn in theory, but the problem is combined with the other two it becomes super strong if you get it, because that's two rounds where your opponent can do nothing but take it on the chin and hope that you don't wipe him out. It's bordering very close to a "negative play experience" and I think, despite it being an interesting part of the game, is the most likely to be removed since it's so unlike anything else, including its sister game.

**WarbossDakka**

Freaking SIEGE battles? Now that's what I'm talking about! GHB 2017 is getting 2 thumbs up from me so far - we'll just have to see how well the points are balanced out.

**DarkBlack**

NinthMusketeer wrote:Not really. It's possible for any random AoS game to end up with fixed initiative simply as a result of the rolls. The mechanics don't change, the way the phases work don't change, etc. Tactics would, but that isn't a gameplay mechanic, and the rule of 1 for spells had more of a dramatic impact than fixed initiative would anyway. While great fun at times, in a tournament setting the idea is to match players such that their skill is the greatest determining factor in winning a match; as long as random initiative exists that will not be true. I resent that the balance of my competitive games has to be sacrificed to subsidize people who can't win without a double turn. If I secure turn choice and go second the first round, I know I have a 50/50% chance of winning outright because of the double regardless of who is sitting across the table and how skilled they may be. It's so demotivating that I don't even want to play in tournaments because I can't actually test my skills there.

It might be the worst offender, but random initiative is not the only rule that makes Warhammer games swing so wildly. Any ability that lets you simply remove models or have devastating results on the right rolls has that effect. Warhammer has not shortage of those. Honestly, if you want a game that reflects skill and is well suited to competitive play, I would not recommend anything by GW.

Bottle wrote:I think Hulksmash is saying it creates swingy and exciting games on the lower/middle tables and requires high level strategy on the top tables because it forces a player to account for the luck going with or against them if they are to succeed.

The games stay swingy and exciting, some people are just better at taking calculated risks. Sorry to say, but I think Warhammer games have a significant luck component, enough to be the deciding factor often (more often the closer the skill level, but still).

GW's design philosophy (as far as I can tell) seems to be geared toward being exciting and "epic"; which is fine and loads of fun, but does not lend itself toward balance and rewarding skill.

**Ghaz**

From Warhammer Community...

Commanders of Death armies in Warhammer Age of Sigmar have a lot to look forward to in the new General’s Handbook. Followers of the Great Necromancer can expect updated command traits, artefacts and allegiance abilities. You’ll be able to raise a variety of powerful and versatile armies – from classic hordes of shambling minions to an elite core of ancient necromantic constructs.

Death factions benefit hugely from the new allies system, able to harness powerful allegiance abilities and battleline choices while making full use of the great synergies available within the Grand Alliance. A Deathlords army, for example, can make use of powerful Mortarchs and use a strong core of Morghast Archai while allying in a key monster like the Terrorgheist that would otherwise be difficult to summon. Similarly, many Death factions can add a caster like Arkhan the Black or a handy Necromancer to their forces, providing key magical support; this is great in a force that otherwise lacks wizards, like the Nighthaunts or Deathrattles.

Excitingly, several Death factions are gaining completely new Allegiance Abilities. Flesh-eater Courts armies can now choose a powerful Delusion that applies to the whole force, like The Royal Hunt or Defenders of the Realm, and have command traits and artefacts to further arm your heroes. Your Abhorrant Ghoul Kings just got deadlier.

Nighthaunt forces make powerful and otherworldly armies in the new General’s handbook. They are capable of deploying to the battlefield in the middle of the game or even turning one of their Cairn Wraiths or Tomb Banshees into a Wizard. If you choose the Nighthaunt allegiance, you’ll also be able to benefit from Hexwraiths as battleline units, allowing for a whole army of spectral riders to run down your foes with. Overall, the Nighthaunts are a surprisingly fast and hard hitting army.

Finally, the Soulblight are a versatile elite army, taking advantage of some of the strongest Death heroes, in the form of loads of Vampire Lords, as well as hard-hitting units such as the Blood Knights. You’ll also be able to pick a bloodline for your Vampires indicating if they hail from an ancient clan of Necromancers or a draconic order of knights and giving them powerful traits. We’ll be taking a closer look at these guys in a later preview, so watch this space.

One small but significant change that’s going to be great for Death armies in the new edition is Massive Regiments. This new addition to matched play is aimed at making horde units more viable by offering players a points discount when they take a unit at its full size; you’ll want to take your Skeleton Warriors in units of 40 and your Zombies in units of 60.

**Wayniac**

Not too happy about pushing Death towards hordes, even if it makes sense. Also, this makes me really really hope there is something to address character sniping as without them, FEC are still going to be lackluster, and you can just make any deep striking Nighthaunts useless by killing the tomb banshees and/or cairn wraiths.

**EnTyme**

Wayniac wrote:
Not too happy about pushing Death towards hordes, even if it makes sense. Also, this makes me really really hope there is something to address character sniping as without them, FEC are still going to be lackluster, and you can just make any deep striking Nighthaunts useless by killing the tomb banshees and/or cairn wraiths.

If you're referring to the Massive Regiments at the end, they don't say it's unique to Death, just something Death will benefit from.

**auticus**

Hmmm. So skeleton hordes, which are already operating on a discount, will get more of a discount.

Lol.

(to clarify: 10 skeletons cost whatever points. 20 skeletons are that twice, 30 skeletons that three times, etc. but 20 skeletons get a bonus to fight and 30 get more of a bonus to fight and you pay no points for this as it is)

**Bottle**

It's a curious change, as you point out Auticus you're already penalising yourself by not taking them in their max amounts, and now with a discount on top of that - doubly so.

Looks like I'll need to get a lot more skeletons for my Death!

Movement trays are also going to be a must.

Do you think we can expect 'Massive Regiments' for all battleline that cost <100 per block?

**FrozenDwarf**

well, that change for nighthaunt was LONG overdue and should have been included when the alliance book was released....

never the less, now the black coach finaly can be used if we can get a reliably amount of necros. ( i have to make a conversion of it tough, the model is horribly outdated)
but whit the change to hexes, does this mean that we now get 2 battle line units or will spirit hosts be removed as battle line unit?

**auticus**

This is the exact opposite of balancing the game. This is making it kind of like 8th edition WHFB... where you are stupid if you aren't taking a giant horde.

I like hordes. Don't get me wrong. But I like balanced games more. I'm not seeing why you would never do this, or how this fits into the matched play mantra.

Perhaps there is more that has not been revealed that I am missing that will make this make sense to me, because right now this is aggravating.

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

auticus wrote:
Perhaps there is more that has not been revealed that I am missing that will make this make sense to me, because right now this is aggravating.

Maybe the new missions will heavily favor MSU?

**JohnHwangDD**

The AoS horde rules work fine for ranked formation play:
- many extra bodies cheer instead of rolling dice; but
- a few actual fighters roll better instead of more.

It's stupid for open formation skirmish.

**auticus**

It turns a unit of 30 skeletons and gives them like 90 attacks. If that is supposed to be, then cool, but make them cost correctly! Make them cost like a model that would have 3 attacks! Not discount it!

**EnTyme**

Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.

**NinthMusketeer**

I loved everything until the very last line. That is the OPPOSITE of what hordes need. Like others have mentioned, the units were already getting an effective point reduction as they went up in size because the models became worth more. Units like that being maxed out for effectiveness beyond their cost is already a problem (see Grots) and something like this will make it immensely worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EnTyme wrote:
Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.

The line was always 'elites are favored, with the exception of those hordes with size-based scaling rules' and GW added a rule to help the exception rather than the units that needed it. Me and Auticus were even calling out stuff like 60-man grot units as too strong before they appeared in the tournament meta. If this new horde rule applied only to units that did not have scaling effectiveness it would be a completely different matter altogether.

**Hulksmash**

I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.

**auticus**

EnTyme wrote:
Player complains about specific elite units (Kurnoths, Skyfires, etc.) being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds rule that would encourage use of large horde units in addition to elites. Player complains about horde units being favored in the meta. I do not envy GW.

My complaint is that their balance is garbage and that they were supposed to be fixing things and tightening up balance... not making it worse.

"Player complains about specific units being broken powerful and thus being overrepresented in the meta. GW adds a rule that busts large horde units. Player complains about specific units being broken powerful and thus overrepresented in the meta."

Fixing the game does not mean making other units broken too. That is the opposite of balance. I made mention of that GHB release day one when I noticed that all of the units that get better with size were costed as if they had no bonus at all. When other comps had scalling costs for these abilities, the tournament guys that were behind the ghb said that that was too complicated and it would come out in the wash.

Your misrepresentation of my complaint, however, garners a sweet 5 stars out of 5.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:
I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.

THey most certainly aren't overcosted when you horde them out. Spreadsheet their cost out. Skeletons are costed as if they were base 10 skeletons. Adding more you are still paying what you'd pay if they had no bonus.

**EnTyme**

And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.

**NinthMusketeer**

Hulksmash wrote:
I would argue a lot of the "horde" units are overcosted even when you currently horde them out. Because you're already paying for the bonus but you lose if if you drop below 50% etc. I'd prefer they just drop the point value of the units or do a 100/10, 190/20,270/30 but I'll take this because I'm already paying for an ability that disappears with a bit of work.

What it needs to be is the opposite. What you say here is an issue; the unit loses effectiveness as it loses models. Accordingly, the unit should be cheaper at smaller sizes and more expensive at larger ones. Going with your example, 90/10, 190/20, 300/30 would be more balanced than having a flat cost-per-10. I often make my armies using PPC (which scales costs like this) and I can say on the tabletop it works really well. It goes for both ends; the small units actually have a cost representing their effectiveness, verses the current system where small units are points-inefficient, medium units are fine, and large units are too strong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EnTyme wrote:
And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.

If you have a flat cost certain sizes will be over/under simply because of the math. And trust me, he's done the math.

**EnTyme**

It makes sense to me that the units meant to be taken in large quantities are meant to be balanced at their maximum size for just that reason. You aren't meant to take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're meant to take a unit of 30-40. Why wouldn't you encourage people to take them in large numbers?

**NinthMusketeer**

Ideally people could take them at any size they wanted and the unit would be effective. Why force people to take the unit in huge numbers for them to work right? A lot of people simply don't want to buy, assemble, and paint that many models, let alone move them around the table.

**Wayniac**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ideally people could take them at any size they wanted and the unit would be effective. Why force people to take the unit in huge numbers for them to work right? A lot of people simply don't want to buy, assemble, and paint that many models, let alone move them around the table.

As someone who doesn't want to buy, assemble, paint and move that many models around the table, I 100% agree. That's why I hate the "better at 20+" rules in general, especially since for Matched Play it means you need the next highest level so one casualty doesn't remove the bonus.

**auticus**

EnTyme wrote:
And from what information are you basing your assertion of what is over/undercosted? If you've seen the new points costs, please feel free to share them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love the chance to go ahead and adjust my army lists to fit the new costs.

Thats why I posted above "unless I'm missing something"... I'm going off of the old point values.

If their old point values remain the same and math shows that they pay less for their abilities at max size than other models of comparable statlines, then a discount on top of that would make them more undercost.

t makes sense to me that the units meant to be taken in large quantities are meant to be balanced at their maximum size for just that reason. You aren't meant to take a unit of 10 skeletons, you're meant to take a unit of 30-40. Why wouldn't you encourage people to take them in large numbers?

Ok - so again... the issue is balance. Matched play is supposed to entirely be about balance. Balance is supposed to be the #1 thing about matched play. Encouraging people to take more models by making them grossly undercost is the opposite about caring about balance.

I don't care that horde units get more powerful. I think thats awesome. Just pay the points cost for that added awesome.

You know what else was busted about AOS pre-ghb? Summoning. Why? Because summoning was a mechanism to get free points.

If we're going to go down the rabbit hole of giving already-discounted units more discounts to encourage giant units, why bother with reserve points? Why not just also let summoning go back to free stuff... because discounted blobs of hordes is essentially free stuff.

This assumes that skeleton costs and any other unit that gets free buffs didn't change in point value.

I know that the units were given discounts not only from spreadsheeting the entire game out and seeing what skeletons pay point per model with their statline vs every other thing in the game, but because the originating comp packet that GHB is based on had said they weren't going to cost units that get better because its too complicated and wasn't needed and that it was ok to have them grow in power but not pay anything for it because thats how AOS rolls.

**EnTyme**

I think we're aiming for different types of balance here. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit off topic though, so I may make a separate thread later when I have the time to fully flesh out my thoughts, but first I do want to clarify something, Auticus. I respect your opinion about this game as much as just about anyone I see on this forum or the community at large, so don't mistake my comments as disrespect. You're very knowledgeable, and I know you put a lot of effort into you comp. This goes for you, too, Ninth.

My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.

**Hulksmash**

This is a bit OT but curious Auticus because I wasn't around for the initial launch of AoS since without points no one in my area played and I didn't have the time to launch a group. When you spread sheet it out I'm assuming you were doing stats and basic abilities across the board. Were synergies included in your calculations for points?

The main reason I ask is that while I do see hordes of goblins because they work in a specific build for board control but little seen elsewhere. I simply don't see hordes of models outside of giant rats, brims, savage orc arrow boyz (good even without kunnin rukk), and those goblins in lists with beastclaw raider characters. While I never see hordes of skellies, zombies, or ghouls. That leads me to think that even with similar stats they don't serve the same purpose for their points that other horde units do in other allegiances and that even in other allegiances those types of units are used as exceptions and not the rule. I feel like those types of units (for which there is definitely a place) then do need something extra instead of being simple 10-man minimum choices.

This is why I'm good with the horde bonus. As long as it doesn't make them insanely OP, which I doubt will happen, I think it's fine because maybe we'll see at least SOME of these arch types of units that currently don't really exist.

**NinthMusketeer**

EnTyme wrote:
I think we're aiming for different types of balance here. I feel like we're starting to drift a bit off topic though, so I may make a separate thread later when I have the time to fully flesh out my thoughts, but first I do want to clarify something, Auticus. I respect your opinion about this game as much as just about anyone I see on this forum or the community at large, so don't mistake my comments as disrespect. You're very knowledgeable, and I know you put a lot of effort into you comp. This goes for you, too, Ninth.

My main issue is with the tone I've noticed when you comment about GHB2. I have no illusions that AoS will be perfectly balanced after its release, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until I've seen the adjusted points costs. After release, I'll look over any adjustment made and decide then just how good/bad GW did. I'm not going to just assume a spectacular failure before I've even seen the effort.

I think this is a fair point. I am actually very excited for the GHB2 and I'm expecting that it will put AoS in a better place overall, even in regards to balance. My biggest concern was allies but seeing that it is a specific list of factions (as opposed to anything in the same alliance) goes a long way to alleviate that concern. But I can see how I have been coming across as very negative about this release when I'm actually far from it. I'm also against jumping to conclusions in general, and I know what it looks like in regards to this new horde rule.

But on that specifically, I know that on a basic mathematical level its a bad idea, because there is no way to price a unit like skeletons such that a discount on the maximum size will improve things (the best it could be would them being overcosted in all respects save maximum size) because the warscroll already makes the largest size the most efficient. Even that said I am not upset about it more that I am disappointed that GW would impliment such a thing without actually investigating the matter. I could still be wrong (I hope so), but there would have to be a significant factor such as a new rule of one that hurts hordes for it to even out. However, going from an elite-favoring meta to a horde-favoring one is still an improvement because it is more difficult to exploit on a practical level (that is, actually putting all those models on the table).