Changes to Battalion point costs

[Naflem]

41 minutes ago, Tzaangor Management said:

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. 

Okay, Fine, Here (this was from a deal the Games Workshop in Oklahoma City did some time ago; Bunch of centerpieces against a Nagash with unlimited casting/summoning).  But, you know, that's the exception that proves the rule! 
 

[Tzaangor Management]

17 minutes ago, Naflem said:

Okay, Fine, Here (this was from a deal the Games Workshop in Oklahoma City did some time ago; Bunch of centerpieces against a Nagash with unlimited casting/summoning).  But, you know, that's the exception that proves the rule! 
 

Love it and the only thing this proves is that it should happen more often! 

 

[TheOtherJosh]

17 hours ago, Aryann said:

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 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.

 

...

 

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

To better put my paraphrasing from William Shakespeare's King Lear in context "that way lies madness ..." is that non-constructive complaining doesn't help any of us and will just drive us all mad.

We as a community want your ideas and participation, but non-constructive complaining that GW shouldn't have made a change, when none of us can do anything about the change doesn't move the community forward towards solutions. We all play the same game, with the same rules.

I'm sorry that the suggestions that have been provided won't work for you. My suggestions weren't an attempt to trivialize your concerns, your concerns are a voice of frustration about the changes. But, I can see your point, thank you.

The GHB 2016 did change the original game release and GHB 2017 is changing the game again, and you are correct that artefacts were not introduced until the GHB 2016.

When Artefacts were introduced in GHB 2016, GW updated the rules to give free things to folks who build their army around the inexpensive Warscroll Battalions. Those artefacts were in the "Grand Alliances of the Realm section."

Nobody had any idea what the artefact rule would do, and how potentially powerful the combination of first drop and artefact would be.

That is why they added the additional rules of one in the new 2017 edition.

However, I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement that some of the changes you were hoping for are not changes to what I see as core rule mechanics.

Determining who gets to go first has been in the game since the first 4 page version of the rules.

Setting up: (from the core rules)

"The player who finishes setting up first always chooses who takes the first turn of the first battle round."

Warscroll Battalions were introduced with the initial Khorne Bloodbound and Stormcast battletomes. (Neither of which had Artefacts.) and their rules have stated:

Warscroll Battalions: (this was from the 2015 Khorne Bloodbound Battletome)

"When you are setting up, you can set up all of the units in a warscroll battalion instead of setting up a single unit."

Since the first battletomes introduced Warscroll Battalions in 2015, if one could put an entire Army into Warscroll battalions it was possible to one-drop an army.

Changing the rule mechanic of how the Warscroll Battalions interact with the determination of who goes first changes how the deployment game mechanic works. It is one of the core pieces of how the Warscroll battalions work.

It is one of the reasons that many of the factions have been stressed about not having Warscroll Battalion support that other factions do. Having more Warscroll Battalions meant more opportunities for artefacts and a better chance of going first.

Artefacts have been in play since the original GHB 2016 edition. The mechanic of "how do we determine how many artefacts does an army get" was tied to the Warscroll Battalions at that point

GW made the call that they didn't want to change either of the rules that you thought would be better:

- Change how people go first by changing the way Warscroll battalions work for army setup (or change who goes first to a "roll-off" like in Warhammer 40k Chapter Approved rules)

- Change how armies get artefacts

Instead they made the choice that they would change the points costs, and keep the game rules the same. Changing points has a different impact than rules changes.

The GHB 2017 is their first attempt to put value to things that weren't given appropriate values in the last edition.

If the points changes don't fix what they saw as an issue in the overall health of the game, they absolutely can make rule changes to the game.

But right now, these changes are going to change how people play the game specifically for folks who either use points in Open or Narrative, or run "Matched Play" it will likely impact certain types of army lists, especially the larger battalions, and those that have smaller battalions nested inside of them.

But the changes will make for better points matchups as the granted abilities now have some level of true value, not just a small inconsequential points value.

Even as a non-tournament player who uses points (when I'm not playing Narrative) it will change what I bring and my opponents bring. For example, MULTITUDINOUS HOST went from 50 points to 200 points ... will the number of models I get back from the battalion be better for me than picking up 200 additional points of Horrors? That would be 60 Brinstones ... I don't know if it will be better.

In any case, I'm up for suggestions: (though this should probably be a different topic)

"How would/should one determine how many artefacts an army should get if we aren't tying the number of artefacts to the Warscroll Battalions? They're not given individual point values. (And I can't really see GW going down that route.) "

And;

With the changes in points for battalions, we need to put game time on the table to see how it is actually going to change the game as a whole, not just our current army list. But also the lists our opponents create.

I'd be interested in hearing about battle reports with the new changes and some constructive criticism of the new values within the context of the new game meta.

**MOD EDIT - Tidied up the spacing here. Chris**

[Jamopower]

7 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 

Warscroll Battalions were introduced with the initial Khorne Bloodbound and Stormcast battletomes. (Neither of which had Artefacts.) and their rules have stated:

 

Warscroll Battalions: (this was from the 2015 Khorne Bloodbound Battletome)

"When you are setting up, you can set up all of the units in a warscroll battalion instead of setting up a single unit."

 

 

 

 

 

Weren't warscroll batallions included already in the first awrscroll compediums. Though I'm not sure about the deployment rules for them as they are not stated in the compendium leaflets.

[hobgoblinclub]

Raising the points on battalions is designed to bring variation to the game. If everyone runs the same battalions you get complete strangers carbon copy armies. 

Everything in GHB17 (raising the points on battalions, more 'battleline if -', allies, battleplans where behemoths can take objectives etc.) has been done with army composition and coolness factor in mind. 

I predict this year will be far more that the year of the massive regiments. It'll be the age of the fluffy army. 

[DanielFM]

41 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Raising the points on battalions is designed to bring variation to the game. If everyone runs the same battalions you get complete strangers carbon copy armies. 

Everything in GHB17 (raising the points on battalions, more 'battleline if -', allies, battleplans where behemoths can take objectives etc.) has been done with army composition and coolness factor in mind. 

I predict this year will be far more that the year of the massive regiments. It'll be the age of the fluffy army. 

Yeah, leaving Kharadron Overlords with a single battleline when they could have easily made Thunderers or Endrinriggers battleline-if with a certain character as general was great for variation 

[SpiritofHokuto]

Battalion points changes are too heavy handed and uneven relative to power.

Most points increases/decreases for units seem to be in line with the relative worth of the unit.

Horde discounts for the most part are alright but there are some questionable instances.

There's strong disincentive to go for a GA army as most of the more narrow factional allegiance abilities are flat out better. Allies does alleviate this somewhat and can make for some interesting armies both in crunch and fluff.

Overall I see the GHB2017 as a net positive. It's only been a year with points, mistakes will be made and wrinkles ironed out.

I just hope that GW are more receptive to a broader range of people's advice as it does seem at the moment that a select few are having an undue amount of influence.

[bomba776]

1 hour ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Raising the points on battalions is designed to bring variation to the game. If everyone runs the same battalions you get complete strangers carbon copy armies. 

Everything in GHB17 (raising the points on battalions, more 'battleline if -', allies, battleplans where behemoths can take objectives etc.) has been done with army composition and coolness factor in mind. 

I predict this year will be far more that the year of the massive regiments. It'll be the age of the fluffy army. 

Expectation: Bring variation to the game.

Reality: Make the game even less variety. People will only take those good battalions after the change, because taking a bad one actually hurt your army after almost every battalions receive the same +100pts treatment.

Not necessarily a bad thing for me since it give me more excuse to spam Kunnin Rukks. But if they really want to bring more variation to the game, they should really leave the bad battalions alone and only touch those op ones.

[Jamopower]

Regarding variety, the batallions are just a single thing, with the new fleshed out factions with allegiance abilities, ally rules, new "battleline if" units, massive regiments and new battleplans, the macthed play armies have a lot more building options. I would even say, that as the batallions have fixed units, they reduce the variety if they are too attractive. Depending on the batallion of course.

[Captain Marius]

Most factions dont have any battalions or only one, including a bunch with new Allegiance Abilities. Seems fair that the factions with a bunch of battalions have to pay a proper fee for them

I find it interesting GW chose not to change how who goes first works in the 6 new scenarios, that was a chance to fix the one drop issue. I have a suspicion we might see a 40k style game-changing errata on Sunday!

[13on2D6]

8 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

Most factions dont have any battalions or only one, including a bunch with new Allegiance Abilities. Seems fair that the factions with a bunch of battalions have to pay a proper fee for them

I find it interesting GW chose not to change how who goes first works in the 6 new scenarios, that was a chance to fix the one drop issue. I have a suspicion we might see a 40k style game-changing errata on Sunday!

 

The one drop issue is fixed IMO- paying a fair amount for the privilege and benefits that battalions give

Cant wait to get first game of GHB2017 in, and sure there will be plenty of games and list tweaks before my Facehammer end of September for me and many others  

[wayniac]

I honestly wonder:  IF GW changed AOS to have the forthcoming 40k deployment style (finishing first gives  +1 to a die roll, not lets you choose) could battalions have stayed at the cost they were?  It feels like their reluctance to backport some very good 40k fixes to AOS are going to cause more problems in the long run.

[Jamopower]

Also again due to amount of very potent long range shooting in 40k, the first turn has much more value there.

[wayniac]

6 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Also again due to amount of very potent long range shooting in 40k, the first turn has much more value there.

But obviously the first turn has a lot of value in AOS if one of their reasons for upping the cost of virtually every battalion was "one drop" armies.

[Burf]

2 minutes ago, wayniac said:

But obviously the first turn has a lot of value in AOS if one of their reasons for upping the cost of virtually every battalion was "one drop" armies.

Which would be true if the value of one drop armies wasn't going second. With the notable exception of Sylvaneth.

[Aeryenn]

13 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

We as a community want your ideas and participation, but non-constructive complaining that GW shouldn't have made a change, when none of us can do anything about the change doesn't move the community forward towards solutions. We all play the same game, with the same rules.

What do you expect at this level of conversation? I don't have a solution in my pocket but I'm far from non-constructive complaining as you write. I suggested seperating battalions from those two mechanics, which are artefacts and 1-drop bonuses. I get the impression that all my posts are written in vain.

Thank you for your thorough analisys of rules so far. That however doesn't change my mind. I will give those new rules a try but so far, I believe it will only decrease variety in armies composition, pushing players to either resign from battalions or only play the few best.

[Gaz Taylor]

Just want to add to this discussion but has anybody been able to watch any of the Generals Handbook Coverage on Warhammer TV this week on Twitch (if you subscribe you can watch all the past videos - note if you have Amazon Prime this will cost you nothing!!!), they have mentioned a few times why they have increased the cost of the battalions. Very simply they found out from lots of different players (some tournament focused and some not), that having a means of putting a big chunk of your army down in one go as well as getting an artifact was far too good! Its as simple as that.

++ Mod Hat On ++

Right time to give you all a poke now. Whilst this has been a great discussion, it's getting to the stage now where it just seems to be going round and round and round. If you aren't happy with the changes, don't forget you can play the game how you want to play it but if that doesn't float your boat, compile a list and send it onto GW (either via Facebook, email, Twitter, written letter, or chatting to the guys from the studio at events or on Warhammer TV).

Cheers

 

[Rhellion]

36 minutes ago, Burf said:

Which would be true if the value of one drop armies wasn't going second. With the notable exception of Sylvaneth.

Lots of armies want to go first, especially with so many teleporting / special deployment armies being able to alpha strike more effectively.

But either wanted to go first or second is irrelevant, the key is finishing first gives you the choice.