• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS General's Handbook 2 Discussion

Joshua Horchler
Troglodon

Joshua Horchler

Well-Known Member
Messages
619
Likes Received
1,351
Trophy Points
93
Hello All,

Does anyone have any idea's about what the GH2 might bring? I don't even know when to expect the release. I saw a few point reductions to the Dwarves were previewed, but that's all I know so far. I wonder if they will give any love to the older Seraphon or if will we be forgotten. If a few point reductions came our way and the popular mortal wound units in the game became a little more expensive I think it would be a big boost to the old Lizards.

What are your thoughts and wish list?
 
I hope they add something for us that hints at a new unit.

Canas said:
Also, how do I change the text for a link on this forum html tags?
Click to expand...

Type the word or phrase you want as a link.
Copy the address you want.
Highlight the stuff you want to be the link.
Paste the address into the pop-up.
 
I think there will definitely be some battleplans, a few updates for clarity, points costs will change. The new models and units will have points added. Hopefully a bit more for fighting in different realms.
 
Thanks @Qupakoco

Anyways, I hope for te following:

- Magic made to be more interesting overall, and specifically more relevant to us a faction consisting of ancient startravelling wizards that summon entire armies from memory.

- summoning becoming something more than a glorified thunderstrike.

- hordes of warriors becoming a bit cheaper, or to lower the number requirements for the horde bonus. Since they're battleline it feels very much like you should field say 3 hordes to fill out your battleline. Not just 1 horde and then 2-3 minimum size units to fullfill the battleline requirements. Alternativly make it so that the battleline requirement is just "you need to spend x% of your points on battleline units" then 1 single horde unit might work.

- Our shields being made more usefull as a general purpose tool. Rend isn't common enough for it to feel very impactful compared to other shields (even if it is better in certain situations). The way Rend protection works is weird (ignore rend of -1, but rend of -2 or higher isn't impacted at all). At least add something against non-rend attacks so it doesn't feel useless against the bulk of the attacks you face in any given army.

- EoTG to be given something to make it more reliable. it's ability can backfire, it can be out of range of viable targets, it can trigger when that particular effect just isn't that usefull. It doesn't need to be particularly good, but it'd be nice if we could at least rely on it to do something. It's just too unreliable right now, especially with how low the turn limit is. Not enough chances for the RNG to balance out and Lucky and unlucky streaks...

- Mortal wounds to be made significantly rarer, and other means of dealing with armor to be made more common (could also help with the whole rend protection feeling sub-par)

- Some specialist troops to deal with specific threats. Right now some of our monsters and heroes fullfill this role, but there's no rank and file unit that we can take.Take the stormcast eternal paladins; they got a variation for monster hunting, one for dealing with hordes & one general purpose can-opener, and that just the variations within 1 unit. In comparison we're very Reliant on our behemoths & leaders to counter specific things and our rank and file saurus & skinks tend to be general purpose units. Alternativly if they want to make us very behemoth focused with the minor saurus & skinks being mostly supporting troops then we'd need behemoths to be considerably cheaper & with considerably higher limits.

That's it I think.
 
From listening to Heelenhammer last week I would expect pretty much everything in the discussion http://www.lustria-online.com/threa...l-known-master-of-cheese-infamousbeany.19055/ to get a significant points hike. Without specifics (they are under NDA) they made it very clear that the universally acknowledged under pointed stuff was going to be addressed. From the little preview regarding Tomb Kings we have had that could be pretty significant points changes elsewhere.

I can't think of anything too easily abused in the Seraphon book in matched play so we will probably see less change than elsewhere. The benefit will be indirect as OP stuff gets brought down more to our level.
 
I like the rules overall.
What I hope for are these three:
- either make mortal wounds rarer or give armies means of mitigation. Such as magic shields against mortal wounds or so
- make summoning viable again
- Buff magic a bit. The rules are too restrictive now
- would love to see allegiance abilities for some armies, including ours.
 
O I forgot one:

- An incentive to make pure armies. You have the allegiance abilities, but they're not particularly impressive which makes people fairly rapidly default to mixing armies. Given that individual armies have Obvious weaknesses & stregths in their playstyle it'd be nice if there was something encouraging people to stick t a certain army & not just take the powerfull melee warriors from one faction and support them with the archers from another.
 
Well, some armies have it really tough in that regard (thinking Ironjawz) and lore-wise I guess it makes sense for many of them to build one army together (like different Grots or Skaven clans or so I think), but for the Seraphon and some other armies I tend to agree. The allegiance abilities should probably be good enough that you really want to pick a pure army.
I don't want to play a Hurricanum with my Seraphon but looking at tournament army lists it seems it is pretty much obligatory. I don't like such things that much.
 
Aginor said:
Well, some armies have it really tough in that regard (thinking Ironjawz) and lore-wise I guess it makes sense for many of them to build one army together (like different Grots or Skaven clans or so I think), but for the Seraphon and some other armies I tend to agree. The allegiance abilities should probably be good enough that you really want to pick a pure army.
I don't want to play a Hurricanum with my Seraphon but looking at tournament army lists it seems it is pretty much obligatory. I don't like such things that much.
Click to expand...

For the ones where it makes sense lorewise; the various skaven clanns are subfactions of the bigger faction of skaven. So you'd just get various gradations of purity:

- A "pure" Chaos army
- A pure skaven army
- A pure clan skryre army

And in the case of the seraphon you'd basicly just have only a pure order army, or a pure seraphon army, but not the step in between. Just make the bonusses dependent on how many subfactions there are still below your level of purity.

To be honest they've pushed it a bit far with the whole "you can mix your entire grand Alliance". I get where they're coming from, but even lorewise it doesn't make much sense. The various factions might be allied and even fight on the same battlefield, but they're unlikely to be comfortable fighting shoulder to shoulder. Imagine being an freeguild swordsman and being told that you have to charge the enemy side by side with a giant carnosaur. You're going to be terrified... it's not like fighting besides a dwarf or aelf who's at least somewhat similar to you, just shorter and more prone to holding grudges or longer and stuck up...
 
Canas said:
O I forgot one:

- An incentive to make pure armies. You have the allegiance abilities, but they're not particularly impressive which makes people fairly rapidly default to mixing armies. Given that individual armies have Obvious weaknesses & stregths in their playstyle it'd be nice if there was something encouraging people to stick t a certain army & not just take the powerfull melee warriors from one faction and support them with the archers from another.
Click to expand...

In fairness, from Sylvaneth onwards, they have released traits, spell lores and artifacts for armies that can only be accessed if you have that allegiance (so no mixed armies). The Tzeentch ones in particular go some distance in making the army have it's own identity and unique way of playing, which I think is somehing we sorely need.

Also, my wish for the next General's Handbook is a clearer explanation on Allegiances. I have read and heard so many interpretations of the rules on this that I still couldn't tell someone with 100% certainty what the exact boundaries are.
 
Canas said:
Imagine being an freeguild swordsman and being told that you have to charge the enemy side by side with a giant carnosaur.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I'd be...uhhm... defecating into my underwear half of the time, regardless of what the enemy would be.

...hey that's an idea.... If the battleshock abilities like the one from the Carnosaur applied to allied units out of your own army as well that could help. Basically replacing the text "enemy units" with "non-Seraphon units".
 
@InfamousBeany that's a start, now do it for the rest of the armies, including the ones that already have a battletome like the seraphon :P

Aginor said:
Yeah, I guess I'd be...uhhm... defecating into my underwear half of the time, regardless of what the enemy would be.

...hey that's an idea.... If the battleshock abilities like the one from the Carnosaur applied to allied units out of your own army as well that could help. Basically replacing the text "enemy units" with "non-Seraphon units".
Click to expand...

I think some of the pestilence skaven have some rules like that (non nurgle stuff suffers if I remember correctly). And yes that could be a start. Though that might swing too far to the other side if there's nothing to make up for it, making certain armies unviable because they can now no longer gain the reinforcements they need. Or it'd be too easy to avoid since you only take "special" troops to fill niches your base army doen't fill. We're unlikely to take freeguild swordsman, we're likely to take a huricanum or a jade wizard. Neither of which should stay all that close to the carnosaur & battleshock doesn't apply to them even if they got in range...

A better approach wouldbe for allegiances to give significant bonusses, not just to hurt your own allies if you mix them.
 
Hopefully not derailing the topic to much. From what we have seen in the General Handbook, how sure are you that Lizarmen are here to stay without big changes to their units. Basically, that you may get old models and still be able to use them in the next 2+ years.
 
Given the relative cost of building a collection & the fact that they still use warhammer fantasy models, though occasionally under a different name I'd be extremely surprised if they actually phased out any models. At worst I'd expect them to do things like "your scar-veteran on a carnosaur isn now an oldblood instead". The only possible exception would be if there would be some army/units that are just so increadibly unpopular that they basicly discontinue half an army at once and there's just nothing left that looks similar enough to it to be able to go "your X is now a Y just tell your opponent he wears a fancy hat and that's why he looks weird"
 
I am a bit concerned about Jungle Swarms and the Skink Chief for example.
- Models not produced anymore
- many people say they are not well balanced.
- not showing up in Battletome and so on, only in those strange old legacy rules (ok, and they have points in the GHB at least)

I halfway expect them to vanish in the next iteration of the points list.
 
Aginor said:
I am a bit concerned about Jungle Swarms and the Skink Chief for example.
- Models not produced anymore
- many people say they are not well balanced.
- not showing up in Battletome and so on, only in those strange old legacy rules (ok, and they have points in the GHB at least)

I halfway expect them to vanish in the next iteration of the points list.
Click to expand...

GW were keen to fix the points on Tomb Kings when the SCGT TO was all for just dropping the legacy stuff from the tournament. I think that suggests they will maintain support, if only at the level of tweaking points costs where necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top