AoS GHB 2020 Predictions & Desires

[Titchy_Stryder]

He got an update earlier in the year and his points were changed when that occured, he's alot better imo

He’s still listed at 510pts in the Warscroll builder? Much better value at 420pts.

 

[Grotpunter]

Being player A looks to be superpowerful. For example, we now don't even need to take Azyrite Ruins. Just place RSE at one side and chose good terrain rules on another side and bad rules on the side of RSE. Especially good for coalesced, who will just ignore negative rules, if opponent decides to go for good terrain. It is not an instant fix to RSE, but our condition's improved drastilcally. And if we are player B... well, just take the RSE.

Yeah this sounds really stupid. So player A can effectively just mirror both sides and make them incredible good depending on what their army wants to do. Player B then essentially has no choice since either side is just as effective for player A.

Im pretty sure that is NOT how we are gonna be playing.

 

[Canas]

Looks like our terrain is suddenly in play in a pretty big way.

Goonhammer summary of GHB2020 changes: https://www.goonhammer.com/generals-handbook-2020-matched-play/

well those new artifacts are uninspired. Couldn't they give something interesting at least. Or 2-3 choices/realm so all realms might actually provide something of value?

Yeah this sounds really stupid. So player A can effectively just mirror both sides and make them incredible good depending on what their army wants to do. Player B then essentially has no choice since either side is just as effective for player A.

Im pretty sure that is NOT how we are gonna be playing.

Yeah, this seems like a very obvious drawback to this system. Just make both sides good for you or super annoying for your opponent and player B is screwed.

I guess the intent is that you can't make 1 side super good and 1 side super bad, cuz then obviously player B will pick the good side. But that only holds if both armies benefit (and suffer) equally from every type of terrain. Which simply isn't the case.

This just seems like a really bad idea.

 

[Grotpunter]

well those new artifacts are uninspired. Couldn't they give something interesting at least. Or 2-3 choices/realm so all realms might actually provide something of value?


Yeah, this seems like a very obvious drawback to this system. Just make both sides good for you or super annoying for your opponent and player B is screwed.

I guess the intent is that you can't make 1 side super good and 1 side super bad, cuz then obviously player B will pick the good side. But that only holds if both armies benefit (and suffer) equally from every type of terrain. Which simply isn't the case.

This just seems like a really bad idea.

I get that it is like the good old way of sharing candy with your siblings - One breaks the candy in two and the other picks. It ensures both pieces are equally big/balanced.

It just feels like player A has too much of an impact on how terrain will play out. Some armies dont care that much about arcane or commanding, but if yours does it is pretty big if you can have one (or both) on either side. Also, what stops you from simply making a huge line in the middle of the board with terrain, effectively funneling the opponent if he plays a melee focused army and you are a shooting army? This just seems like a terrible design that is bound to be abused hard.

 

[Nart]

I guess the intent is that you can't make 1 side super good and 1 side super bad, cuz then obviously player B will pick the good side.

It depends. If you play Seraphon against Khorne, you can simply make all terrain arcane and only you would benifit from it. Take Mystic against Undead - they are getting deathless minions anyway. Commanding against armies, that doesn't rely on command points, etc. If you play coalesced, place bad terrain on the sides and good in the middle in a way that it touches both territories. You will ignore all the bad rules and your opponent will ignore all the good. You have ways to play around it.

 

[forlustria]

But player A does not choose what feature a terrain piece has, it says he generates so he rolls for it. Or am i mistaken

 

[sigmonstar]

But player A does not choose what feature a terrain piece has, it says he generates so he rolls for it. Or am i mistaken

this is what i am assuming is the case. i could be wrong, also i dont think we will have the choice to place terrain willy nilly like literally building an impassable wall across the middle of the board.

 

[Killer Angel]

But player A does not choose what feature a terrain piece has, it says he generates so he rolls for it. Or am i mistaken

If goonhammer is true, player A chooses the features.

 

[Canas]

Also, what stops you from simply making a huge line in the middle of the board with terrain, effectively funneling the opponent if he plays a melee focused army and you are a shooting army? This just seems like a terrible design that is bound to be abused hard.

Yeah the first thing I thought of was making a line through the middle while leaving gaps that are too small to prevent an opponent with large hordes, or large models, from effectivly going through. Even ignoring the special bonus effects that'd be hilariously annoying to deal with.

 

[forlustria]

If goonhammer is true, player A chooses the features.

Sorry but goonhammer is wrong the ghb says player a generates terrain rules. The terrain rules table does not mention picking it only has numbers for a d6 roll.

 

[Killer Angel]

Yeah the first thing I thought of was making a line through the middle while leaving gaps that are too small to prevent an opponent with large hordes, or large models, from effectivly going through. Even ignoring the special bonus effects that'd be hilariously annoying to deal with.

GW really masters the art of writing rules without even thinking about the possible consequences. To faq them hard later because "this was not intended".

to a very limited point i agree with them: some abuses are clearly not in the spirit of the rule (conga line of terrains)… but they aren't that hard to foresee, if you know the game.
And some other things are clearly obvious, if you think a minute on what you're writing.

 

[Killer Angel]

Sorry but goonhammer is wrong the ghb says player a generates terrain rules. The terrain rules table does not mention picking it only has numbers for a d6 roll.

I don't have the GHB, so i wasn't able to check. Then it's not so bad.
Still abusable, but in a lesser way.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

huh it looks like the generic ignore battle shock command ability is gone. it's not in the GHB with the rest of them
(edit) nope i got it wrong the book is just hard to read

 

[Canas]

GW really masters the art of writing rules without even thinking about the possible consequences. To faq them hard later because "this was not intended".

to a very limited point i agree with them: some abuses are clearly not in the spirit of the rule (conga line of terrains)… but they aren't that hard to foresee, if you know the game.
And some other things are clearly obvious, if you think a minute on what you're writing.

I saw a nice quote floating around on the internet; GW is like a parent who trusts his kids to police themselves, giving them too much freedom and then being surprised when the kids inevitably take this freedom and do all sorts of nonsense that was not in the spirirt of what GW intended.

You'd think they'd learn to just put in clear, strict rules at some point, instead of repeating the same mistake over and over.

 

[Canas]

huh it looks like the generic ignore battle shock command ability is gone. it's not in the GHB with the rest of them

o, does that mean bravery-modifiers are finally going to become relevant again? Or well, somewhat relevant.

 

[Erta Wanderer]

o, does that mean bravery-modifiers are finally going to become relevant again? Or well, somewhat relevant.

scratch that the e book is just badly formatted and it was 3 pages away from the rest of them. dang this thing is hard to read

 

[Erta Wanderer]

they tightened up triumphs

D3 Triumph 1 Inspired: Once per battle, when a friendly unit is picked to shoot or fight, you can say it is inspired. If you do so, you can re-roll hit rolls for attacks made by that unit until the end of that phase. 2 Bloodthirsty: Once per battle, when a friendly unit is picked to shoot or fight, you can say it is bloodthirsty. If you do so, you can re-roll wound rolls for attacks made by that unit until the end of that phase. 3 Indomitable: Once per battle, before you make a save roll for a friendly unit, you can say it is indomitable. If you do so, you can re-roll save rolls for attacks that target that unit until the end of that phase. SCENERY TABLE

 

[ILKAIN]

So.... does player A place BOTH players' faction terrain? Does that remove the choice from the other player in whether they want to include it or not? we were discussing previously that you could put the RSE on your list and simply not place it... now if its on your list potentially you wouldn't get that choice... conversely does this mean player A can elect to NOT place the opponents terrain?

 

[Canas]

So.... does player A place BOTH players' faction terrain? Does that remove the choice from the other player in whether they want to include it or not? we were discussing previously that you could put the RSE on your list and simply not place it... now if its on your list potentially you wouldn't get that choice... conversely does this mean player A can elect to NOT place the opponents terrain?

I think he places everything except the faction terrain of player B.

 

[ILKAIN]

I think he places everything except the faction terrain of player B.

so that still gives player A power over player B's terrain, as they can make it impossible for player B to place it. these rules are going to sincerely hurt armies that utilize their terrain more than others, and i think potentially devastating for Sylvaneth.