Changes to Battalion point costs

[DanielFM]

7 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I'm sorry that you feel that your personal army has been adversely affected by the change, but this in itself doesn't represent a damning indictment of the overall approach that GW has taken. There is no way that this change is anything but good overall for themed armies - bear in mind that most battalions don't appear to have been created with themes in mind, but rather as suggested ways of organising an army. Most of the genuinely thematic battalions don't even have points (e.g. Sons of Behemat). At most this change has killed your themed army, but even that is debatable. How many games have you played with the new rules and points so far?

Also, as has been pointed out above, if the theme is your main concern then there's nothing stopping you taking exactly the same army composition as before, but just not taking the battalion. Save those points and spend them elsewhere.

This has killed every Stormhost army. Ask people in the Let's chat Stormcast if anyone intends of keeping playing them (even the most competitive ones ie. Tempest Lords). It's not only about my personal army.

This change means anyone with no battalions gets a whole unit over me. That's a net advantage. I have played these battalions before and I haven't perceived any clear advantage over a no-battalion army (the dreaded single drop meant very little). Please aknowledge most battalions have weak, situational rules to begin with.

Theme is my concern, and the few special rules granted by the Stormhost battalion rewarded me slightly for playing a certain type of army in a certain way. Without it, a Paladin heavy army is almost unplayable, they are slow as turtles and too fragile for their cost.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

This has killed every Stormhost army. Ask people in the Let's chat Stormcast if anyone intends of keeping playing them (even the most competitive ones ie. Tempest Lords). It's not only about my personal army.

This change means anyone with no battalions gets a whole unit over me. That's a net advantage. I have played these battalions before and I haven't perceived any clear advantage over a no-battalion army (the dreaded single drop meant very little). Please aknowledge most battalions have weak, situational rules to begin with.

Theme is my concern, and the few special rules granted by the Stormhost battalion rewarded me slightly for playing a certain type of army in a certain way. Without it, a Paladin heavy army is almost unplayable, they are slow as turtles and too fragile for their cost.

I'm not intimately familiar with Stormcast or their battalions, so you may be right. But I've seen people claiming that the sky is falling over points changes enough times (i.e. literally any time there is any change, ever) to be a little sceptical of your claim that this has 'killed every Stormhost army'. That just sounds like hyperbole to me, sorry. Your claim would be more credible if it concerned an army that you didn't have a strong personal investment in, which you clearly do in this case.

If you're a competitively-minded player and no longer see any advantage to using a battalion then your solution is simple - just stop using it and do something else with those points. If most battalions already have weak, situational rules then why are you so concerned about them becoming less competitive? This just sounds to me like you're a competitive player who has sour grapes because he's lost an advantage. Nothing you've said suggests to me that you're genuinely concerned about your army's theme - as I've already said, you can have the exact same army composition without using a battalion.

Of course, I could be completely misreading this and you're genuinely a narrative-focused player who enjoys the little thematic bonuses that a battalion can confer. But if that's the case, why would you care about their points cost? Why would you need a 'reward' in the form of an advantageous bonus to encourage you to field a certain type of army?

I'm really struggling to understand what your angle is here.

[Jamopower]

I still don't see any good reason for stuff not being priced based on the cutting edge competitive strength. If it's not, sone stuff will be undercosted and most certainly it will creep to all types of gaming. For example stuff like kunnin rukk or slyfires being undercosted might not necessary an issue in fluffy gaming where you don't max out the benefit, but as someone eventually will do it, it can break the game. You can easilly see how few undercosted units can ruin the game for many players if you read the mortal wound Thread. 

[Tzaangor Management]

10 minutes ago, DanielFM said:

This has killed every Stormhost army. Ask people in the Let's chat Stormcast if anyone intends of keeping playing them (even the most competitive ones ie. Tempest Lords). It's not only about my personal army.

This change means anyone with no battalions gets a whole unit over me. That's a net advantage. I have played these battalions before and I haven't perceived any clear advantage over a no-battalion army (the dreaded single drop meant very little). Please aknowledge most battalions have weak, situational rules to begin with.

Theme is my concern, and the few special rules granted by the Stormhost battalion rewarded me slightly for playing a certain type of army in a certain way. Without it, a Paladin heavy army is almost unplayable, they are slow as turtles and too fragile for their cost.

In your example, if I'm reading it right, you want to use a slow moving, heavily armored force that hits hard on the charge. What your batallion was giving you, I assume, is a means of getting your Paladins into combat, without having to foot-slog across the battlefield and lose models to ranged and spell damage.

In a chaos army this would be Sayl the Faithless, he costs 160 points can cast his spell once per turn and is under-costed. 

[Aeryenn]

9 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

I still don't see any good reason for stuff not being priced based on the cutting edge competitive strength. If it's not, sone stuff will be undercosted and most certainly it will creep to all types of gaming. For example stuff like kunnin rukk or slyfires being undercosted might not necessary an issue in fluffy gaming where you don't max out the benefit, but as someone eventually will do it, it can break the game. You can easilly see how few undercosted units can ruin the game for many players if you read the mortal wound Thread. 

Points are not the only tool to balance things. They could rewrite Grundstok Thunderers rules, and so they could with rules regarding batallions (mentioned free artifact and 1-drop). 

[Jamopower]

Yes of course they could, but it's much easier to revise point costs than warscrolls, as the latter are printed in the books and leaflets coming in the box sets etc.

[TheOtherJosh]

Points are not the only tool to balance things. They could rewrite Grundstok Thunderers rules, and so they could with rules regarding batallions (mentioned free artifact and 1-drop). 

Correct. GW could.

Rewriting one scroll (or several) because the initial scroll was loose in wording and didn't match the intent of the designers and the model kit didn't have the bits to make the (originally) legitimate unit... easy. No big change. It puts the unit back into line with the designers original intent.

Changing EVERY battalion for EVERY faction by changing the rules for battalions? That's a crazy huge change. Perhaps it is needed. We will find out down the road. And I'm sure we will see more changes if they're needed, in future editions.

But, throwing out the benefits and advantages for all battalions because of a fear of changing points costs? It reminds me of the quote about throwing out the baby with the bath water...

GW decided to make incremental changes to the game. Points are incremental. Additions to the rule of one. Incremental. Wholesale rule changes are not.

Consider the points changes and tweaks that have been modified in the GHB 2017 as a minor course correction, not a major gutting of a design decision. And, I would bet a stack of Aethergold that there will be more course corrections next year with GHB 2018. After things have shaken out in terms of points and lists this year.

Right now we have a lot of fear; fear of newness, fear that stuff isn't going to work and ones plans will be dashed to the ground in pieces, but mainly it is fear of change. And we will see more change down the road.

We haven't even seen most of the new 158 page GHB 2017 edition. We've seen some point costs and a smattering of other pages... but it is a fresh new take on the game. And you don't even need to paint new miniatures to play in it.

[Jamopower]

There are also suble things in the game. When Kharadron Overlords were released, a lot of people were claiming that the ships are not worth it and the army will be shooty footslogger horde. However it seems that armies with large amount of melee engindriggers in Ironclad are doing well. Coincidentally one big reason seems to be the one drop nature of the army...

[Aeryenn]

 

51 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 

Changing EVERY battalion for EVERY faction by changing the rules for battalions? That's a crazy huge change. Perhaps it is needed. We will find out down the road. And I'm sure we will see more changes if they're needed, in future editions.

 

That's indeed crazy. 

I specified in my post what needs change:

Extra artifacts and 1-dropping. That's what most people here point as game changing and what  is justification to increase in points. If that's the problem, then remove those two bonuses. Seperate battalions from extra artifacts and 1 dropping army. That's it. No need to make battalions steep. 

[Jamopower]

44 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Because of how powerful a double turn is.

It's more of inherent thing in igougo mechanism. They had to already change the rule in 40k after couple of months, even without the alternating initiative. If AoS would have lots of powerul long range shooting, the first turn would be the target also here. Now when the ranges are shorter (down to close combat range) and also because the possibilty of double turn, the second turn is the better one, but at least it's balanced bit more by the other player getting to move and cast spells and other buffs first. It's good to remember that even in Chess, there is an advantage for the one who goes first.

That said, I have never really understood why the batallions need to have the deployment rule,  but on the other hand it allows for more variety in tactics, especially now when it's costed more appropriately.

[Mikester1487]

I don't really have a dog in the fight for batallions with the army I'm playing (maybe I'll find that I'm wrong on Saturday), but I think for now increasing the price is a fine way of paying for that one drop bonus or extra artifact.

I just see it as that process of you want something cool and useful? You need to invest into it then.

Gonna be interesting to see what people come up with as time goes on with the added factor of alliances now.

[BunkhouseBuster]

I asked my peronal Megaboss, Blurrog of the Crimson Crushas, what he thinks about the changes, and this was his response:

"Oy, wots dis?  Oo gives a grot's rump wot changes gets made to da armies an' da points?  I's still gonna take me Boyz into big battles an' fights, especially dem spiky gits wiff da red armor, I likes fightin' dem - dat armor's got da only "points" I worry 'bout!  Da Waaagh ain't gonn' stop just cuz some gits is worryin'.

All dat asides, whens I'm gettin' me own Maw-Crusha?  I's gettin' bored wiff walkin' ever'where.  I gots a name picked an everyfin'."

[DanielFM]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I'm not intimately familiar with Stormcast or their battalions, so you may be right. But I've seen people claiming that the sky is falling over points changes enough times (i.e. literally any time there is any change, ever) to be a little sceptical of your claim that this has 'killed every Stormhost army'. That just sounds like hyperbole to me, sorry. Your claim would be more credible if it concerned an army that you didn't have a strong personal investment in, which you clearly do in this case.

If you're a competitively-minded player and no longer see any advantage to using a battalion then your solution is simple - just stop using it and do something else with those points. If most battalions already have weak, situational rules then why are you so concerned about them becoming less competitive? This just sounds to me like you're a competitive player who has sour grapes because he's lost an advantage. Nothing you've said suggests to me that you're genuinely concerned about your army's theme - as I've already said, you can have the exact same army composition without using a battalion.

Of course, I could be completely misreading this and you're genuinely a narrative-focused player who enjoys the little thematic bonuses that a battalion can confer. But if that's the case, why would you care about their points cost? Why would you need a 'reward' in the form of an advantageous bonus to encourage you to field a certain type of army?

I'm really struggling to understand what your angle is here.

I'm a lot of the second and a little of the first. 

I enjoy playing an army that feels right with how it should work in the background. But I also want it to be competitive and have a good chance of winning. I don't think it's that contradictory.

2 hours ago, Tzaangor Management said:

In your example, if I'm reading it right, you want to use a slow moving, heavily armored force that hits hard on the charge. What your batallion was giving you, I assume, is a means of getting your Paladins into combat, without having to foot-slog across the battlefield and lose models to ranged and spell damage.

In a chaos army this would be Sayl the Faithless, he costs 160 points can cast his spell once per turn and is under-costed. 

Not exactly. The battalion don't make them faster, it makes them tougher (reroll 1's for armor save, 1's and 2's if they already did, only if two other units are within 6) when deployed in formation, and also help the enemy become slower (a single judicators unit can slow any unit 1d6 inches if they wound them.

It's useful but hardly worth 340 points (note: there are other minor rules attached but they are extremely situational).

[TheOtherJosh]

  That's indeed crazy.  I specified in my post what needs change:

Extra artifacts and 1-dropping. That's what most people here point as game changing and what  is justification to increase in points. If that's the problem, then remove those two bonuses. Seperate battalions from extra artifacts and 1 dropping army. That's it. No need to make battalions steep. 

 

 

 But by asking for a core rule change, that exists in every battletome, that is exactly what you're asking for.

 

You're asking for multiple core rule mechanics of the game to change, something written up in every battletome, because they cost more than they did previously.

 

Point values change. We've seen that before, we will see it again. It may even happen before GHB 2018. Heck, there will be new battletomes ... with new Warscroll Battalions, with new point values that don't exist yet in the GHB 2017 released between now and GHB 2018.

 

Increasing points, minor change, no core rules change. Changing how battalions work, core rule change.

 

Unfortunately, this is very much a flow-chart question:

 

"Is paying the battalion cost worth the potential to get a one-drop Army and additional artefacts to you?" (Along with the Battalion benefits.)

 

- Yes? Pay the cost. Get the benefits.

- No? Don't pay the cost, and use points elsewhere.

 

Nothing forces anyone to use Warscroll Battalions. They didn't even force it previously in GHB 2016. It was just really inexpensive to do so. It was basically (to paraphrase a line from Dire Straits) "Playing the guitar on MTV" where the cheap battalions were getting "Money for nothing, and rules for free."

 

If you don't want to have to pay for them, playing Narrative or Open Play gives you that option. But wishing things had gone a different way ... "that way lies madness..."

 

 

 

 

[Aeryenn]

24 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 But by asking for a core rule change, that exists in every battletome, that is exactly what you're asking for.

 

You're asking for multiple core rule mechanics of the game to change, something written up in every battletome, because they cost more than they did previously.

No, it's not and you know it. As well you may say the same thing about original GHB and GHB2017 that they implement rules that were not present neither at lunch, nor in the first battletomes thus telling it is crazy.

It's no philisophy to write in the current GHB "the text X from NAME A SECTION is now replaced with text Y". It's true I'm new to table top wargames but I've been playing board games and card games (also at tournaments) and I perfectly know how it works. When a knew expansion was released or a FAQ, with new rules and with new rules changing the old ones, it was simply put in the manner i described above. No need to invent circle again, especially as these changes in rules are crucial only for those interested in matched play. And if so, people interested in matched will know about the changes one way or the other (GHB, warhammer-community.com, FAQ, games-workshop.com, at tournaments, social media).

34 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

If you don't want to have to pay for them, playing Narrative or Open Play gives you that option. But wishing things had gone a different way ... "that way lies madness..."

It's been said too many times in this topic. Do you people realize it's rude?

I am a part of the AoS community on the same rights as you are. Telling me "to go elsewhere" if I don't like it is impolite.

Forum by its standards is made to discuss with people sharing different ideas. Why followers of GHB2017 battalions rule changes believe that only they have the right to discuss?

I want to be heard and to participate in this community.

[Tzaangor Management]

1 hour ago, DanielFM said:

I'm a lot of the second and a little of the first. 

I enjoy playing an army that feels right with how it should work in the background. But I also want it to be competitive and have a good chance of winning. I don't think it's that contradictory.

Not exactly. The battalion don't make them faster, it makes them tougher (reroll 1's for armor save, 1's and 2's if they already did, only if two other units are within 6) when deployed in formation, and also help the enemy become slower (a single judicators unit can slow any unit 1d6 inches if they wound them.

It's useful but hardly worth 340 points (note: there are other minor rules attached but they are extremely situational).

Ah, forgive me, I definitely rushed to judgement there. Should have waited for context instead of trying to be a smart ******!

I think the true value of battalions will be seen in the next three to six months, with all of their prices going up approximately in line, but I will say, without seeing the other abilities, that it does seem a little steep in this particular case.

There are already a number of multi-batallions effectively priced out of the 2,000 point market, so wonder whether this is perhaps a conscious decision from GW? 

[Jharen]

18 minutes ago, Aryann said:

It's been said too many times in this topic. Do you people realize it's rude?

I am a part of the AoS community on the same rights as you are. Telling me "to go elsewhere" if I don't like it is impolite.

Forum by its standards is made to discuss with people sharing different ideas. Why followers of GHB2017 battalions rule changes believe that only they have the right to discuss?

I want to be heard and to participate in this community.

You're being heard, but obviously there's not much people in these forums can do to help those who are simply unhappy with the new direction GW has gone.  We can't change what's in those books, we can only hope that GW looks at the community (all sides of it) and tries to find a new middle-ground next time they make changes.  Some of the posters are honestly trying to help you by giving suggestions on how to adapt, and it is a bit frsutrating to see people struggle with the change, want to help, but ultimately not be able to.   All of our hands are tied here to an extent, and we're all in that boat no matter what side we're on.

I for one don't mind the changes, but I don't think anyone who is unhappy with them is "wrong and should shut up".  All your posts I've seen so far have been respectful and not full of rage,  blind ranting, or overblown statements, and I just want to say that I for one hear you.  I may not agree with you, but I certainly get where you're coming from and hope you can find a way of playing that works for you under the new GHB2017 changes.

[inunn]

20 minutes ago, Aryann said:

I am a part of the AoS community on the same rights as you are. Telling me "to go elsewhere" if I don't like it is impolite.

Narrative and open are a strong part of this community. When people mention narrative and open they aren’t telling you to go somewhere else, I think they’re just trying to figure out what motivates your hobby and suggest some options.

On the broader point though I’m just going to agree to disagree. I think the points changes are the less intrusive way to fix the problem but I can see that you don’t and probably can’t be convinced. That’s ok, and I think and hope once the changes have set in you’ll be enjoying the game just as much as you are now.

[wayniac]

11 minutes ago, inunn said:

Narrative and open are a strong part of this community. When people mention narrative and open they aren’t telling you to go somewhere else, I think they’re just trying to figure out what motivates your hobby and suggest some options.

On the broader point though I’m just going to agree to disagree. I think the points changes are the less intrusive way to fix the problem but I can see that you don’t and probably can’t be convinced. That’s ok, and I think and hope once the changes have set in you’ll be enjoying the game just as much as you are now.

This community maybe, but most every community I've seen wants no part of anything without points.  That's why, I think, that response is seen as rude.  it's dismissing something by stating a solution that often isn't even on the table as a viable solution; similar to telling someone who is lamenting that they don't have money to "just win the lottery", it's possible but not likely.  Same thing here.  For many of us (and again, perhaps this is a cultural divide between the UK and USA) there is no "just play Open or Narrative then" because there is little or no Open/Narrative play (by which I really mean "not using Matched Play points" going on.  In and of itself the response is fine, but it's pretty common knowledge that "most" AOS games use some variation of Matched Play.  Even Coalescence which was a narrative event used points.

[Naflem]

11 minutes ago, inunn said:

Narrative and open are a strong part of this community. When people mention narrative and open they aren’t telling you to go somewhere else, I think they’re just trying to figure out what motivates your hobby and suggest some options.

On the broader point though I’m just going to agree to disagree. I think the points changes are the less intrusive way to fix the problem but I can see that you don’t and probably can’t be convinced. That’s ok, and I think and hope once the changes have set in you’ll be enjoying the game just as much as you are now.

Re; "A strong part of this community" - I do not know anyone who plays "open" or "narrative" on any kind of regular basis without using points as some kind of basis for balance; i.e. multiplayer is apparently "open" via the GHB; I've played a number of multiplayer games and seen others play them too, never seen them done without points.  Ladder campaigns are roughly narrative; I've never seen one of those played without starting from a rough basis of points.  Narrative events I've looked into seem to use points.  This idea that there's some strong group of people playing "open"in such a way that the points don't impact, where they roll up to the store with a box full of nagashes, glotkins, celestant primes, and whatever and just take turns back and forth dropping models tell they decide they're done and ready to play... I don't believe that really exists.  Have you ever played that way?  At least since points have come out?  Does anyone you know play that way?

[inunn]

Narrative and open doesn’t just mean absolute blank canvas, literally anything goes. It also covers home brew systems like hinterlands, house-ruled balancing methods and skirmish and path to glory. All of which I have seen - of these Skirmish is probably the only one which gets much play at the club I go to, but I’ve played plenty of the other kinds of games with friends at home.

But ok, point taken, you can only play what others are willing to. It might not be as realistic for some people but all I was trying to say is that for a lot of people these are real options and I don’t think people are trying to be dismissive.

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 hour ago, Aryann said:

Forum by its standards is made to discuss with people sharing different ideas. Why followers of GHB2017 battalions rule changes believe that only they have the right to discuss?

I want to be heard and to participate in this community.

 

37 minutes ago, Jharen said:

You're being heard, but obviously there's not much people in these forums can do to help those who are simply unhappy with the new direction GW has gone.  We can't change what's in those books, we can only hope that GW looks at the community (all sides of it) and tries to find a new middle-ground next time they make changes.  Some of the posters are honestly trying to help you by giving suggestions on how to adapt, and it is a bit frsutrating to see people struggle with the change, want to help, but ultimately not be able to.   All of our hands are tied here to an extent, and we're all in that boat no matter what side we're on.

 

32 minutes ago, inunn said:

Narrative and open are a strong part of this community. When people mention narrative and open they aren’t telling you to go somewhere else, I think they’re just trying to figure out what motivates your hobby and suggest some options.

 

22 minutes ago, wayniac said:

This community maybe, but most every community I've seen wants no part of anything without points.

 

17 minutes ago, Naflem said:

Re; "A strong part of this community" - I do not know anyone who plays "open" or "narrative" on any kind of regular basis without using points as some kind of basis for balance; i.e. multiplayer is apparently "open" via the GHB; I've played a number of multiplayer games and seen others play them too, never seen them done without points.

Okay, guys, first, we need to establish what we mean by "community".  It seems to me that some of us use the phrase community to refer to our local shop and nearby players, while others of us are using community to refer to TGA or the online community at large.  Let's not get ourselves worked up over poorly defined meanings in our discourse.  Let's define our terms before we get ourselves flustered over something that can be avoided.  Are we referring to the online community?  Or our local, physical community?  Both contexts are correct uses of the word, but they may mean different things to different people (judging by the posts I quoted ).

Some of us are lucky in that our local Age of Sigmar scene is full of like-minded players, whether that's tournament players, Narrative players, or Open players, while some of us aren't so lucky.  In my case, I am fortunate that the local AoS players take the same outlook on the game as I do, which is good, because the next stores for getting in any games are 2 or 3 hours away drive, one way.  It's why I don't play 40K anymore, because I don't like playing the local players and don't have the time or fuel budget to drive that far for regular games.

Not everyone can change their local scene very easily, especially in more rural areas.  Even as close as my closest store is, it is a 45 minute, 73 mile trip (lucky it's close to my work, so I can play before heading home).  I can completely relate to anyone who is unable to find a new locale in which to play.

[Tzaangor Management]

25 minutes ago, Naflem said:

they roll up to the store with a box full of nagashes, glotkins, celestant primes

I really hope this does happen somewhere and that I see it one day. Immaculately painted centrepiece after immaculately painted centrepiece being pulled from a huge box until someone has none left ?

Sorry, I know that's a serious point, but I loved the imagery that created in mind.

On a serious point, I'm not sure that all that many people are playing no points narrative, but playing with a narrative in mind and using points, is not necessarily the same as playing no holds barred matched play with points.

With GW having created the three ways to play, it's entirely possible they're pointing some battalions out of the range of 2000 point matched play on purpose. Some of the mega battalions literally do not fit the standard matched play level. 

[Jharen]

8 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Okay, guys, first, we need to establish what we mean by "community".

Very true!  As to the post of mine you referenced, that's poor choice of words on my part.  I intended "all sides of it" to mean every community, all aspects of it, the big and the small, the customer base of GW as a whole.  I thought that it was clearer within the context of my post but you're absolutely right I should have chosen a better word there.  "Community" is one of those lazy words we get in the habit of tossing around without thinking much about sadly.  It's like "freedom", "immersion", or "balance" 

[inunn]

4 minutes ago, Tzaangor Management said:

On a serious point, I'm not sure that all that many people are playing no points narrative, but playing with a narrative in mind and using points, is not necessarily the same as playing no holds barred matched play with points.

With GW having created the three ways to play, it's entirely possible they're pointing some battalions out of the range of 2000 point matched play on purpose. Some of the mega battalions literally do not fit the standard matched play level. 

Yes this is exactly it! I really do not find it a ridiculous suggestion to use points but break out of the idea that every game has to be a 2000pts, GH scenario, tournament style showdown. It’s entirely possible to find ways to play outside of that structure that are still fair. Off the top of my head why not play with an allowance specifically for batallions? It’s not that crazy an idea, and my only real point is that I don’t think suggestions to play your own way are offered in bad faith.