Jump to content

Allies as battleline


LJ26

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think so.

From the quick peek they gave us of the first reveal it looks like Allies are kinda kept separate like they were in 40k. The points allocation on the chart is after the requirements and points value for you normal army.  This suggests that you have to fulfill the requirements of your main force BEFORE/IN ADDITION TO taking an allied force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

They said it on stream an facebook pretty sure in articles also, that there is far more battleline if....and more battleline.

 

 

nvm, I get it. Far more "battleline if..." units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Auticus said:

If items such as Dracoths are battleline they might as well remove the concept of battleline in the first place lol.

Not if you have to have a Stardrake General. You can only fit 5 units into a list like that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 


Battleline only exists in Pitched Battles for Matched Play.

Just say'n.... ;)

Yup. That's why I'm not more vocal about it, it doesn't affect me much. That doesn't change the fact I would rather they don't exist in Matched Play either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. That's why I'm not more vocal about it, it doesn't affect me much. That doesn't change the fact I would rather they don't exist in Matched Play either.


With the current system being run in 40k with their Battle Forged armies and various types of standard "Formations" it may eventually come up. (As you can make those kinds of armies.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 


With the current system being run in 40k with their Battle Forged armies and various types of standard "Formations" it may eventually come up. (As you can make those kinds of armies.)

You'll have to explain more, as not all of us are familiar with 40k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Auticus said:

If battleline didn't exist in matched play to me you might as well just toss matched play out altogether then.  There's no point in trying to pretend there's balance when I can just take all of the super nasties with no restraint.

They get wrecked to mortal wounds, objectives requiring more models, etc etc.

All balances out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

Like I said - then remove battleline and the concept of matched play altogether then.

I am not saying that it would work for every unit and every faction, but I don't mind certain factions having access to 'higher-quality' battlelines. For example, we are all used by now to the BCRs having low-count, high-powered models.

If taking a full Nighthaunts army enables the player to choose Hexwraiths or Spirit Hosts as battleline units, that could be another benefit/reason to take up that specific allegiance. As a trade-off, they would not get access to the Ruler of the Night command trait that is reserved for a general Death army (if it survives in the next version of GH).

I actually like this structure which promotes more diverse armies...

my 2 cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

But will it really create more diverse armies?  I strongly feel it won't.  I feel it would remove the point of battleline in the first place.

It brings forth the question "why would I never ever do this?"

Because you wouldn't be able to get the 'free points' from the hordes rule if you went elite ?

On a slightly more serious note, or rather to expand away from a cheap joke: Elite armies like pure BCR don't often seem to do that well in a competitive setting and require additional bodies in the form of Moon Clan or Bonesplitterz to really perform. People might (ok would) take Battleline Skyfires if they existed at their current points level, but that's because they're under-costed, as has been discussed many times. I'm not sure there are all that many other examples really. Stormfiends are a candidate, possibly, Arkenauts in some capacity?

Another reason might be that you end up with a sub-par general in order to get the specific Battleline choice. While you wouldn't want Burning Chariots as battleline anyway at the moment, if you did, then you have to pick a general with no command ability in order to do so. I could see this being fairly common.

I appreciate that there will be some optimum choices and this is probably what you're worried about, given what I've picked up about your local scene, but, to reverse your question, do you really think the option of elite Battleline will mean less varied lists than we currently have? 

Edit

To maybe clarify this slightly: how many top lists do you think there are now and how many would you predict there would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These rules already exist, albeit in less abundance than they're likely to, and each requires a sacrifice of some sort: If you want Morghast Archai as battleline, you need to have the Deathlords allegiance for example. By suffering the core tax you can ultimately take a more varied army, the elite tax (TM) leads to a a more restricted pool of units, even if their battleline choice becomes better. 

You seem to be suggesting that allowing elite as battleline will mean that people will never choose the generic troop option, thus invalidating the battleline rule. I would argue against this and say that having greater flexibility will always make the generic option attractive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the number of lists featuring the full selection of battleline units would drastically decrease if their requirement was totally lifted, and at the same time the relative power of lists would increase. Armies that maintained full battleline unit selection despite not being required to would be the exception, surely. Armies that used any current battleline at all would certainly still exist, but be fewer.

I don't think every army would turn into pure BCR-level monster model count, but only because that isn't ideal either. I mean currently people do some gymnastics to qualify certain units as battleline-ifs, sometimes sinking points into just the ability to do so, and most take either exactly or very close to the exact minimum they need to - it's hard for me not to see the removal suggestion as a blatant "I want to be more powerful" hiding under the guise of "it would encourage more diversity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current frustrations with it is the fact that it is a core tax which is reminiscent of old Warhammer and there is the so-called Allegiance line and or requiring a specific General to unlock it which often results in forcing you to make a specific hero they General just to have a valid Army with what you want to do. It's stifles creativity and restricts themes and basically is just trying to mimic Warhammer fantasy with round bases.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to explain more, as not all of us are familiar with 40k.


In 40k instead of having battalion warscrolls they have force organization charts called Detachments. There are 14 basic versions.

These allow various compositions of models in an army.

In much the same way that AoS has three levels of "basic" force organization of Vanguard, Battlehost and Warhost where there are different levels of min and max unit choices.

Instead of command abilities, they get Command Points (or CP), which can be spent to reroll or for strategies that change things that are happening in the battlefield. (Strategies, tactical game changers ... etc.)

Different Detachments give different amounts of command points to add to your CP pool.

Every Army gets 3cp to start out, and depending on the force org will get more. Or in the case of using Allied Detachments, cost CP to include.

40k defines "battlefield roles" as HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast Attack, Heavy Support and Lord of War.

A minimum Patrol Detachment of 1 HQ, and 1 Troop won't give any additional CP, but increase to a "Batallion Detachment" with a required 2 HQ and 3 Troops and that adds another +3CP. Running a Vanguard Detachment of 1HQ and 3 Elites? That gives only +1CP.

So, it is possible to have an "elite force" in 40k but they get fewer command points available to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Auticus said:

Then that would be the first time in the history of the game (spanning back into WHFB as well) that this would be the normal behavior.

Given the choice between an elite and a generic troop, we've already seen in open play in the early days of AOS that people prefer the elite because its both powerful and because it lowers the model count of the force (which seems to be a huge attractor for many players)

Zombie and Clan Rat hordes in Eighth edition, just passed, would be counter to that.

I agree that people, in the main, prefer elite armies, but I don't think that that invalidates the battleline rule. At the very least the battleline option will still be there for people who want to run hordes. As to less variety, even if there are only Elite armies left when the dust of GHB 2017 settles, I return to my earlier question: will there be less variety than now and could you point to specifics?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...