Changes to Battalion point costs

[Jharen]

Maybe I'm out of line, but...

I see a lot of this "GW made the changes to sell more models" going around, and it kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit to be honest.  Of course GW wants to sell more models, that's a given, and every choice they make is going to have that goal taken into account at some level.  But to cast these simplistic statements that make it sound as if that's the ONLY reason they made a change is just a bit hostile in my opinion.  What is the point of even saying it?

The community asked for balance and change, and GW has done that.  Any change they made was going to be drastic because the game had some pretty extreme cases of imbalance.  Maybe this isn't the change you saw coming, or maybe it is the change you wanted or felt was needed, but it is a change in favor of re-balancing the game.

When you approach everything to do with this game from the competitive mind-set of tournament goers and net-listing or min-maxing, you're going to see every change as a huge hit to what you're using currently, because you are playing on the edges of extremes.  Competitive players tend to sink heavily into one area of the game in order to maximize the use of one thing.  The downside to that is that when that one thing changes it can invalidate their entire army.  That's the risk you run when min-maxing.  That's part of staying competitive in a game - knowing that you are gaming the system until the system changes.  That is completely on you as a player and customer.

I suspect that many of those with more well-rounded armies, or more theme driven armies, or those who don't attempt to stand on the bleeding edge of competitive lists really aren't going to see too much hit from changes like this.  Certainly there are always going to be exceptions to this of course, but  I know I certainly don't feel crippled for it, nor do I feel that I NEED to go out and buy more models in order to keep playing the game I enjoy.  GW will continue to get the same amount of money out of me as before - whatever my personal budget allows for and no more.

[SaJeel]

Most battalions were grossly underpointed, greatly improving the effectiveness of massive numbers of units for a meer 100 points. It often felt like if I wasn't taking battalions I was leaving a massive amount of power on the table. With these changes I will actually feel like choosing to take a battalion or not will actually be a choice

[TheOtherJosh]

With the increase in battalion costs, you are potentially playing with fewer models at the same points level. Even with the points changes.

 

And with all the new Start Collecting choices, and new allies bundles, and new skirmish bundles ... it's a good time to be in the hobby as the hobby is now less expensive.... and this coming direct from GW.

 

Yes, huge battleline units got a cost decrease... but that too is a change in play choice as those types of units were atypical outside of "horde armies". Lots of minimum size units previously. And that will change due to scoring.

 

At the end of the day, change is good. Don't get too fixated on the current meta. GHB 2018 is only a year away [emoji4]

 

[BURF1]

10 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?

You never saw those anyway.

[someone2040]

So here's my 2 cents on the matter.

I like the change overall. I think it's in direct response to 1 drops being too powerful, and gaining extra artefacts. This essentially is a double whammy that created a significant divide between armies with battletomes and those without. Not only did those with battletomes have all the extra options in battalions, but they also got significant advantages in game as well (The aforementioned decide who gets first turn and extra stuff).

I think it goes a huge way to leveling the playing field between the factions, as now you're going to need to play to your factions strengths without relying so much on gimmicks battalions provide - or - you pay the points to get your gimmicks. 

 

Whether or not they've nerfed battalions too far... well, that's for the community to figure out in the next year of gaming. I bet if battalions go out of meta favour, then it's likely we'll see a decrease in points across the board in battalions (Perhaps other than the ones that actually do get taken). Models make money, but I'm sure GW don't want stuff they're creating for the game to go unused either.

[hellalugosi]

i think it has to do with the ways the game is played. bridging the gap between the 1k and 2k experiences to me is important. there will be more diversity at 1k points because battalions are discouraged. tables will feel like they have a larger scope at 1k because youre able to field more units, this ties into massive regiments, allies as well as all the crazy artefacts and commands people can take on heroes.

youre going to see the game from a birds eye and someones going to have a big monster, or elite running around as an ally, a horde of grunts smashing about for objective supremecy, and heroes using all their new tools leading the charge, thats one compelling image for this game and i think thats what they wanted for 1k. as for 2k, i think games will get smaller because i still see people taking battalions, but theyll also be more diverse as i see less drops and more units for getting objectives as one cant grab em all anymore, and 400 pts of allies is huge, and encourages people to take what they like, and i predict thats gonna be different for everyone.

[CJPT]

Another thing to consider is that this change makes the game quite a lot friendlier for people who are new and only just building up their collection. Your first 1000 points of models isn't always going to be able to form a battalion, particularly if your faction hasn't had new rules for a while - it'll be the models you like most, likely in a sub-optimal configuration. Pre GHB 2017, there's a huge difference between 1000 points built around a strong battalion and 1000 points of 'my first models' - now that battalions are so much more expensive, that'll be less pronounced. I think that's good for the health of the game.

[shadowgra]

I'll say mine too.

I feel that GW has done the right thing. Battalions were op. And they limited players choice because if you don't have any battalions u will probably second ur opponent's choice in going 1st or second. Also they were too cheap for their bonuses.

U were ok with yourself when you were shooting in the hero phase with 21 longstrikes for 80 points? I don't think so. You were ok when you jumped 2D6 forward with 90 bloodletters for what 20 points (don't remember exact cost of murderhost but it was very cheap)? I don't think so again. 

Let's assume u are a tournament player: you have to adapt to the meta and you have to break it in order to win. So u don't have to complain about changes. I played league of legends to a good level and i stopped complaining after a while, because i felt that what they were doing for balancing was right.

Otherwise if u are a narrative player, why do you care of this change? You probably werent stomping all over your gaming group before and they won't do with you now.

Battalions were too much undercosted and who played an army like Nurgle (like me) who has 2 playable battalions and both costed like 100-140 points was really paying the edge. Now is way more balanced overall. You are complaining about khorne? Ask yourself if it is right if they nerfed it. Often people see only the op in other's people army and never in their own.

My 2 cents

[13on2D6]

The book isn't even out yet folks!

Give it a chance- remember this is 'new' GW and they have a lot of the community involved in play testing!

I think it is designed to make people really think whether the opportunity of 1st turn (Alpha striking lists in many cases) is worth the sacrifice in feet on the ground.

I will try a number of lists as I always do, but I will be also looking at all of the amazing new stuff and options with allies when I am considering my army.

On another note we haven't even discussed the 6 new scenarios! It may well be that some of these favour battalion lower drop lists to seize that 1st turn and the points spend is justified .... on that note has anyone got link to the new scenarios?

R

[chord]

22 minutes ago, 13on2D6 said:

 

Give it a chance- remember this is 'new' GW and they have a lot of the community involved in play testing!

 

i agree about not worrying yet. But their community playtest team seems to be mostly the same year to year.  Diversification could be beneficial 

[13on2D6]

1 minute ago, chord said:

i agree about not worrying yet. But their community playtest team seems to be mostly the same year to year.  Diversification could be beneficial 

I think this is a great point- I don't know specifically who many of the playtesters are but also I don't know how people or groups get chosen for this, but would happily give up time to support this in the future- does anyone know how GW do this?

[Fungrim]

I get the resistance to the points raise but it does make sense to be fair, largely because Battalions were massively undercosted in the first place.

Think about it like this, if a battalion was in fact a hero/miniature, let's call him Fungrim , he allows all duardin units to move an extra d6" in the hero phase,  brings all said units into a single drop for deployment, and also gains the ability to award an extra artefact to a hero. You'd imagine, even if all Fungrim's weapons were awful and he wasn't particularly survivable, he'd cost at the very least 140 pts, most likely in the 200+ range for the strength of the abilities described above.

So take away the hero/miniature, the asset in terms of wounds and damage output, the points costs of the battalions as they are now are probably much more in the realms of common sense than they were in GHB1.

[SpiritofHokuto]

From what I can garner GW are in contact with multiple playtesting groups worldwide. Most of which are associated with big stores.

I think they also invite Ben and Dan Heelan over to assess the GHB from a competitive standpoint and Chris and Wayne Kemp for the narrative side.

[Silchas_Ruin]

My problem from what I seen so far, is that they raised most battalions by ~100 points. Thats a good raise for some battalions, way to much for others and probably to little for a few. I think we are more likely to see everyone doing the same army builds now.  

[TheOtherJosh]

My problem from what I seen so far, is that they raised most battalions by ~100 points. Thats a good raise for some battalions, way to much for others and probably to little for a few. I think we are more likely to see everyone doing the same army builds now.  

 

I'm not sure that we'll see everyone doing the same builds anymore than we saw everyone doing the same builds pre-GHB 2017.

 

Yes, new "netlists" will come out; but with Battalions costing more, people will need to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs. This requires planning and that is a good thing.

 

And with the alliance synergies, allies, and Open War cards... it's a brand new set of choices.

[Jharen]

42 minutes ago, Silchas_Ruin said:

My problem from what I seen so far, is that they raised most battalions by ~100 points. Thats a good raise for some battalions, way to much for others and probably to little for a few. I think we are more likely to see everyone doing the same army builds now.  

Net-listers will continue to net-list and competitive gamers will continue to min-max the system as best they can.  That's always going to be a thing as that's where some people find their fun in this hobby.  It's a way of playing this game (and many others) that has and always will happen.  Nothing wrong with it.

GW has offered up changes to encourage more diversity and offer greater options for planning out lists, and for most gamers I suspect it will be a success in making us rethink what we're putting on the table or encourage us to experiment with some new stuff we didn't try before or couldn't try before.

[DanielFM]

They have killed the fluffy Stormhost battalions, for sure.

All of them require a smaller battalion first (which also received the +100 tax), resulting in 340-400 points. That's ridiculous at 2000 points.

For that you get one, maybe 2 useful abilities (most are extremely situational), 2 artifacts and the single drop.

They were only good to give a bit of a different flavor or play style to the otherwise synergy low, plain Stormcasts. Now they are useless.

If GW didn't want people to play with 2 or 3 artifacts, with did they bother creating such extensive lists with different categories (relics, weapons, banners...) in the new battletomes? Right now they are wasted paper. You will only ever use 1 at a time. New rule of one limiting repeated artifacts? Completely unnecessary after the battalion fiasco.

Removing the single drop option and adding some points to the most powerful battalions would have been more than enough to balance them. Their knee ****** reaction have removed them from matched play. And let's admit it, that's what most people play (even in narrative my friends balance armies by points, so battalions would be as useless as in matched).

[Jharen]

@DanielFM Many changes may not make sense when viewed from the perspective of "how I play my game".  Many changes are made for the game as a whole, for all its players, and all its various ways of play.  While tournament play is certainly a common and popular way to play the game, and it is centered around 2000 point list (usually), it is NOT the only way to play.  That crowd of players will adapt, the meta will change, and perhaps the tournament rules will change to suit their needs and wants.  It may be that the point allowance will simply be raised at these events in accordance with the changes if enough people feel that's where the game best plays now.

It sounds like what you need is to get yourself a 2500 point game in if you want to run the larger battalions that you can't run in a 2000 point game.  Or go for 3000, or 4000.  Nothing stopping you so long as you have friends who share your desire to play that way.  I know I for one am looking forward to running larger games more now than ever because of the dynamic these changes actually have on running higher point games.

It's probably worth mentioning that many armies have been unable to field the larger battalions in 2000 point games for a while now.

[wayniac]

Pretty much.  There are a lot of maybe cool artefacts that already weren't used because you had to justify a battalion, and now all of those went up in points so they might as well not exist.

[wayniac]

2 minutes ago, Jharen said:

@DanielFM Many changes may not make sense when viewed from the perspective of "how I play my game".  Many changes are made for the game as a whole, for all its players, and all its various ways of play.  While tournament play is certainly a common and popular way to play the game, and it is centered around 2000 point list (usually), it is NOT the only way to play.  That crowd of players will adapt, the meta will change, and perhaps the tournament rules will change to suit their needs and wants.  It may be that the point allowance will simply be raised at these events in accordance with the changes if enough people feel that's where the game best plays now.

It sounds like what you need is to get yourself a 2500 point game in if you want to run the larger battalions that you can't run in a 2000 point game.  Or go for 3000, or 4000.  Nothing stopping you so long as you have friends who share your desire to play that way.  I know I for one am looking forward to running larger games more now than ever because of the dynamic these changes actually have on running higher point games.

It's probably worth mentioning that many armies have been unable to field the larger battalions in 2000 point games for a while now.

I bolded the important part here.  Not many people have that.  The same goes for the tired argument against people who dislike matched play changes of "just play open or narrative then".  It's not something that one person can do, it requires others.  If nobody around you wants to play 2500 but only play 2000 point pitched battles, you're SOL and either don't play at all or conform to the majority.  That doesn't make the decisions okay because you can just do something else.

[Jharen]

4 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I bolded the important part here.  Not many people have that.  The same goes for the tired argument against people who dislike matched play changes of "just play open or narrative then".  It's not something that one person can do, it requires others.  If nobody around you wants to play 2500 but only play 2000 point pitched battles, you're SOL and either don't play at all or conform to the majority.  That doesn't make the decisions okay because you can just do something else.

I realize not everyone has all available options open to them, and we all certainly lose out on things we want from the game in favor of what our groups are doing.  That's the nature of the game, yes, and some are more restricted than other, true.  Another part of gaming though is adapting to changes, and realizing they do come, and they aren't always to our liking.  It's fair to be critical of them, and it's fair to discuss how to adapt to them, but the post I responded to seemed like he was angry and wanted to know what to do given the changes so I offered up some advice that came to my mind.  I don't know his situation outside of what very little information he cared to share, he mentioned narrative gaming friends, and so I worked with what information I had.  If he wants to discard the advice, or has no use for the advice given his situation, that's perfectly fine.

[Chikout]

Jervis is on the live stream now and has confirmed what people thought. 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.

[DanielFM]

2 hours ago, Jharen said:

I realize not everyone has all available options open to them, and we all certainly lose out on things we want from the game in favor of what our groups are doing.  That's the nature of the game, yes, and some are more restricted than other, true.  Another part of gaming though is adapting to changes, and realizing they do come, and they aren't always to our liking.  It's fair to be critical of them, and it's fair to discuss how to adapt to them, but the post I responded to seemed like he was angry and wanted to know what to do given the changes so I offered up some advice that came to my mind.  I don't know his situation outside of what very little information he cared to share, he mentioned narrative gaming friends, and so I worked with what information I had.  If he wants to discard the advice, or has no use for the advice given his situation, that's perfectly fine.

My friends already struggle to reach and play 2000, but tournaments around here are 2000 points and I need to "train" in order to be prepared. That's my only chance to play people outside my small group.

That's my context.

49 minutes ago, Chikout said:

Jervis is on the live stream now and has confirmed what people thought. 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.

That's full of bull. Adjusted for power? Almost all battalions went up by 100, and some of them are blatlantly less powerful.

Plus single drop is not without its downsides. You lose your chance to react to your opponent's deployment. And artifacts are cool but not worth that much.

They could have learnt and made priority a roll-off with +1 for first to deploy. They could have done a lot better than that...

I'm not angry. I'm dissappointed.

[rokapoke]

17 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

 

That's full of bull. Adjusted for power? Almost all battalions went up by 100, and some of them are blatlantly less powerful.

Plus single drop is not without its downsides. You lose your chance to react to your opponent's deployment. And artifacts are cool but not worth that much.

They could have learnt and made priority a roll-off with +1 for first to deploy. They could have done a lot better than that...

I'm not angry. I'm dissappointed.

Be disappointed after trying out the changes. It sounds like you have limited experience. I do too. Jervis? Lots of experience. The whole point of the way they decided on their changes was to capitalize on experience. Give them a test drive before getting angry or disappointed. 

[Rhellion]

18 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

That's full of bull. Adjusted for power? Almost all battalions went up by 100, and some of them are blatlantly less powerful.

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