Jump to content

Changes to Battalion point costs


Louzi

Recommended Posts

My problem with those point increases is that they were somewhat inconsistent valuing those battalions. For example, I don't mind paying 50 more points for wychfire coven, especially not since they lowered the points of kairic acolytes. But why is congregation of filth, your basic pestilens 6+ ward battalion, gone up by 80 points (to total value of 140, price on 20 extra plaguemonks). That bonus is nowhere near as good as double shots for kairics and the whole battallion can be shut down by destroying the furnace (which doesn't get any wards). This to me is just weird and a lot other similar battalions have been hit, making them near unplayable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply
39 minutes ago, angrycontra said:

My problem with those point increases is that they were somewhat inconsistent valuing those battalions. For example, I don't mind paying 50 more points for wychfire coven, especially not since they lowered the points of kairic acolytes. But why is congregation of filth, your basic pestilens 6+ ward battalion, gone up by 80 points (to total value of 140, price on 20 extra plaguemonks). That bonus is nowhere near as good as double shots for kairics and the whole battallion can be shut down by destroying the furnace (which doesn't get any wards). This to me is just weird and a lot other similar battalions have been hit, making them near unplayable.

That's the issue.  Most battalions were already not worth the points, even when they were dirt cheap.  now they're even less worth taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

Not many people have that.

Not everyone? true

Not many? I'm not sure how you can say that. It seems it's always the same two or three people on this forum complaining about this while everyone else freely shares their excitement about new narrative releases, open war cards, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trout said:

Not everyone? true

Not many? I'm not sure how you can say that. It seems it's always the same two or three people on this forum complaining about this while everyone else freely shares their excitement about new narrative releases, open war cards, etc.

I've spoken to enough people to think it's more than just me.  Anyways, despite being one of those people "complaining about this" I am excited about new narrative release, open war cards (especially these, I want to use them in all my AOS games), just it depresses me when I realize that among the people I game with/can game with, nobody else seems to care :(  What am I supposed to do, just use TTS or something to play online since I can't find "like-minded people"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I've spoken to enough people to think it's more than just me.  Anyways, despite being one of those people "complaining about this" I am excited about new narrative release, open war cards (especially these, I want to use them in all my AOS games), just it depresses me when I realize that among the people I game with/can game with, nobody else seems to care :(  What am I supposed to do, just use TTS or something to play online since I can't find "like-minded people"?

I think you are perfectly justified in being disappointed. What I don't think is justified is claiming that your experience is normative.

 

As for specifics of what you should do? If it matters to you that much, then you should cultivate a local community that is more to your liking.  Bring in new players, start a Facebook group, advertise a meetup, run narrative events, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhellion said:

They give free artifacts and control deployment. All of them do that, regardless of the abilities the formations provide. Thus, they all went up.

Please read the whole original post. 

"Points before did not take the one drop advantage and the extra artifact into account. Larger battalions which get a larger one drop advantage got a bigger points increase. They then also adjusted according to relative power."

If they did that, they wouldn't, for example, have imposed the same 100 points tax to the weaksauce Devastation Brotherhood and the powerful Aetherstrike Force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great opportunity to try out totally new builds or even new factions. Lots of factions that weren't viable or were very limited it unit selection get boost via allies and new abilities/artifact. We've also got new Battle plans. Now we on a more level playing field and everyone's got a chance to be first to find that one good combo or neat trick that will give them the edge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have prefered for GW to remove the ability to deploy a batallion as a single drop and limit the extra artifact to the larger "battalion that contains other battalion" batallions.  Then rebalance for points.  We'd still see some point increases but not as many and not as much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a question:

Would it be better if artifacts and battalions weren't linked at all?

I was playing around with a list the other day for Eldritch Council with some allies. The lists I was more happy about (due to greater flexibility in heroes), always came out like 60-80 points under 2000 points, which is a fairly large margin. I could make a list bang on 2000, but I wasn't that satisfied with it.

Which got me thinking, boy it'd be nice if I could buy an artifact for like 50 points. Eldritch Council currently in the game, don't have any battalions, so would never be able to take a 2nd artifact regardless which is a bit disappointing.

 

So personally, I feel, the game would actually be better if:

  1. You get a free artifact with your army
  2. You can purchase additional artifacts/abilities/whatever at 40-50 points per artifact
  3. Finishing deployment first either
    1. Gives you +1 to the dice roll to determine who decides the turn order in the first battle round
    2. The opponent who finished 2nd can 'Seize the initiative' on a 6, and if so he gets to determine the turn order for the first battle round
  4. Revert the Battalions so that they are pointed mainly on the abilities they actually give, as opposed to all the additional stuff the rules give you alongside them

I think those changes would be reasonable for the game, and actually make most parties happy. Those who like Battalions giving them extra stuff, are paying for that extra stuff only. Those who want extra magic items for their heroes, can pay for extra magic items. If your army has less drops, well, you potentially get to dictate the battle a bit more earlier on.

Some battalions (like some of the special Stormcast chambers) that give special magic artifacts could give you that artifact as part of the battalion and the points for that artifact are just rolled into the points for the battalion.

 

Personally I would be quite happy with the approach I suggested. It's obviously not going to happen (That horse has bolted), but I think it'd add more interesting dynamic to list building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@someone2040, I think it's too early to propose changes. Maybe some of those will "help", but we can't evaluate where things stand without trying it out. GW seems to have tried to address many perceived issues -- that they perceived, anyway -- so let's give their solution a chance before discarding it outright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

@someone2040, I think it's too early to propose changes. Maybe some of those will "help", but we can't evaluate where things stand without trying it out. GW seems to have tried to address many perceived issues -- that they perceived, anyway -- so let's give their solution a chance before discarding it outright. 

So just for the record, I'm not trying to put fuel on the fire. If you look earlier in the thread, you'll see I actually support the changes made to battalions.

 

Does it mean I think the game could not be improved further? Absolutely not. Just putting forth some interesting discussion around where some of the problems with Battalions lay (They give too many bonuses) and an alternative to hiking up their prices (Split out those bonuses independent of battalions) which would also, at the same time, help those of us who write lists that end up with spare change.

 

There are some good reasons why my alternative is not a good one either. First and foremost, from GW's point of view, every single battletome has written into it "You gain free artifacts if you take Warscroll battalions!", which is a bit of a huge shift if you no longer gain free artifacts. It would mean errata for every battletome to date, and inconsistency between old and new battletomes.

 

So yeah, not trying to fuel the fire. Just trying to have interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

So yeah, not trying to fuel the fire. Just trying to have interesting discussion.

Fair enough. I'm just tired of so many posts jumping all over a document that has yet to be released, let alone tried out. Discussion = good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, someone2040 said:

There are some good reasons why my alternative is not a good one either. First and foremost, from GW's point of view, every single battletome has written into it "You gain free artifacts if you take Warscroll battalions!", which is a bit of a huge shift if you no longer gain free artifacts. It would mean errata for every battletome to date, and inconsistency between old and new battletomes.

We already have a similar instance of this with universal errata on the hints and tips section. So there is a precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017/8/21 at 8:28 PM, Louzi said:

Because I think that will happen. The good battalions will still be played (Kunnin, Aether, Ironfist etc.). But the others? I  think that you wont see a fluffy battalion like Hallowed Knights, Tempest Lords etc.) anymore?

It's true.

Before the change i would take something like Icebone  Warclan from time to time.

But with the massive battalions pts increase, those lesser battalions are clearly not worth their pts anymore.

Kunnin Rukks all the way now for Bonesplitterz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

We already have a similar instance of this with universal errata on the hints and tips section. So there is a precedent.

Potentially.

I get the feeling that GW are playing safe at this stage. It's only been one year since Matched Play rules came out, they're probably feeling they want the current system to stay a bit steady and just make minor tweaks to it at the moment.

It's why I think you see clunky rules of 1 like "You can only take 1 of each artifact", well, that could've easily just been written as errata for the existing battletomes and rolled into all future battletomes. Nor did we see changes to shooting system even though many people are a little frustrated by how simplistic it is.

So I guess from their point of view, 1 year into competitive AoS play the system might not be ready for any real shake ups.

 

And I mean, that's fine. If the changes don't work out, it'll come around in the feedback next year. If people really don't like it, you'll see feedback such as "I want to use this cool battalion, but it costs me too many points for the ability even if I don't want to 1 drop it" or "I want to use more magic artifacts, but I don't have any battalions to use them", and if they get that feedback, I'm sure GW will work it out. Or maybe they won't get said feedback, because people are happy enough with the current system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Destroyed Artifacts? Hardly... 

Bottom line: battalions were exploitable in matched play and gave too many advantages for the small points cost. That is fixed now. If you still think certain battalions are overcosted vs some others --> give feedback to the rules team via their e-mail. I wouldn't expect them taking any arguments as gospel, but if  many people complain about the same thing, it'll be fixed eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Death player, who rarely takes batallions because of the limited choices available to me, it seems kind of crazy to see so many people so intensely annoyed by this change. Armies with lots of batallion choices used to get a lot of stuff that was free and now they don’t, what’s so controversial about that?

If before you used to think lots of batallions we’re worth including in your army but now they’re not all worth the points, that’s the system working! Not everything will complement your army, and that’s fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point cost for battalions merely changes the number of models you're working with at a given point range if you choose to use them.

This change to battalions is a simple solution dealing with purely points. Instead of convoluted logic on which battalions get what benefits.

It also allows the game to better reflect the value for what is being done in battalions. Is it perfect? No, but it is closer. And we will see where the new meta takes us, and the points will likely change in the GHB 2018 to reflect another year of meta change. And we'll have new changes to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, inunn said:

As a Death player, who rarely takes batallions because of the limited choices available to me, it seems kind of crazy to see so many people so intensely annoyed by this change. Armies with lots of batallion choices used to get a lot of stuff that was free and now they don’t, what’s so controversial about that?

If before you used to think lots of batallions we’re worth including in your army but now they’re not all worth the points, that’s the system working! Not everything will complement your army, and that’s fine.

So why not set all the battalions to 500 points? System's working. 

Your problem is not that people have access to many different batallions but that you have access to a few. We can eithere expand the idea of batallions or do what this GHB2 did. I think battalions are cool and bring deepness to army composition. They also made weaker units playable as normally, without the battalion, you wouldn't play them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Fair enough. I'm just tired of so many posts jumping all over a document that has yet to be released, let alone tried out. Discussion = good!

You know most people have seen 90% of the leaks right?  So it doesn't matter if it's been "released" or not, people are able to see what has changed and may have even had the chance to use them already.

Anyways, I just am not a fan of the current direction they seem to be going, it feels too much like they are listening a bit too much to the 1% (i.e. high end tournament players, specifically for this in the UK it seems like) and changing things on the assumption that if you're playing Matched Play at all, it's in a tournament, thus we see changes that might be good only in tournaments be applied to any Matched Play game.  We see a similar thing in 40k (although there they are IMHO listening too much to the ITC crowd) where they really should have added as stricter subset of Matched Play called "Tournament Play" (or similar verbiage) where they could freely apply changes that are responses to the tournaments, without it being just "all Matched Play" and putting the onus on house rules.

I'm hopeful for it, and some of the changes do seem good, but I feel they're catering a bit too much to a tiny minority and affecting a majority as a result due to the trickle-down effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite reasonable that matched play points are based on their matched play efficiency, be it in tournaments or wherever. It just is bit of a problem in these kind of games, that stuff needs to be pointed for the strongest combination, even if it can be played with weaker combos, otherwise it'll lead to larger imbalance. The downside of this just is that it'll make the strongest combos more attractive.

 

I don't find this batallion thing different from e.g. the cost of skyfires. If someone runs single unit of skyfires in friendly games, it doesn't matter much if they are 160 or 200 points, but if they are 160 points, someone will take 27 of them and no one has fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jamopower said:

I think it's quite reasonable that matched play points are based on their matched play efficiency, be it in tournaments or wherever. It just is bit of a problem in these kind of games, that stuff needs to be pointed for the strongest combination, even if it can be played with weaker combos, otherwise it'll lead to larger imbalance. The downside of this just is that it'll make the strongest combos more attractive.

True, but that's why I feel it would have been prudent to further split the two.  Not for points, necessarily, but for other restrictions and changes that might be needed in tournaments but not for all point-based play.  I think there should have been a divide between "I want to use points to build my army in a structured manner to have something of a balanced game" and "I want to participate in a cutthroat environment at the highest levels of play where extra care needs to be taken due to the focus on winning"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like allegiance abilities, battalions are a well-meaning addition to the game that theoretically helps people build characterful fluffy armies, but in practice mostly funnels people towards a very narrow range of army compositions. Neither allegiance abilities nor battalions should be so attractive that more unusual, creative and varied army compositions are unthinkable. With that in mind, I think GW have done a great job with the GHB2017; ally rules undercut the stranglehold of allegiance abilities and increased points for battalions means that they are no longer the obvious default choice.

GW haven't 'killed battalions', they've revived the fun of building an army in your own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wayniac said:

True, but that's why I feel it would have been prudent to further split the two.  Not for points, necessarily, but for other restrictions and changes that might be needed in tournaments but not for all point-based play.  I think there should have been a divide between "I want to use points to build my army in a structured manner to have something of a balanced game" and "I want to participate in a cutthroat environment at the highest levels of play where extra care needs to be taken due to the focus on winning"

I think it's stated very clearly in the Open play section that you can freely use the matched play points for that kind of playing as well and when talking about open play, it should be clear that you are free to tweak them as you want. Matched play is in my eyes more or less equal to tournament/league play or similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Like allegiance abilities, battalions are a well-meaning addition to the game that theoretically helps people build characterful fluffy armies, but in practice mostly funnels people towards a very narrow range of army compositions.

When we talk about large battalions consisting of many units then i agree. In my opinion we could keep diversity in composition if we had many, low unit count battalions, that cost little points. Like 3-4 units battalions. That way we could run several of those in every army. The risk is however it could become to complex to follow all the rules. Still better than overcosted, unplayable battalions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...