Changes to Battalion point costs

[Louzi]

ALL battalions are very expensive now (e.g. hallowed knights 400 points...). Does anyone have an idea why GW is killing battalions?? I think this is a mistake, because it gives an army a structure. I am just curious why they are doing that.

[BaldoBeardo]

Minimising deployment drops via battalions is a big advantage and wasn't previously costed, is the current thinking.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[tom_gore]

Considering battalions can now deploy as one lump, get one extra artifact and their special abilities they might often be well worth it.

My guess is they want to give people more options to reach their first 1000 pts army composition. Battalions are a great way of doing this.

[Gaz Taylor]

Just a bit curious but why have you used the term "Killing"? (so negative    ) Do you think we will see no Battalions now, or do you think they are being costed more appropriately for what they can do.  

I suspect the thinking behind the changes are to try and stop players having armies with loads of Battalions and try and limit it to one, so the benefits they do are limited (such as deployment drops) don't have such a big impact on the game

[wayniac]

The drops and a few egregious outliers (Hammerstrike, Kunnin Rukk) are what I can think of, but the decision is weird since a lot of battalions that were already terrible even costing a few points just got even worse.  I honestly think only SOME battalions should have had points, not all of them (by which I mean getting rid of "it needs points for Matched Play", but some battalions that are really good cost you extra, while some are free if you meet the requirements).  IMHO you will see barely any battalions now except for the few that are deemed "still good" enough to justify the cost, and nothing else.  It turns into a situation like Warmahordes had with their theme forces in MK2:  A handful were so good you always wanted to use them, and everything else were so terrible you never took them or saw them and they might as well have not even existed.

[Louzi]

8 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Just a bit curious but why have you used the term "Killing"? (so negative    ) Do you think we will see no Battalions now, or do you think they are being costed more appropriately for what they can do.  

I suspect the thinking behind the changes are to try and stop players having armies with loads of Battalions and try and limit it to one, so the benefits they do are limited (such as deployment drops) don't have such a big impact on the game

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?

[maximum_pants]

I think it was more about the atefacts you'd get. something like bonesplitterz has so many cheap battalion options, so you could easily get 3 battlebrews in an army. meanwhile something like spiderfang grots that has no battalions would be stuck at 1 battlebrew.

[wayniac]

Just now, Louzi said:

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

To be fair though a lot of battalions suffered from one of two problems:

1) Not even worth the points it was at when it was cheap (i.e. the abilities aren't good enough to justify paying any points)

2) The mega battalions that require several other battalions AND themselves, most of those weren't usable in 2000 points anyways, and increasing the cost makes it worse IMHO as you already couldn't fit them in.

[Rhellion]

Winning the deployment through less drops and extra powerful artifacts. That now costs more and is still worth it.

[Aginor]

Ok, here's my opinion on that:

Before GHB2017 there were some armies that had bataillons, and those were cheap, required a low amount of units, and were even required. Sylvaneth or Bonesplitterz for example. Since all bataillons not only give their bonus abilities but also allow you to drop faster and add another artefact to a hero that meant that Sylvaneth players could easily play with three artefacts, one drop, and that at a low cost.

So some armies basically got free loot, while for others it was utterly impossible to play that way because their bataillons were too expensive.

I like the change. I think bataillons should be expensive if they grant those bonuses. They are now.

Also look at it this way: The bataillons became more expensive, but I think all armies have stuff that actually got cheaper. I did the math on some of my lists for Sylvaneth, Seraphon, Ironjawz, and Deathrattle and it seems that overall the points costs didn't grow that much, in some cases they actually dropped quite a bit. My Gnarlroot list - despite point increase for its six Kurnoth Hunters and the two bataillons just increased by twenty points or so.

So no, I don't think GW is killing bataillons. They will be fine I guess.

 

Thanks for reading.

[GutrotSpume]

All they needed to do was make it so battalions couldn't be deployed as one drop. 

[Thorize]

An other thing that this might indicate is to make some of the more crazy "fluffy" battiolions limited to narrativ/open-play where they have a much better fit. If you want to get them it is still possible but it opens up for more great stuff when you want to play a more story focused game and points might not be as much of a hard line and more of a guide to keep the forces mostly balanced

[swarmofseals]

I don't have a ton to add to this discussion other than to say that I agree that the increase to battalion prices was largely justified IMO and I think it will make using battalions a much more interesting decision rather than an auto-include for any army that has an even semi-attractive battalion option. I only wish GW had taken a little more care in tuning the increases to make some of the lesser-played battalions a little more moderate.

[Cerlin]

As someone who has spent the last year regularly using one or no battalions from older armies vs a guy who had 2 or 3 all the time, this change was really needed. Feels so unfair when fighting a guy with 3 special spells, items, and abilities who has a similar army comp to my Free Peoples army.

With the new armies that give spells, items, and ability per battalion this is a good update.

For the record, Sylvaneth and new SCE is what I have fought a bunch. 

If all armies have it, then have them be cheap. But as we know that will never happen, so give them a point cost instead. Like every other good ability. Talk to undead players, they know how it feels to pay for your most important ability cost points. 

Also think about the fact that the balancing factor before for all the free stuff you got with alliegance abilities was that you limited your build choices. With the ally system this is no longer the case. So now you can build a more versatile list and get the free items. This inherently should increase the cost of these battalions because they got that much better.

[daedalus81]

Battalions gave too much for free.  It is so much more reasonable this way.  You could possibly even make an army without one now and not feel handicapped.

[SlowPlay85]

3 hours ago, tom_gore said:

Considering battalions can now deploy as one lump, get one extra artifact and their special abilities they might often be well worth it.

My guess is they want to give people more options to reach their first 1000 pts army composition. Battalions are a great way of doing this.

They could already do that...

[RuneBrush]

I do think change was needed - three Battalions had become pretty common (especially minimum filled ones) and was adding quite a bit of complexity into a game with lots of overlapping rules.  Where I've a bit of a reservation is battalions that require another one (e.g. The Goretide), received a double whammy increase.

I'm looking forward to seeing what new things appear next week - are we going to see lists with no battalions, or one that's been maxed out?

[CJPT]

I really like that most battalions now cost about the same as a unit. That's a meaningful tradeoff - more bodies on the board vs. a special ability and extra artifact. Great change, in my opinion.

[DynamicCalories]

If you pay (10) points per battalion, you can resurrect them.

[Payce]

3 hours ago, 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?

I think you will.

Personally, I find that the Daughters of Khaine-battalion is now far more worthy of consideration than it was previously, even if A) it's not particularly good, and B) it was raised by 100 points. Why? Because the army is actually playable now, and getting it as a single drop can quite literally be game-winning. You put down your first unit... and I drop my entire army, 100+ worth of fast, killy models, covering a wide range of the table, and I'm done. Not only do I dictate whether or not you go first or second, you're forced to respond to my deployment and focus the units I've determined are going to be there and there.

One-drop battalions are incredibly strong. Those extra points will, for a lot of armies, be far more valuable than ten more wounds that might get shot off before you get to use them anyway.

[Wraith01]

To get you to buy more models.

The rules are always in a state of flux, so you have to adapt every time they change them. It keeps the game interesting.

Then again, you don't have to adopt the new rules immediately. 

[TheOtherJosh]

The costs are only applicable to Matched play.

 

Battalions were previously under-costed ... there is substantial benefit to being able to go first through fewer drops, and get unit rule benefits, and the artefacts, and that wasn't being accounted for in the prior price.

 

This is an overall meta changer, and we will likely see changes next year too. The changes here are an "initial correction" and we will see more changes next year with GHB 2018.

 

Which is a great thing! Let's all play games with the new rules (and the open War cards!) and see what still needs work and give some feedback on where things are in six months ... or so.

 

You can still "field" the battalion equivalent force... but you don't get additional in-game benefit unless you pay for those. (Fewer things for free.)

 

 

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I definitely get behind fewer things for free.

Might go some way to help with what we were chatting about on the double turn thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Killax]

Quote

Why does GW kill battalions?

Because they want you to get and use more models.

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

It hasn't affected my force, now I just need to bring in three units of goregruntas instead of one with my ironfist.