AoS Effects of the Generals Handbook.

[necronic23]

Hello

Now we are in the after wake of the Generals Handbook, how do we feel about units now? for example the old questions of warriors vs guards or ripperdons vs terradons?

Are you using units that you would not have taken before/not using the usual goto units?

For myself i can say i am using my EoTG less and Slann less as well.

 

[Bowser]

Kroak is pretty well out for me in pitched battles.
I still get use out of the slann and engine, but not as much.
I get a ton of use out of the bloodclaw, which I never used in open play.
Rippers and Shadowstrike are getting less use, but sunblood and stegadon are getting a lot more use.
Bastiladon is great in either, so I fit him in where I can.

Getting far more use out of my Scar vets on cold ones now too.

And of course other forces of order are far more appealing now. I am ordering an assassin and a hurricanum because of the great suggestions elsewhere on this site.

 

[Draconder]

As someone who enjoys evenly matched games and always one for mechanics I found that the General's Handbook was a welcome addition to the game. Before my friends and I really did not enjoy standard rules as we didn't want to have a needless advantage over the opponent, sure there was house rules such as a wound count but the lack of game balancing mechanics irked us.

Of course a points system is not perfect because some models become less effective and a meta threatens to make army lists stale and points also do not take into account of synergies but points are used most tabletop games for a reason. They are still the best tool we currently have for picking reasonably even forces from variable lists.

As for units, I like how it makes choosing units like warriors viable over saurus guard and other units with either not as many wounds or a lower save. It might be too soon to say, I am curious what the answer would be in a year's time when a "meta" has settled.