Generals handbook 2?

[Ish]

I'm hoping the core rules remain untouched, as I'm extremely happy with how AoS plays. The only minor changes to the core rules I really think are needed (and I stress again, these are minor) are pretty simple:

 

• Reinstate base-to-base measurements. But with a sidebar saying it's okay to ignore bases when practical and reminding people not to get too hung up on 32 mm rounds versus 30 mm squares.
• No more shooting by units that are engaged in mêlées. 
• "Heroic Intervention" lifted from Eighth Edition 40k. 
•  

[deadwing34]

14 hours ago, Ish said:

I'm hoping the core rules remain untouched, as I'm extremely happy with how AoS plays. The only minor changes to the core rules I really think are needed (and I stress again, these are minor) are pretty simple:

 

• Reinstate base-to-base measurements. But with a sidebar saying it's okay to ignore bases when practical and reminding people not to get too hung up on 32 mm rounds versus 30 mm squares.
• No more shooting by units that are engaged in mêlées. 
• "Heroic Intervention" lifted from Eighth Edition 40k. 
•  

Yah those things would be nice but shifting through comments and official replies from GW, the new handbook will not change the core rules in any way. I do have a feeling they might further clarify how measurement happens maybe a rule specifically for matched play about base to base measurement. I think at a minimum they need to clarify how vertical measurements are made.

I had thought that one easy to make global change to shooting would be that if a shooting unit is engaged it is only allowed to shoot at the unit it is engaged with. But at this time and in the near future shooting will remain the same at lease according to what they are saying on their FB feed.

[Ish]

Well, maybe they'll make these changes in GHB v.3?

Almost everyone uses base to base measurements anyway, the shooting thing is annoying but manageable, and so forth... Like I said, I'd like to see these changes but can live without them.

[Guest]

I really prefer models, rather than bases, for measurements. One of the better choices for GW, at least from a modeling stance. It removes the burden on the player to model a model on the base it came with, and allows creative basing, as well as the selection of bases that better display (or balance) the model. Tippy models should never be a thing in AoS, since you can always select a more suitable base for your model, unlike previous editions.

As for shooting out of melee. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to shoot out of combat (if your priority isn't defending yourself). I can see a reasonable rule that prevented units from both shooting AND attacking in melee on the same turn (which they can presently do, even before charging).

As an aside, not all shooting attacks represent "ranged" attacks in a traditional manner, and not all melee attacks represent "melee weapons" in a traditional sense. For example, the Plague Furnace's Great Censer is a giant ball of filth that is lobbed at the enemy - despite basically being a ranged weapon (with up to an effective 5" of range), it is listed as a melee weapon. 

 

[Threejacks]

 If I had a choice on the shooting issue,,I would just go with a simple -1 To Hit when shooting into or out of combat..I would give some bespoke exceptions for certain weapons of course.

 

  The game is working the way it is now in regards to this issue,,the biggest problems are coming from point values of certain units,of which hopefully they address.

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Threejacks said:

 If I had a choice on the shooting issue,,I would just go with a simple -1 To Hit when shooting into or out of combat..I would give some bespoke exceptions for certain weapons of course.

 

  The game is working the way it is now in regards to this issue,,the biggest problems are coming from point values of certain units,of which hopefully they address.

 

I will note that for shooting out of combat, Line of Sight is still required to their target, so a unit that is swarmed by enemy models may not be able to see out of combat, and that will prevent most units from shooting out of combat. 

[Ish]

I don't have any problem with Unit A shooting at Unit B who is engaged in mêlée with Unit C.

I have an issue with Unit A shooting at Unit B when Uhit A is engaged in mêlée with Unit C.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a longbowman with a daemon trying to disembowel him has time to put away his sword, pick up his bow, nock an arrow, aim past the daemon trying to gnaw on his face, shoot at a target 50 yards away, and then resume the swordplay... ?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ish said:

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a longbowman with a daemon trying to disembowel him has time to put away his sword, pick up his bow, nock an arrow, aim past the daemon trying to gnaw on his face, shoot at a target 50 yards away, and then resume the swordplay... ?

Well, I'd say that would be a matter of disipline. An undisiplined model failed their battleshock check when the daemon assaulted and fled (or died while trying to flee). The Disiplined model knows that contributing to the plans of their general will result in victory. For role playing, your general does have a plan to keep the archers alive, right?

And *MY* archers are undead. I can totally picture *my* archers ignoring the threats around them, and instead, following the orders of my Necromancer who selfishly commands them to shoot some other target, despite the immediate threat of a daemon actively gnawing on their skull. 

As an aside, are your Longbowmen really armed with swords? The Skeleton Archers use their arrows as improvised melee weapons. 

[Ish]

Oh, sure, I can come up with all sorts of possible reasons... some are even quite plausible ones. It is just one of those mindset things, I guess? I dunno...

I "came up" on WHFB from its very early editions, played many other wargames, roleplaying games, dabbled in historical reenactment/SCA, etcetera. All of which tends to make me analyze things — even high fantasy games about magic supermen who get teleported across the cosmos by lightning bolts to do battle against sentient trees —from a historical verisimilitude angle. 

So, it's an annoyance. But I can overlook it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ish said:

Oh, sure, I can come up with all sorts of possible reasons... some are even quite plausible ones. It is just one of those mindset things, I guess? I dunno...

Ah, yeah, I can relate to that. 

From a historical stance, always kinda bugs me that we fight battles with even sides...Sorta proof that the game is more chess than it is a battle simulation. 

[Guest]

On June 28, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Ish said:

I'm hoping the core rules remain untouched, as I'm extremely happy with how AoS plays. The only minor changes to the core rules I really think are needed (and I stress again, these are minor) are pretty simple:

 

• Reinstate base-to-base measurements. But with a sidebar saying it's okay to ignore bases when practical and reminding people not to get too hung up on 32 mm rounds versus 30 mm squares.

As an aside, what is the issue with the bases regarding game mechanics? Seems equally disadvantageous to have a larger base, than to have a smaller base. Additionally, seems like in AoS, you should be able to have a model without a base, without any rules conflicts. 

[WestRider]

3 hours ago, paxmiles said:

As an aside, what is the issue with the bases regarding game mechanics? Seems equally disadvantageous to have a larger base, than to have a smaller base. Additionally, seems like in AoS, you should be able to have a model without a base, without any rules conflicts. 

From what I can see, smaller bases are often better in AoS. You can often get an extra "rank" to fight if you go down a base size. The other issue I know of is more logistical, which is that for Models with large bases relative to the size of the Model, it can often be necessary to put other Models on the base itself when measuring Model-to-Model, and people have concerns about their basing materials being damaged.

[Ish]

Honestly, I feel like the pros and cons of bases being bigger or smaller cancel each other out. Obviously not doing intentionally silly things like mounting lone Goblins on 60 mm chariot bases or sticking Ogres on 20 mm goblin bases... But something with a footprint appropriate to the model that's on it? I don't really think we need to worry about the exact dimensions.

I just don't want rulers and such to be dinging up my paint! 

[Threejacks]

Everyone is using base to base measuring now,,consider it the meta wide house rule.That would be the bases that came with the models when they were purchased.

  The only issues ive seen with this has been with the TK chariot models,,as a rule around here you can use the rectangles as they have yet to be reboxed.Though Ive heared of events elsewere were they forced those models onto the larger ovals as the Setra formation really gain alot more power with the models on the older rectangles.

  I would personally be ok with larger monsters like seraphon dinos and other similar 4 legged models being off base though,,kinda like vehicles are in 40k:)

 

[Ish]

As long as you aren't "modeling for advantage" or being otherwise unsportsmanlike, I feel that most players won't care if the bases are round, square, or hexagonal; beveled, lipped, or flush; official Citadel standard issue or third party custom jobs... I'm only speaking from personal/anecdotal experience here, but AoS players tend to be much more relaxed about these things compared to WH40k and WarmaHordes players

In short, the AoS community standard seems to be "Don't be That Guy." and as long as you play by that standard, you can do anything else.

[Guest]

Question. Why is the base not considered part of the model? Not seeing rules that separate them.