Age of Sigmar: The General’s Handbook ‘Seasonal Model’ Needs Work
The Warhammer: Age of Sigmar General’s Handbook is a game changer every time it comes out. But it’s a seasonal model that needs to change.
I remember the excitement around the very first General’s Handbook for Age of Sigmar. It literally changed the game (for the better) and helped to make a new path for the game moving forward. Skipping ahead to where we’re at now and we’re slogging through a the latest iteration of the GHB and it’s year-long seasonal model.
The GHB does feel a bit like a tool for Games Workshop to pull some levers, try out new things, and shake-up the overall meta of AoS — often in good ways. They’ve also experimented with different lengths of seasons as well with this current one lasting a full year. Today, I want to talk about the pros and cons of the GHB and why the “Seasonal Model” that’s been established really needs to change.
General’s Handbook, A Game Changer
One of the biggest pros of the General’s Handbook is that it DOES change the game, drastically. With the new battlepack that comes out, there’s new …everything to play. There’s new Battleplans to try, new “seasonal” rule to use, updates to enhancements, magic, command traits, core battalions, and (most importantly) Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics. These things vastly impact the overall game and can even lead to some massive shifts in army performance.
For example the loss of Galletian Veterans from last season really squashed the Nighthaunt and it’s only now been course-corrected with the most recent Battlescroll update. Turns out having units be able to get more models into combat is kind of a big deal for units with 32mm bases!
We’ll take our 2″ reach, thank you!
So why is this a pro? Because it’s those meta-shifting changes that help keep the game fresh. And yes, the Battlescroll DOES do a similar thing, but on a more focused scale. In many ways, the GHB’s are a BIG way to change the game to keep it healthy without having to go so far as to rewrite the Core Rules. It’s kind of like an inverse pyramid — the higher up you go the wider the impacts are felt. Also the lower you go, the more frequent you should see updates…
You could even make the case for Battletome FAQ’s that show-up two weeks after releases to be at the very bottom.
Another pro for these GHB updates is their frequency. But it’s not actually the amount of time they are out, it’s the fact that GW has been experimenting with the right amount of time to keep these seasons active. We’ve had short GHBs (roughly three months) and we’ve had medium GHBs (roughly 6 months) and then we’ve had the longest one of a full year. Fan reaction to each option has been mixed. But it’s been good that GW has tested these formats.
Yet another pro for the GHB is that they are just really handy. You’ve got the core rules and all the battleplans in one spot. Plus, as a product, you typically get tokens and stuff to help you with the current seasonal Battle Tactics and Grand Strats. This is a good thing for newer players especially.
General’s Handbook, The Change We Need?
So now that we’ve touched on a few of the good things, let’s go over some of the biggest issues with the General’s Handbook. First up, and this is a personal pet peeve, is the actual length of the seasons. I feel like this is such a tricky thing to balance. On one hand, you want to give folks enough time with the current GHB to feel like it was worth their time and money. Paying $50 for a book you’re only going to use for three months isn’t a great feeling.
On the flip side, getting stuck with a ruleset you don’t like for a year or more is a terrible feeling, too. It’s complicated! There’s also the issue of balancing the time for people to actually build and play a new in the GHB before you change it. I still think three months is too short for that but a year is just too long. There’s a balance somewhere in the middle.
The Game Changer!
Another con about the GHB is, frankly, the rules bloat. The current Battlepack has 12 different Battleplans (missions) to play. There’s also a TON of special seasonal rules like the Primal Dice mechanic and the Andtorian Locus stuff. And, again, in the previous season we had all the Galletian Veterans stuff, and before that it was monsters…and you get the idea.
While I do appreciate the meta-shifting change, it feels like with each GHB that Games Workshop is making the special rules sections bigger and bigger. And I get that it has to do with the seasonal narrative they are writing and creating. But at the same time the GHB’s can add so much to the Core Rules that it feels like it’s bleeding more into that “Core Rules Update” section instead of sticking with the GHB section.
Now, I’m sure there’s more we could dive into in terms of problems with the seasonal GHB system. But I don’t want to harp on this all day. Instead, I want to talk about how GW could improve the Seasonal Update model that is the General’s Handbook.
General’s Handbook, Updating The Seasonal Model
Here’s the deal: Games Workshop has a rough timeline of how long an edition of a game will be around. For Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, we’re looking at roughly 3 years for an edition. That’s 36 months give or take when stuff actually ships. I think that a yearly GHB is just too long. I also firmly believe that three months is too short. While the easy answer is “just do 6 month seasons” I think that’s also not great — you’re now dropping $100 every 12 months to stay current on GHB rules (of which there’s too many per season).
We need the meta shifts provided by the GHB. We also need enough time to play with them to the point that we’re comfortable and have built armies — but not so much time that we get bored. We want to feel like we’re getting the value out of the GHBs but without feeling overwhelmed. Again, this is a lot more complicated than just “print a new GHB” for everyone.
Personally, I would love to see a new GHB come out every nine months. We should get one about two weeks to four weeks after an edition change (so folks can get used to the Core Rules updates). And then (roughly) nine months later, we should get a new one. Repeat that until the edition is ready for a refresh.
I also think that we really only need about 8-9 Battleplans (missions) in the Battlepacks. There’s always one or two missions that the community REALLY dislikes and you almost never see them played in Tournaments. That’s out of the 12 we get. Kinda feels like maybe GW just leaves those out in the edits.
Furthermore, I think there needs to be something done about the amount of rules added per GHB. Back to the Primal Dice example…I get it. GW wants to shake things up and basically try out new systems that could potentially be in future editions (or even applied to entirely different games). But it’s a combination of ALL the stuff at once that can make the extra rules feel like it’s just too much. I don’t think we need a GHB to modify Core Rules in extremes, but we DO need the GHBs to make the game play different enough to be interesting.
Final Thoughts On The General’s Handbooks
At the end of the day I think that the General’s Handbooks are a great idea. But the “Seasonal Update” model needs to shift. It needs to come out in a predictable, standard timeline. The General’s Handbook also need to change the game — but not so much that players are forced into army builds they don’t like just to use the seasonal rules. I don’t want things to get repetitive and bland. But I also don’t want us to get stuck with years-long seasons that aren’t fun for every army.
This is a tough balancing act and I don’t envy GW’s designers. I do think they have done a good job overall with the GHBs and appreciate them taking risks on things. We’ll see if they continue to run with the GHB seasonal model after the current one ends. If the rumors are true, we’re going to get some big shifts of AoS in the Summer one way or another.
What do you think about the Seasonal Model of the General’s Handbook? What changes would you make?
