AoS: General’s Handbook II Points Preview

FyreslayerVsVampireContent

Stop the speculation – the General’s Handbook II is coming and GW is teasing some of the points!

Games Workshop has confirmed what the community has been hoping for a long time – Yes, there is a General’s Handbook II and Yes, we will be adjusting points as we go. Forget the old days of waiting for a new Army Book/Codex to drop to get a points update because the General’s Handbook II is proof that there has been a fundamental shift – and it’s going to be GREAT!

via Warhammer Community

fyreslayers

From launch, it was clear that the matched play system would be one we’d be looking to develop and evolve as time went on. It was always meant to be a starting point that would allow us to take on board feedback from events and players and begin working on a second iteration.

Today, we’re happy to announce that we’ll be trialling some updates at the independant South Coast Grand Tournament event here in the UK. This 200-player event is one of the largest Age of Sigmar Tournaments in the world. The team that run it have long been community champions for the Warhammer Age of Sigmar game, helping playtest the General’s Handbook and many of the existing Battletomes.

We’re starting off with some amends to the points costs of Tomb Kings and Fyreslayers warscrolls. Some of these units, which we’ve seen be a little to dominant on the top tables of competitive events, have had their points increased, while others have had theirs reduced. (Great news for the sons of Grimnir – more Fyreslayers for your ur-gold!)

Click to enlarge

PointsUpdate-3

These are far from the only rules that we’re looking to update in the next General’s Handbook. We’ve been paying close attention to all your feedback on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Facebook page, so when we are ready to release the second one, we’re pretty sure you guys are going to love it.

Check out the full article for all the info HERE.

If you want to get a crack at these new points or if you’re interesting in seeing how they would be handled for a very large matched play event then you’re in luck! To coincide with these rules The South Coast Grand Tournament. They have a tournament packet and if you take a look in there you might find some more interesting things that will be tested at the tournament. It’s a good time to be playing AoS!

 

Bring on the points reduction for the Fyreslayers – more of those guys on the table is MOAR AWESOME!

  • Aaditya Rangan

    Wow! a season-by-season change in points-cost? I love the idea that a units “points cost” is not written in stone, but rather evolves (slowly) as new units get designed/added to the game.

    • ZeeLobby

      They’re the last game maker to adopt point changes, but I’m glad they finally did.

      • Parthis

        Like me, do you get the sense that there’s always been a desire at GW for this, but no permission? Since the leadership they’re a wholly different company; outward facing, public, inventive again and a focus on gaming. It’s great and encouraging. It’s not the new CEO doing this, it’s the new CEO allowing the creative people at GW to do what they do best.

        • ZeeLobby

          Maybe? Now that the fload gates are open I’m still not sure how much internal testing they do. I think they’re still pretty reliant on us to fix their game for them.

          • BaronSnakPak

            Videogame devs do this as well. You can do a ton of playtesting in house, but once the game gets in the hands of the public, people will come up with things that playtesting wouldn’t have discovered. That’s the reason huge multiplayer games get consistent balance patches, because people find ways to game the system.

            It’s not a bad thing that GW is paying attention to whats happening in the community and learning from it.

          • ZeeLobby

            I never said it is. But good developers don’t necessarily just make changes the community asks for. Sometimes there’s imbalances a change would make that the community is not aware of. A combination of both works best.

          • Aezeal

            There is no hidden code in this game.. there is not much a few K fanatic gamers won’t see especially since they (unlike devs) try to break rules instead of use them as they should (I mean… look at those 40K faq… sure… some rules needed clarification.. but half of those things are so Obvious I can’t even see why a FAQ is needed except for extreme abuse)

          • ZeeLobby

            lol, “use them as they should” is such a silly statement. Most people aren’t trying to “break the rules” either. All issues in GW arise from the rules they release, and the broken things they add, or things they leave unclear.

            Sure there is no “hidden” code, but most people play within small groups, many of which don’t run every unit and every formation of every faction. So while there is no hidden code, there are fairly large chunks of code that those people complaining have never had experience with. In this way GW truly does have a better grasp of the system as a whole.

          • Shawn

            I think what he meant Zee, is that there were enough questions that were so utterly ridiculous they never should have been asked in the first place. They were there because some one was trying to squeeze some advantage out of a rule that everyone else knew wasn’t there, or just plain stupid.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I have to say the number of times i’ve seen that in the 15 years of play at real events could be counted on one hand though. We hear a lot about them on the internet, but most people rarely run into it. Some clearer rules would fix that as well.

          • Shawn

            Yeah. Also, it’s been my experience locally that you see it more from the real competitive folks too. However, that being said, as a primarily casual player I would like a less ambiguous standard rule set.

          • marxlives

            And there are alot of groups out there that do not play the rules consistently (is RAW vs RAI still a thing?) or there are a lot of supplementary third party rules that people use to clarify this gap or provide balance. Not a lot of rule cohesion. Basically, with every other game out there, the game I play at my LGS is the same one they are playing across the country. With GW products this still seems to be an issue for some reason.

          • Frank Krifka

            Like Microsoft is reliant on hackers or end-users finding bugs/loopholes? This is pretty much how this type of product goes through refinement.

            Us players are far better at looking for ways to break the game than the game creators are. They can’t see the trees for the forest.

          • ZeeLobby

            I hope your not operating under the assumption that MS does none of this independently of users as well? I mean their security division is massive and finds way more exploits then the community does. It just doesn’t publicize them and then patches them. They also don’t take community suggested solutions as the sole option for fixing any of these issues. As many times they open new security exploits due to the closed nature and lack of complex understanding of the system.

            A balance of both internal and external testing is the best. Taking community complaints, and testing multiple solutions to determine the one that most negatively impacts the game.

          • Frank Krifka

            I had a friend who worked designing software for Apple back in the early 00’s. His way of looking at new software was that upon release a operating system or program was not “complete”. I believe his exact words were that “all programming is considered Beta until the first patch is installed”.

            Of course R&D finds multiple problems and patches them before release, but nobody expects them to find all the loopholes; it’s just not possible. All “bug finders” or whatever you want to call them, expect that wider everyday use of the software will find exploits, gaps and conflicts that developers don’t think of.

            I’m not saying that a game system doesn’t need internal testing. what I’m saying is that people who design complex rule based systems (like software) consider end user experience part of that testing process. People who demand that war-games need to be a perfect product upon release are holding this type of system design to an unreasonable standard.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right… And I’m not saying anything to the contrary of any of that. I think we can perfectly agree when we look at things like the WK points cost, or formations giving free points, that there is little to no internal testing before things actually go out the door. That was my original point.

          • Frank Krifka

            I agree with the fact that 40k is kind of a mess right now, but I disagree that it’s because of poor balance or lack of internal play testing.

            Right now 40k look to me like a software program that went through 4-5 supervising managers who wanted to change direction midway through the project. The end result is what you get when you have the first manager who wants engaging gameplay, the second wants to sell models, the third wants narrative fluffy gameplay, the fourth wants his faction to be the most powerful, and the last just said “#$%# it. We’re gonna have to start from scratch.”

            40K biggest problem isn’t that it’s “unbalanced”, it’s more that what we currently have is 15 years worth product that’s been pulled in all different directions by people who had different ideas of what 40k should be with no uniting consensus other than “sell models”.

            I think that ends up looking like they don’t know how to balance the game, but really it stems from not having a vision that’s constantly applied throughout the various aspects of the game (army book to army book, supplements, additions and rule adjustments between editions.)

          • ZeeLobby

            Well, one could argue that any solid play-testing would insure that each version played in a non-negative way. And that definitely wasn’t true.

          • Frank Krifka

            I don’t think you really grasp what major shifts in design philosophy can do to a game as dispersed as 40k. Have you ever seen what’s happened to a movie that’s had the director changed midway through? It’s a friggin mess. Things don’t line up, plot holes never get closed, epic expensive plans get scrapped and ultimately something doesn’t add up. Could you imagine a editing a movie made by 3 different directors, that went through 5-6 rewrites while still having to use shots and scenes from each? It would be a complete nightmare. That’s the reality of 40K at this point in time.

            You seem to think that play testing books, supplements, dataslates and expansions were released, is all that it would take to solve things but it’s not that simple. Firstly because it was (and still is) perfectly possible to play a well balanced game in 40K, but it required that you play in a very particular way, and only with very particular units. But that’s not how min-maxers play. Their goal is to squeeze the most power of of their army list in order to give them the best advantage. That’s not what the game is designed for, and it’s certainly not how the majority of the game was written.

            At this point 40K is a giant “Kluge”. (A Kluge is software term for an inelegant solution to a bigger systemic problem). It’s a game of patches and duct tape, all of which have accumulated over the course of a few decades. The reason it’s become a game of patches is not because of inelegant game design, it’s because of those shifting priorities and design philosophies that play out over the course of years as armies and editions are designed and re-designed.

            This isn’t the result of not being capable of play testing or balancing a game, this is the result of trying to make changes to the meta game by implementing fixes in one place at a time as content is released. The problem is that all the changes we’ve seen from new factions, to edition 7.5 with escalation, from trying to curb codex creep to boosting power levels to new highs, none of it was followed through to its final conclusion.

            Because if you want to make changed to the structure, something is going to be underpowered or overpowered when it’s released. It’s basically not possible to change the system and keep the system the same at the same time, (unless the rules and points values are all in one place like AoS). Furthermore, if you don’t follow it through all the way you end up with these weirdly overpowered things (like the wraith knight) and weirdly underpowered things (DE). You have things that are hell to play with, or just plain clunky. And if you don’t following through to the very end with a single vision, you have all these changes put in place that don’t make any sense by themselves, because they were all intended to move the game in a direction that never materialized.

            You look at the game and all your seeing is that things aren’t balanced. That’s just a symptom of the wider problem. It would be so much easier to do if the rules and points were all in one place, where EVERYTHING could be balanced at the same time. But that’s not how 40k is built. It’s basically the difference between having the programing in one place installed on the computer, or having it spread out over 200 floppy disks that are inserted 2 at time into a mainframe.

            What your suggesting is only easy if everything is centralized.

          • ZeeLobby

            “You seem to think that play testing books, supplements, dataslates and expansions were released is all that it would take to solve things, but it’s not that simple.” I have never once stated this…

            And all of this came about from years of GW leadership stating that gaming was 2nd place to model collectors. And I agree, a centralized ruleset is an awesome thing (again something I’ve never said is bad). But I’m sorry, I’m not just going to say “they never had a chance” and just throw my arms in the air. The introduction of multiple D weapons in Eldar is a perfect example of something that was CLEARLY never playtested, let alone even thought about. I understand that in a dispersed ruleset, complete testing is a challenge, but let’s not pretend it’s something they’ve done.

            As I’ve said before, good internal testing, followed by external testing, followed by collection of results and community feedback, to then generate possible solutions, and then playtest those before officially updating the rules, is the best cycle for games (as has been proven in multiple industries). I’d say a cycle of beta rules release would only improve the results as well (which FW has done for years).

          • Frank Krifka

            *”You seem to think that play testing books, supplements, dataslates and expansions were released is all that it would take to solve things, but it’s not that simple.” I have never once stated this…”*

            So what exactly did you mean what you said “one could argue that any solid play-testing would insure that each version played in a non-negative way?”

            “The introduction of multiple D weapons in Eldar is a perfect example of something that was CLEARLY never playtested, let alone even thought about. I understand that in a dispersed ruleset, complete testing is a challenge, but let’s not pretend it’s something they’ve done.”

            Your missing my point. My point is that anytime something new is introduced into a game with as many variables as WH40K, it upends the relationships between existing units and codexes. Things like D weapons aren’t unbalanced in themselves, but they’re only unbalanced as long as one faction has access to them. It’s my suspicion that the introduction of multiple D weapons into the Eldar:Craftworlds book was the beginning of a round of changes that would effect the whole line, but it was never fully executed. We’ve seen evidence of that before in 40k where the codex writers are obviously trying to push army design and/or power level in a certain direction that doesn’t jive with the rest of the current meta, and then a change comes out that was clearly taken into account during codex design (i.e. the Grey Knights fiasco).

            “As I’ve said before, good internal testing, followed by external testing, followed by collection of results and community feedback, to then generate possible solutions, and then playtest those before officially updating the rules, is the best cycle for games”

            I agree with you! I actually think that’s what the intended path has always been. But the execution of that ideal requires a certain continuity of design from start to finish. But when the captain of the ship gets changed 5-6 times maintaining that continuity becomes extremely difficult. Don’t forget were dealing with 1 leg of the table here, and if you want to lengthen an additional table leg, it takes changes to all the other legs to make that happen. But with the way 40k is built, that takes time, and if design priorities change mid-way through the process it doesn’t matter how good the balance of the product being released is, because the meta won’t be adjusted to compensate; especially if the new vision differs significantly from the old one.

            Most tables have only have 4 legs, in 40K there’s 18, plus the central ruleset not to mention dataslates, formations and supplements. Any change, any at all, is going to put something out of whack if everything else isn’t adjusted to fit. That’s more of a systemic fault in the structure than a failure of the designers to take everything into account. Certainly they’ve made balance mistakes, but I’m not going to grade them as if they were laboring under a constant vision for warhammer 40k when it’s very clear they weren’t.

          • ZeeLobby

            Non-negative play experience is different then perfect balance or perfection. Negative play is the worst play experience. This is when the Eldar player removes your army by turn two. Or when the flying circus never interacts with your faction, but just flies around and off tables summoning troops onto objectives. Or when fliers were first introduced and Necron flier spam resulted in an opponent you rarely hit. These are things that simple playtesting should have revealed. Sure there would still be imbalances and playtesting wouldn’t solve everything, but it would remove the biggest negative play experiences.

            D weapons were imbalances day one. Heck, before Eldar even hit the table we knew scatterbikes and WKs would be an issue. How could they NOT see that?! This is my issue with GWs lack of effort. I mean they release things without even thinking. Sure I want community involvement as well, but it’s a two way street. It’ll never be as successful as it could be if we’re the only ones ever doing the thinking. Cause most of us have a limited scope and play experience compared to the data and experience GW should be able to draw on.

            And if 18 legs is too much, then cut some legs off. It’s the main reason I thought adding 6+ new factions in the past 2 years was ridiculous. There’s no way we’ll ever reach a balanced point with all the options out there and the current ruleset, so now we’re simplifying the ruleset in 8th. That’s all fine and dandy, but it’s a situation they created themselves. And I’m sorry, but I don’t shift the blame throughout the company, or who leads it. It’s GW’s fault plain and simple, both lack of community involvement, and lack of internal testing. At least we can both agree that both will be needed going forward. Hopefully they know that as well.

          • Frank Krifka

            Personally I think centralizing the rules would easily fix everything you mentioned above. Non-negative play experiences are unfortunate, but what they really are is a perfect storm of a few interacting rules (needles) in a rather massively complex ruleset (haystack). Attempting to write rules that do not create “negative play experiences” within a system as disjointed as 40k is nearly impossible. Especially considering you release army rule sets one at a time, and a broad ruleset that effects EVERYTHING released every few years. I’d argue that what you’re asking for is that a software company not release software with security holes or glitches. Ain’t gonna happen.

            Aside from that, they seem to have hit on a stable more centralized game design with AoS that is actually accomplishing what you’re asking for (so far…). Hopefully they mirror some of that centralized rules writing in 8th edition which will allow them to update everything in fell swoop, preventing those “negative play experiences” that are so common in a piecemeal ruleset.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. I think you need to attend more events. It’s more like pitchforks in a haystack. Like I said, we knew day one, before the first tournament ever arrived. And yup, next event I went to, multiple WKs, and scatterbikes all over. I mean heck, articles on this site were pointing it out from just the rumors of the Craftworld book.

            A security hole or glitch is the undercosted unit here, the OP unit there, etc. These are balance issues for sure, but they’re something you can still play against and beat with some good play. The negative-play experiences were not these.

            I agree with your third part. They’re doing better in AoS. Mostly thanks to us. Though there are still imbalances in the game (some characters, summoning still is in an odd place, certain lists are def power lists). Like I said, this success is more likely due to the much simpler ruleset than anything else. When two units stats no longer interact with each other on the battlefield (fixed to hit/wound rolling) a lot of the complexity simply falls away. If they don’t do this simplification in 40K I think they’ll find that having us solve the problems might not be enough (which has been my point since the beginning).

          • Frank Krifka

            We were, and I certainly saw that coming with the Craftworld codex. But again, by your own admission, they’d have to be blind not to see it. I refuse to believe that they are blind, so really there must be some other explanation. My guess is that looking at changes in the company before, during and after, along with the relative strength and options in the codexes before and after, Eldar:Craftworlds represented a change in direction (one which we saw in the Space Marine Codex with its “free units”) rather than a failed attempt at playtesting. But again, only able to be implemented in one place at time made the codex unquestionably above nearly everything else at the time of release.

            If you look at how list disseminates thorough a meta it often starts with one or two players who notice how a few rules work together. That list gets played at the first tournament and then explodes (much like we saw with the IG leaf blowers list at 40K ‘Ardboys in 2009) It’s not usually “immediately everywhere”. Codex:Craftworlds is a different animal than the flying circus, leaf blower or Necron flyer spam. In the case of Craftworlds we had a few good units that were just ridiculously cheap in a codex that was arguably a great deal stronger than everything else. But I wouldn’t put it in the same category as the flying circus.

            As far a AoS, i think they are doing a lot better, partially because of us. I think it’s mostly due to the fact that this system so far is “kluge free” (although I still consider the handbook to be Beta until the new version comes out). I think we disagree on simplicity vs complexity (i happen to think AoS is not at all a simple ruleset) and also on what factors would work best ported into 40k (unmodified shooting was a huge difference between WHFB and 40K, and I wouldn’t suggest that shooting in 40K suffered or was “oversimplified” because of fixed hit rolls). But i think can agree on the fact that gW is entering a much better place when they can get feedback from the community on what works. Not just from anecdotal “OMG Nerf dracoths plz” but also from concrete tournament results.

          • ZeeLobby

            I think the simplest explanation is most likely the easiest, being that they just didn’t care. Change or no change in direction, they either knew it was going to be broken and didn’t care, or they just didn’t even realize it. Both are pretty bad, and we’re still living with the consequences of that release now.

            Now you could totally tell me that when they playtest a new faction they take one of each unit and play with those. That I’d totally believe, the obvious problem being that their actual rules don’t have that limitation. The space Marine formation with free vehicles is another great example. Most likely it was driven by the sales team more than anything else though.

            Craftworld can be lumped with flying circus for the D weapons alone. Removing any unit based purely on a single lucky roll regardless of any mitigating factor your opponent may have been able to use is simply a negative play experience. Regardless of wounds, armor, invulns or cover, that thing is just removed. It was bad to even consider adding, and then they sprinkled it throughout. Severely mind numbing that decision was…

            And removing to hit and wound charts is a simplification in any definition. It means your no longer looking at the interaction of profiles between two armies. Now balance and power is based on synergistic aspects within a faction rather than possible interactions outside of the faction. It makes balancing and point costing much easier as you can compare two units from two different factions attacking brick wall X and statistically determine the damage regardless of what brick wall X’s capabilities are.

            I def agree. Taking tournament results is a key component in balancing factions. And those changes shouldn’t really matter to fluff players but will secretly make their games better also (shhhh :D). I’m definitely excited for them to care and try again as far as rules go. Just hope they’re ready to occasionally make the decisions that may cost them sales, cause that’s probably the biggest area they’ve suffer in the past.

          • marxlives

            Patches for software are usually free and frequent until the new version comes out. I know I work in the biz.

          • Frank Krifka

            The business model is different, but the concept is the same.

          • marxlives

            And just like a patch a Handbook that focuses on point fixing and new scenarios should be free. I never understood why people would buy books that provide new scenarios or fixes the rules for a version. Even the major companies that have model quality as good as GW offer these things for free or through their magazines. The handbooks just seems like GW is riding every suckers Kool-Aid high so they can buy the same rulebook with some dressing but at its core, fixes the game.

          • euansmith

            Software? Never buy anything until Service Pack 2 comes out 😉

          • Frank Krifka

            Exactly!

          • Aezeal

            There are no games with as many factions and with as many troops per faction as in either of GW’s main games as far as I know.. so hardly a fair comparison. Not to mention a lot of competition has shorter games so playtesting due to that alone is a bigger issue due to time.

          • ZeeLobby

            I know. it’s one of the things I’ve repeatedly shook my head at. They continue to dump new factions into the system repeatedly, every time making it exponentially more difficult to make a well-balanced game. And they could easily have shorter games as well, simply reduce the expected army size for core gameplay. It’d cost them sales though, so I doubt we’ll ever see it. It’s one of the things I repeatedly laughed at when people were claiming AoS was going to be a smaller skirmish game…

          • Horus84cmd

            I feel the neatness of AoS is that the rules allow the game to be played as a skirmish game or a mass battle one and yet still plays quickly. Thus giving the consumer the choice of the level of participation they make. Whereas, for GW, 40K has lost a lot of that flexibility without having to add xyz caveat to the core rules ala Kill Team.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. That’s definitely true to some degree. The options are definitely there. They do little to promote smaller game play though, and who knows what they actually internally balance the game with (if they even do). Having open ended systems can be great, as long as the community doesn’t settle on a point size that results in imbalances.

          • Horus84cmd

            True.

          • Aezeal

            I certainly agree they should stop doing hat

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I mean it’s double-edged though, cause I like having more choices, and more flavor, but it reaches a point where it just gets to be unmanageable.

      • zeno666

        They’re acting late as always.

        • Davor Mackovic

          And as always the people who have something negative to say still stick around and can’t move on. Yes that includes me as well.

    • Horus84cmd

      Unit point cost have always been tweaked and changes as edition go along. The biggest different is that historically the core codex/armybook or whatever contained the points; meaning that you had to wait for a complete update of the book to see changes. Having all the points for every available unit (at time of publishing), in one book, allows the designers to tweak things far more easily and on a regular basis – yearly for example.

    • Malisteen

      updating points cost for the whole game season to season is a great move, but the wild knee-jerk over-reactions seen in some of these changes (seriously, settra and the royal warsphinx needed a points hike before, but *+100 points each*? and +80 for necroknights?) can’t be good for the game in the long run, while some of the other changes are just bizarre. Have you even seen a Necrosphinx since the first Generals Handbook came out? I haven’t, and I certainly haven’t fielded one. I mean, it’s a strong piece, but not 400 points strong, let alone 440.

      Having units vascilate wildly between way-too-good and unfieldable might keep the meta fresh, but it isn’t friendly to players. It would be nice to see a bit more restraint than that.

      • Khelban Blackstaff

        Overpriced and underpowered. Maybe Skeletons are like 3 points now to compensate? We have to see the full list first.

        • Malisteen

          Making other units ludicrously underpriced would make the problem worse, not better.

      • Randy Randalman

        These are trial adjustments. They very clearly stated that. We need to keep giving them feedback.

        • euansmith

          Indeed, “Experimental Rules”.

      • Munn

        Tomb kings are REALLY REALLY good so i think it might be a little harsh but not that far off.

        • Malisteen

          Compare the necrosphinx or royal warsphinx at 440 to their closest equivalent from another faction, the frost lord on stone horn at 460. Compare the SSC at 160 to basically any other war machine in that points range.

      • Bigwebb

        My friend Ill have to disagree the points hike for settra and the Necro Sphinx are totally warrented. Settra makes the ENTIRE tomb kings army much better than sum of its parts. Necropolis knights even more so. You also have to remember these are pitched battle points and are totally centered around tournament play not casual pick up games or narrative play. These points re adjusted based off of those results, and experenices.

    • marxlives

      Ahem, most companies already do this and some do it twice a year. The only difference is the other games (Dark Age, Warmachine) don’t make you pay for it. Its part of their free product support.

  • kaptinscuzgob

    AoS really needs a “Unique” keyword

    • Malisteen

      And unit type keywords.

  • Angus MacKenzie

    WOOT! Woot I say to all the doubters who said they’d drop tomb kings and brettonians!

    • Ravingbantha

      Until they start selling models for those armies, they did drop them. They may still be producing rules for them, but now they are relegated to the purgatory the Sister’s of Battle have been living in.

      • Aezeal

        They support models they have already sold.. that is all you can really ask for a few years after you bought them.

        • zeno666

          Wait, what?
          So you’re only expecting a game company to support the models you buy “a few years”?

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            Yeah, that would be the reasonable assumption.

            Unless you get a contract with the models, you’d be fooling yourself that your purchase has any stability outside a couple of years.

          • Aezeal

            Yes I think 5 years is reasonable.Less would piss me off and I’d certainly hope for more but really… MMORPG”s loose support after 2 years or less if they don’t make cash..

          • zeno666

            Gotcha. I was thinking “a few years = 2-3” 🙂
            But 5 years, that I can agree with.

    • Karru

      Can’t wait to start my Bretonnian army by ordering one from Games Workshop!
      .
      .
      .
      Oh wait…

      • Admiral Raptor

        What a shame that no other miniatures company sells medieval knights and skeletons.
        .
        .
        .
        Oh wait…

        • zeno666

          Oh wait, you can’t use those in tournaments!

          • Munn

            Yes you can? Only tournament run by gamesworkshop won’t let you. Don’t play at warhammet world and you could use hasbro toys if you convert/paint them well enough.

        • Karru

          The original point here was that GW has canned Tomb Kings and Bretonnians. Yes, they have rules but does that mean they are not canned? No, it doesn’t.

          They are canned until GW re-releases them or brings back the models.

        • Testar

          Oh wait, show me where can I buy a replacement for the Tomb Guard/Ushabti/Sphinxs or any other TK miniature with a similar level of detail and quality.

          • Admiral Raptor

            I’m so glad you asked. Here’s a couple mini lists for the Tomb kings.
            http://bit.ly/2k3sVRO
            http://bit.ly/2kHQ0LM

            I used a powerful tool called the internet to find these. Someday you might be able to harness it’s power as well.

          • Testar

            Well, to your surprise I’ve visited those websites already. Did you look at some of those models? I did. Their qualit varies from garbage to alomost garbage in most cases and their quality is nothing like GWs.

    • Malisteen

      It’s nice to still get attention, but a bunch of massively over-the-top points hikes isn’t exactly the kind of attention I was clambering for, personally.

  • generalchaos34

    Quick, start doing this for 40k! DO IT NOW

  • Let me get this straight, this is kind of like the one codex to rule them all, one codex to find them, one codex to bring them all and in the Sigmar bind them. Being able to get all the info in one book is a serious point in AoS’ favor.

    • ZeeLobby

      Amen. 40K treatment please.

      • Parthis

        Indeed. 40K *needs* this. Not just because it holds all the info in one place, but because it holds all the BALANCE in one re-releasable place.

        • Aezeal

          Yeah rebalancing is something so needed in these games.

          • Karru

            It’s mostly thanks to the unprofessional and biased 40k design team why 40k is in such bad shape. They change their minds constantly, cannot keep their releases consistent and have no idea what things like “playtesting” and “proofreading” means.

            Something like this would be welcome to 40k though.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I’m still not a huge fan of them relying on us to fix the game… Just because the majority of people cry about something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily broken.

          • Karru

            It’s far better option than letting the design team do it. That’s what led us to this point in 40k. When people scream something is broken, it usually just points the design team towards the right direction. From there they might try it out, look at the arguments made why it is broken and see if it really needs fixing.

            The old method of letting the design team do anything it wants without any input from an outside source leads to unbalance fast.

          • ZeeLobby

            Have to agree there. I’d hope they’d hire better designers, but I doubt we’ll see that. Not if they can somehow push it on their players.

          • euansmith

            Well, MATT WAAAAAARD is back… 😉

    • Aezeal

      Well one book you have to buy each year… which is a good thing.. but still.. it’s not one book.. but one per year :D. And you still need battletomes really for some armies.

      • Parthis

        It’s priced well though. I play several other games with similar ideas; new stat card decks, new objectives, etc. They’re not too expensive, keep the game ticking along and most important are available to all factions at the same time.

      • At $25 (less for an ePub) I can live with that. What do the Battletomes give you?

      • BaronSnakPak

        The only reason battletomes are needed would be for battalions, and you can buy those on the app for $2 a piece.

        • Drew

          That’s not actually true; the Battletomes have the artifacts/relics/whatever they’re called, the allegiance abilities, etc.

          They’re actually very necessary- Sylvaneth doesn’t work as a faction nearly as well without the battletome, and not primarily because of the battalions.

          • CloakingDonkey

            Yes but this is only the case for Sylvaneth, Bonesplitterz, Beastclaw Raiders and Tzeentch so far. The older Battletomes (which are the expensive ones) don’t have any of that. Also having that stuff in there at least justifies the purchase 😛

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            All tomes going forward will have them.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. I’d def prefer one time digital purchase with updates. I’m hoping they do this with the digital copy and just update it.

        • Aezeal

          Not realistic I say. Big game.. updates costs time and money and they need to get it back.
          The price of the GHB shouldn’t be higher though.. I think key to the AoS revival was its price next to it’s content.

          • ZeeLobby

            Er…. Model sales and fluff books? I mean GW makes a ton of money back without having to also sell the rules… Every product produced by a company HAS to generate a profit, as long as the company as a whole generates profits. I think it’d actually be huge for them to offer free core rules. It’d honestly end the free rule claims of other companies.

    • zeno666

      Don’t worry. They’ll release army books, oh wait that would be “Aermi Bhueks”, soon enough for each faction.

      • jeff white

        First laugh of the day. Thanks … Or should I say ztheyngx

  • I like that they are updating points regularly instead of letting people crutch busted lists for years. The attempt is appreciated at least.

    • Admiral Raptor

      After the dark decade, even baby steps in the right direction are appreciated. AoS is my favorite game in years, so knowing that there will be a yearly re-balance has me very happy 🙂

  • SymbolicStance

    I have to say it is genius of GW to slowly kill of discontinued line’s with gradual points increases. It’s the slowly smothering you in your sleep squatification :p

    • Ak318

      from what I gather though most Death players at tournments took Tomb Kings over Vampire counts. Due to more powerful synergy there. It is the same in most competative games, if for a choice players will always take a specific thing it is usually banned though in mature games with points you can raise the points cost rather than ban it altogether. This allows then for a greater range of lists on the competative stage. I would assume as they keep bringing in organisers from different events that GW noticed that TKs were the main detah armies seen so alter points accordingly same with Kemmler from what I gather another must have death model.

      • SymbolicStance

        I hope your right but 100 point increases to balance them compared to 20-40 piont decreases to balance the fyreslayers seems a bit steep and I don’t think anyone was quaking in there boots because of the vampire on abyssal terror that he needed an 80 point increase.

        • Munn

          People were actually, some tournaments were considering banning compendium models specifically because of tomb kings and a few others, like the abyssal vamp, being so crazily undercosted.

    • dave long island

      GW giveth, and GW taketh away, slowly, and painfully.

  • Admiral Raptor

    All 40k players should be begging for the Sigmar treatment, but I guess the free points formations, deathstars, unrelenting spam, constant rules referencing, and glacial speed of play must be really fun for them. At least GW’s other games are moving in the right direction.

    • ZeeLobby

      Eh. I think 8th will be this. Part of me really hopes they remove armor values and move to wounds across the board as well.

      • Admiral Raptor

        I want to believe. They need to be as bold fixing 40k as they were with Fantasy. I’m concerned that we’ll get some weird hybrid that keeps too much of 7th edition.

        We are in agreement about armour values. Get them out of here and get me some wounds instead. I’m really hoping static to hit (and maybe to wound) values make their way over too.

        • jeff white

          Geez… What a mess we make to keep things simple… Too bad we cant have a rule that says stupid and waac kids are forbidden from big people games instead

          • Munn

            I think we need a rule that fluff babies should keep to whining about the background and stay off the table.

          • jeff white

            go back to Magic deck building and 2d thinking if a battle sim is too much for your brain.

          • CloakingDonkey

            Sure buddy. You and your incredibly adult and mature friends can play your bogged down, nonsensically bloated mess of an imbalanced game, while there’s no growth, because the newbies are shooed away and then decline as the veterans move on to better games or lose interest. And then you can be in the same position as the WFB guys in a few years . But at least there ain’t none of them there kids on your lawn. 😀

          • jeff white

            noobs don’t come around cuz the peeps paying the game are mostly MtG flunkies who think that the game is 90% list building and 10% dice rolling and forget about the reason for the genre to have worked in the first place. i am not saying that the rules are perfect, just that simple at the expense of variety of factions, variety of units and wargear, variety in table-top situation and stat-lines and so on is appeasing the lowest common denominator, common-core educated debt-slaves..

          • CloakingDonkey

            Feel free to think that. Doesn’t change the fact that 40k is probably the most unfriendly game for new players on the market and the market is getting more and more competition every day. I don’t have any interest of getting into it again because to be honest I can’t think of anything more “for children” than all that mega tank vs mega titan nonsense, but if I did want to get into it again… I would have no idea where to even begin. There’s a million factions and a million books and “oh I see you bought a start collecting box, well that’s cute *bucket of dice being emptied* you’re dead, get lost scrub” 😛 Sorry but I’m not investing money into that when I can play other systems, that don’t do that, are not nearly as absurdly imbalanced and even have better written rules. Games that aren’t attractive to new players, die out eventually. This is a fact.

      • Aezeal

        Yeah they should REALLY not have seperate wounding for armor and other stuff.
        If they don’t go for the fixed rolls (which I don’t mind in AoS but would probably kill 40K) they should just get something like old fantasy had where certain S can’t wound certain T) and just increase the scale to above 10 for T since the range of T (from grots to titans) is just a bit restricted in 10 steps.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah, fixed rolls I’m not a fan of. I think it kills a lot of diversity in game interactions. I’m also not a huge fan of only rolling D6s but I don’t think we’ll ever see that change either. But changing all units to have consistent stat-lines would be a HUGE first step.

    • Wolfman UK

      I don’t know if you have seen this but it’s pretty cool and I’m sold! http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/age-of-sigmar-40k-space-marine.html?m=1

      • Admiral Raptor

        Thanks for sharing! That’s awesome!

    • Matthew Pomeroy

      as a 40k player, …no thanks. Definately do not want to get age of sigmar’d

      • Admiral Raptor

        Why do you hate fun so much?

        • Matthew Pomeroy

          After playing several months of AoS, yeah its not much fun at all. I certainly dont want another version of it.

  • Raven Jax

    Hm….GW has me in a bind. I like the idea that they’re updating this. However, I don’t play AoS enough to actually make it worth it for me to pick this up. Maybe I’ll wait and just buy the 2018 edition.

  • Malisteen

    Ouch. OUCH. I know some of the TK stuff was underpriced, but that is some serious pendulum BS right there. Fully 100 points more for settra and the necroknights? Like, they were criminally underpriced, but not by three whole digits, geeze.

    And what’s the deal with the point increase on the necrosphynx? I’ve literally never seen it run or even included in a list, 400 was already too much.

    Nice to hear they’re updating things, but I’d prefer less wildly over-the-top knee jerk reactions.

    • zeno666

      No model support for those any more. So GW will simply make them crappy instead.
      They want you to buy a new army. Like golden space marines.

      • Malisteen

        I see no reason to believe that this is a deliberate motivation thing. They’re not ballooning the price of elves or brets or any of the other out-of-print factions, and Settra & Necroknights in particular /were/ 40 to 60 points underpriced and needed to be hiked up. They just weren’t 80 to 100 points underpriced.

        • jeff white

          Even a price balloon will pop

      • Munn

        trust me, no one wants you to buy any army.

    • Axis Mundi

      For what it’s worth, I’ve played 20 tournament games of Aos, and faced TKs 5 times – and always felt that I was struggling to just survive (I didn’t btw ;-). The hike on necroknights is spot on I’d say, and after being tabled by a Settra buffed chariot army in my last game, I’d say he is about right too. Love the army, and the games were a fun challenge, so this is not sour grapes – just an observation from the other side of the table.

      • Malisteen

        Settra has 8 wounds. /8 wounds/. He’s good, but this points cost is absurd. Again, these are units (apart from the necrosphinx and possibly the catapult) needed points hikes, I’m not objecting to that in principle, but this is way over the top. 400 for Settra, 380 for the royal, 200 for 3 necropolis knights, would have been completely reasonable, but this? This is excessive.

        • Aezeal

          It’s his command ability that is insane.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            regardsless if it is or isn’t, I am happy to see them still updating them! Waiting for the Khemri to return in whatever weird way they deem fit.

          • Malisteen

            It is insane, yes, but not enough to justify an 8 wound hero for nearly 500 points. I’d much rather see a nerf to the ability (he’s plenty good without letting other kings use their CA’s as well) than a points hike beyond what his durability can reasonably sustain.

          • Chris Hilliard

            Nerfing the ability would change the Warscroll. The whole point of putting the balance in the General’s Handbook was so that they didn’t have to wait for a new Warscroll to show up to adjust balance.

          • Malisteen

            The whole point of putting the warscrolls online and in an app should likewise be that they don’t have to wait for a new book to update the scrolls.

            460 is too much for an 8 wound hero. 360 was too little, I agree, but there’s a huge range between those two numbers to find reasonable ground. Points costs lurching around in huge pendulum swings is not good for the game.

    • Aezeal

      Settra WAS terribly underpriced tbh.

      • Malisteen

        Yeah, maybe by 60 points or so, but 100? Really? On an 8 wound hero? Better to nerf his abilities some than to hike his points values until he’s too fragile to field.

  • Drew

    Ugh, they’re still making you buy units in “blocks” of models. Give us the individual model cost so armies don’t have to end up under cap by weird amounts of points and field units aren’t either under sufficient strength or waaaay too big (for those cases where, for example, 20 is too small but 40 is an absurd number- there’s no reason they shouldn’t give players the cost and option to field 30).

    • Drew

      Oh, and to preempt the argument, in the above example yes, you can use 30 and just “lose” the points for the excess models, but since you’re paying for either 20 or 40, nobody’s actually using 30. We need a price point that allows players to customize their armies beyond “build units in GW box set-sized increments.” We’re not kids.

      Look out, 40k: mandatory 10-man tactical squads/wolf packs, 12-man fire warrior squads, etc. could well be coming for you in 8th. Don’t forget that in fantasy we too could customize our unit sizes before the End Times…

      • Nyyppä

        So, how many units are there that come in 20 man packs?

        • CloakingDonkey

          Gitmob Grots and Skaven Slaves… It’s a huge, world-shattering problem, you guys 😛

          • Nyyppä

            O, M, G. HOW CAN THIS BE?!?

          • Drew

            Also both Peasant units for Bretonnians as I said above, but you’re right, there aren’t a lot. Even at less than 20, though, it’s a problem- what if you want to add 3 models to a cavalry unit, but the minimum is 5 or 8? What if you’d like a unit to be a little bigger, but not 100-200 points bigger?

            I just don’t see the reason for not allowing players to buy individual models- you could even leave the batch pricing in there and just add a rule allowing people to buy individual models at the cost divided by the number of models in the batch, rounding up. (i.e. Freeguild Archers are 10 for 100 points, so allow people to add models to the unit at 10 pts per model).

      • CloakingDonkey

        Be cleverer in building your army. Restrictions breed clever solutions =)

      • Munn

        So A. No one buys odd number units in 40k, you either buy the minimum, the minimum for an unlock, or the max. Maybr one unit in any army will have a number different from a multiple of it’s base size. B) There’s not a single unit in all of sigmar that has a min size bigger than 10. C) Units being in box set size is what EVERYTHING should be. It’s hard to take you seriously when you don’t know anything about either game.

        • CloakingDonkey

          Gitmob Grots and Skaven Slaves are bought in 20s.

        • Drew

          Ok, so first of all, why don’t we just back off a little with the condescending language, yeah? Just because someone has a different experience/opinion from you doesn’t mean they “don’t know anything about the game.”

          Second, “minimum for an unlock” isn’t the number of models in a boxed set, and tactical marines aren’t sold at the actual unit minimum size, either, so if this were to convert over to 40k, by Age of Sigmar’s conventions, the smallest unit of tactical marines would be 10 (one box), not 5 or the minimum for an unlock or any other metric.

          Third, glancing at my general’s handbook, the following units with minimums higher than ten: Grots (20)- who appear in multiple allegiances, Men-at-Arms (16), Peasant Bowmen (16), Skavenslaves (20).

          Fourth, while the unit size greater than 10 isn’t common unless you play one of those armies, the point of “I’d like to be able to pay 35 points for 5 more Plague Monks instead of having to pay 70 for 10 more” still holds- there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have that flexibility. That kind of freedom only improves the game by giving players more options. I’d love to be able to add a Knight Errant or a single extra Hammerer to fill those last 20-odd points in my army list, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect GW to give you that option, especially when the game is being billed not only as a game for new players but one that is supposed to be accessible to the established community, who quite likely have collections of units not measured in “whatever the current box size is.”

      • Admiral Raptor

        Sounds great! Army building is pure drudgery. The less fiddling I have to do with it, the happier I am.

    • Malisteen

      Yeah, batch pricing is a bad model, and I’m frustrated to see it persisting.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Batch pricing is easier to balance.

        • Malisteen

          Not really? Because armies have a hard time coming to the same points value, so they put in a big old handicap for whoever’s down points, which is supposed to be a one size fits all stop gap that really doesn’t work well at all.

          Plus it’s a huge kick in the teeth for players of armies like Flesh Eater courts, who are supposed to make important hero models out of unit box sets, leaving them with piles of unusable odd number left overs.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            On GW’s end, it is actually much easier to balance units when comparing them to one another if you remove the variable of buying models individually.

          • jeff white

            Becuz Gw is lazy and stoopid

          • Malisteen

            Clearly not, because again they had to introduce a whole lopsided and poorly balanced handicap system to make up for the fact that armies do not come to the same points as a result. Unit size minimums and maximums are a good idea, but batch pricing is not, especially when some armies are forced to convert heroes from regular unit models, leaving them with entire leftover boxes of unusable figures.

        • jeff white

          Easy is for lazy stoopid people

          • CloakingDonkey

            then don’t be lazy and stoopid and learn how to deal with the new system instead of whining after the old familiar one 😉

          • jeff white

            ha, i see what you did there, but… fail.

          • Drew

            There’s a big difference between “whining after the old system” and wishing players had the ability to customize their armies’ unit sizes a bit more.

    • My own opinion but I personally hope it never gets back to points per model. I like the points per unit better. Its easier and I can do without having to optimize at the model level.

      • Drew

        You’re 100% entitled to your opinion- I just wish both options had been presented so people could use whichever they wished.

        • The thing is with the community whatever is tournament standard becomes the defacto that pretty much everyone uses.

          If BOTH options were presented, there would be no point in having points per unit if tournaments allowed points per model.

          So while I can sympathize with not every option being available, because I know often the option I want is not allowed, I know what happens when options are allowed (the community prunes them all away until there is only one option anyway)

          Granted if they went back to points per model, thats one of the things that I am not bothered too much either way.

  • Dennis Finan Jr

    Thats some cool artowrk. Those grimwraith berserkers are no joke

    • Jack Biddo

      and now they are only 80 points apiece! I’m blowing the dust off my fyerslayers as i type this.

  • Xodis

    More interested in what else besides points updates are in the book….. still though, credit where its due it’s great to see this type of effort come from GW.

  • dave long island

    So it’s time to scrap the 1st General’s Handbook, huh? Great. That didn’t take long. Onto the kindling pIle it goes in preperation for the coming SHTF incident.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      We will get a new General’s handbook every year.

      • dave long island

        Oh ok, thx

    • Nyyppä

      It’s an active effort to keep the game playable. We have never before seen this from GW.

  • LordCastellan Vas

    Necrosphinx definitely needed this points increase. It is near unstoppable and can crush most other monsters with a lucky roll. IF all that weren’t bad enough, it’s crazy fast and it flies.

  • Bran D

    Still need X allegiance to field some Battleline 🙁 wish they would just make it “Battleline if X is your general”… I have to bring at least 20 orks in order to bring any war machines for my destruction army. That is until the Fimirach sorcerer comes out…he lets Fimir be battleline and only if he’s your general, no allegiance pidgeonhole for me then 🙂

    • CloakingDonkey

      yeah I hear ya. It’s really a problem unique to Destruction and maybe Death, though.

  • SisyphusIsHappy

    So will this generals book be a replacement for the current one?

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Yes. A new General’s hand book every year

  • jeff white

    Where it seys ‘minmax’ it means that for example 3 models or 12 models both cost the same points for example 240 ?

    • Munn

      Every 3 costs 240.

      • jeff white

        thanks for that… so they need to be purchased in 3s. can’t have 4, or 5?

        • thereturnofsuppuppers

          You can have as many as you want, but you purchase them in lots of 3. So 4 or 5 would cost the same as 6

  • Mr.Fister

    so basically the book I bought not even a year ago is obsolete…reminds me of 40k 6. Edition…why do I waste my money on GW-Paper…..I’ll spend it only on GW-Plastic in the future 😀

    • euansmith

      I think that the first one was released to test to the water; to see if anyone would buy it. The idea, on going, is that there will be a new book each year – depending on sales, of course.

      Hopefully they will put different Battlescrolls in this one so that the older version will retain some value.

    • Horus84cmd

      We don’t know when a updated book will be released – could be another 6 months for all anyone knows. In addition, as mentioned in the WH-Com article the book will have other new/different bits and pieces. So should be worth the buy. The current one will still be great for the bits they don’t include.

    • Admiral Raptor

      Yes and that’s a good thing. Having to wait 4+ years for re-balancing is part of the reason WHFB no longer exists.

      • Mr.Fister

        balancing could be acieved in other ways than just trowing one book after the other on my face with new point values…at least Vol. 1 was not very expensive

        • Nyyppä

          Well, they could throw one codex/army book per faction per year on your face.