AoS General's handbook feedback

[Canas]

You mean Knight-Azyros? Had to look him up. 100pts and better buff then Oldblood. Annoying really..

Don't forget, it's also faster, has a better save, has a better weapon, and has a 1-time use ability for free mortal wounds.

Some of the seraphon stuff seriously feels like it's been written for a different game at times..

 

[pendrake]

Units should only be costed (if that is a word) according to the... amount of damage they are able to do ...before they are destroyed.

No other consideration.

Wasn’t kidding. ^ Not sarcasm.

How much a unit can move, where it can move, what it does to boost other units, how survivable they are and if they are able to debuff over units, has to be taken into account when costing them.

Otherwise units that do very little damage, but can buff or debuff (like most basic wizards) should cost virtually nothing.

Almost ^ correct. That last bit.

Not sure if pendrake is sarcastic or not. Skinks are the ultimate example.

I lost track, “ultimate example” of being over costed or under-costed..?

( I guess we're going with costed as a word...)

1000points of Skinks should beat 1000points of SC Liberators 50% of the time. If the points are even the wins/loses should be even as well.

 

[Canas]

1000points of Skinks should beat 1000points of SC Liberators 50% of the time. If the points are even the wins/loses should be even as well.

And that's indeed kind of the issue... in a straight up fight, supporting troops won't stand a chance against a similarly sized army of dedicated fighters. There's some fringe cases where the supporting troops might accidently win by abusing certain mechanics, for example in the example of skinks vs liberators the skinks might be able to put up a fight by running circles around the liberators while shooting at em and eventually win through attrition, but even then they need a considerable amount of luck as they're screwed if the liberators ever manage to drive em in a corner.

Anyways, I feel like it's often a case of looking at how a unit performs in the worst case versus the best case scenario. And a lot of balancing seems to be done assuming the best case scenario, ignoring the worst case. And especially for supporting the difference between those two is rather massive. So they very quickly become overcosted as it's unlikely you will be able to (consistently) put them in the best case scenario.

 

[pendrake]

You mean Knight-Azyros? Had to look him up. 100pts and better buff then Oldblood. Annoying really..

Take one as an Ally?

And do a conversion while at it. Make a Lizardy version...with a kit-bashed old blood up there.

A Knight-Lizardros

 

[ILKAIN]

I just want two things... Kroak points below 400 and guard up a wound each. id even accept them going back to 100 pts at 2 wounds each.

 

[Galen]

One minor change that would do a lot to make Saurus-heavy builds more viable would be to allow summoning to re-enforce an existing unit. Saurus Warriors are quite good at 30+ models and drop off dramatically once they drop below that, and practically fall off a cliff below 20. Allowing us to keep their numbers high throughout the game would make them significantly better.

 

[Canas]

One minor change that would do a lot to make Saurus-heavy builds more viable would be to allow summoning to re-enforce an existing unit. Saurus Warriors are quite good at 30+ models and drop off dramatically once they drop below that, and practically fall off a cliff below 20. Allowing us to keep their numbers high throughout the game would make them significantly better.

it'd also solve most of the guard's issues. Though I'd prefer to have that in our spell lore, not just via summoning. It'd give our starseers and such something to do. Plus, the current limitations on summoning would make reinforcing effectivly impossible due to the range requirements.

 

[Galen]

it'd also solve most of the guard's issues. Though I'd prefer to have that in our spell lore, not just via summoning. It'd give our starseers and such something to do. Plus, the current limitations on summoning would make reinforcing effectivly impossible due to the range requirements.

Saurus heavy lists tend to have the Astrolith Bearer near the front lines for the reroll to hit aura, and you can summon near them. Whilst I'd also like a new spell lore I don't know if that's within the scope of a General's Handbook. Though we did get summoning which is arguably larger.

Frankly we need a new Battletome at some point because we're still languishing with a Kirby-era one that doesn't match the changes in our fluff since then.

 

[Canas]

Saurus heavy lists tend to have the Astrolith Bearer near the front lines for the reroll to hit aura, and you can summon near them.

I was referring to the minimum distance from enemies making it impossible to reinforce any unit that's in combat. That's probably a bigger issue than the fact you can only summon them around your slann & astrolith.

Frankly we need a new Battletome at some point because we're still languishing with a Kirby-era one that doesn't match the changes in our fluff since then.

We feel like we're written for a different game at times. Arguably it's starting to be weirder than no battletome at all, at least then it's Obvious your army is massivly outdated..

 

[ChubbSkink]

My feedback would be, stop with the army changes in the General’s HB and release a new Battletome already.

 

[Putzfrau]

With all this talk of killing things it got me thinking... do any of the 18 missions require you to kill anything? I've noticed in my Age of Sigmar 2.0 games my kill count is usually pretty low.

 

[Flo]

Same here, i usually only kill targets on/near to objectives

 

[serafellow]

I have an idea although it may be busted. Maybe they should keep the perks they have if they started at 30 models? Actually Nah, it would be broken lol.

 

[Canas]

I have an idea although it may be busted. Maybe they should keep the perks they have if they started at 30 models? Actually Nah, it would be broken lol.

To be honest horde-perks in general are a bit awkward. Unless you have ressurecting troops it's depressingly easy to blast away the bonus & since they're costed as if they Always have the bonus smaller sized units tend to be overprized. We have discounts for taking maximum sized units, why not have added costs for taking enough to trigger a horde bonus. Would at least allow the smaller sized ones to be a lot cheaper.

Would love for horde perks in general to work differently. For example just "if you have 30 saurus on the table" instead of 30 in one unit. At least that way it becomes relativly easy to maintain and more difficult to kill the bare minimum of to drop the bonus as it's easier to take some extra fodder along.

 

[TheCrux]

Fix Bloodclaw for new edition

Decrease Trog and carno by 20 points

Decrease Kroxigors by 20 points

Saurus Knights should have horde bonus.

I agree. I used a Firelance against Nighthaunt recently, 20 knights, scar vet on carno and I also had scar vet on cold one. Everything went my way in terms of luck and tactics and I still got beat. I think a little bit of work to make some of our other battalions more competitive would be great, giving us more options.

 

[Canas]

Saurus Knights should have horde bonus.

Please no, Knights need a buff, but please don't make it a horde bonus. The rest of our battleline is already only usefull in hordes, let us keep something that can actually put up a fight without needing to be a full horde..

Plus, they're a tad big for hordes. more than 5 models is already fairly unwieldy more than 10 would be practically unuseable.

 

[Scurvydog]

Please no, Knights need a buff, but please don't make it a horde bonus. The rest of our battleline is already only usefull in hordes, let us keep something that can actually put up a fight without needing to be a full horde..

Plus, they're a tad big for hordes. more than 5 models is already fairly unwieldy more than 10 would be practically unuseable.

Yea please no more horde bonuses.

Horde bonuses is what I dislike the most about any AoS warscroll and huge blobs taking up half the board is rarely fun to play with or against, and in my opinion does not fit the game format at all.

Especially cavalry should never ever by subject to this, having blobs of 20+ cavalry would just be madness.

Actually I would very much like the horde bonus removed and baked in instead. Give skinks a flot +1 to hit but +1/2 pts cost, should balance them out a bit better.

Same for saurus as they are just poor without the horde bonus, but I don't see why they need to fight like skaven to be effective. They are already overcosted so just giving them +1 attack on their celestite weapon would go a long way, then remove the +1 horde bonus, same point cost.

As for the rest:

Both Carnosaur variants: -20 points at least.

Slann: cost is fine as it is now, but if we actually get a spell lore, then adjust according to that.

Oldblood, Sunblood and Eternity Warden: are all overcosted by 20 points, especially the oldblood on foot.

Skink starseer: should cost no more than 120 pts if not less. Would likely still not see much use.

Saurus Guard: -10 pts per 5 or +20 points and +1 wound per 5.

Knights: -10 pts per 5 or +1 weapon attack (would prefer this).

Troglodon: -20 pts

Kroxigor: - 20 pts for 3

Stegadon: - 20 pts

Razordon: +5 pts

Salamander: -5 pts or +1 save.

skink handlers: -10 pts

I feel the rest are fine, just because engine of the gods, rippers and the bastilladon are good, does not mean they are too good. If anything a +40 pts cost to thunderquake, but only if the above pts values are decreased (like kroxigors and skink handlers) to compensate somewhat.