Would you play Matched Play if it had no restrictions on battleline, behemoths, heros?

[Darksider]

So my question is the same as in the title, would you play it or do you think it would be to broken? I am asking this only cause im really interested if people only are interested in points or if the restrictions also play a role for them.

Forgot to say exactly what i meant, so i add it here:

-Battleline, Hero, Behemoth restrictions are gone

- the rest of the rules is exactly the same as now (so rule of one, battalions, allegiances etc working as always)

Hope this is clearer now =)

 

 

Made a poll for this .  You can also write some lines in here or made other suggestions, if you want so.

[Killax]

What kind of restrictions do you mean?

Points? Allegiances? All of it?

What makes Matched Play matched play is the restrictions  

[Darksider]

Ah sorry forgot about it, will add it to my post above. What i meant is if Battleline, Hero, Behemoths restrictions would be gone.

Everything else would function as normal .

[Killax]

Yeah Id likely still play it. Here's my thake on it:

- Battleline: Irrelevant rule (really), every allegiance has great discounts on Batteline stuff, there is 0 reason now to not thake it.
- Heroes: I get the restriction but since Battalions went up so much in cost I don't think I'd have a huge issue without it. However from a general army perspective I understand it and I do prefer some cap on Heroes to keep it Army focused instead of Character focused.
- Behemoths/Artillery: Don't think the restriction is as much needed but I do understand it. At the same time though I also think that relevant scary Behemoths and Artillery can be priced in such a way that the restriction could be removed. Again discounts on Battlelines gives a ton of reason to include them. 

[Darksider]

1 minute ago, Killax said:

Yeah Id likely still play it. Here's my thake on it:

- Battleline: Irrelevant rule (really), every allegiance has great discounts on Batteline stuff, there is 0 reason now to not thake it.
- Heroes: I get the restriction but since Battalions went up so much in cost I don't think I'd have a huge issue without it. However from a general army perspective I understand it and I do prefer some cap on Heroes to keep it Army focused instead of Character focused.
- Behemoths/Artillery: Don't think the restriction is as much needed but I do understand it. At the same time though I also think that relevant scary Behemoths and Artillery can be priced in such a way that the restriction could be removed. Again discounts on Battlelines gives a ton of reason to include them. 

 

See it exactly the same way as you, that's why i made the poll and the topic .

 

Think the restrictions are okay, but i think they aren't needed in this time anymore. You get your cheap battlelines and put the rest on the good stuff or you have a synergistic army or you have large blobs of standard infantry buffed up or if they bring a good buff, make them somehow better.

Behemoths are also not that extreme as in the past, also missions in the ghb favour more models, so they would already have disadvantages even they are strong.

 

I think the restrictions are only there to mimic some things from old warhammer fantasy.

[Killax]

Yeah its pretty funny to see Warhammer in 40K and AoS evolve, in a good way that is as a ton of GH2017's command traits are very much akin to what 8th 40K is doing with their characters, all the while 40K could really use a cap on ther characters because there are a lot of cheap ones to fill Detachments with which in turn grand a lot of bonusses AND characters in 40K have a massively improved protection compaired to AoS.

So this might be something that will be removed from GH2018, or at least I personally don't think Battleline adds much at this point. In addition it's also more benificial for GW to actually have less restrictions because the hobby in itself is then less restricted. However there are reasons to keep Batteline around as a Keyword for example, just without the restrictions, same applies to Behemoth and Leader. 

A lot of GH2017 is mimiced from Warhammer Fantasy, the biggest examples are the giant Monster Heroes now being more relevant as ever and the giant 'death star' units being more relevant as ever. I personally like this part, what I do not understand completely yet is how the Battalions got re-costed like this. In a lot of cases it seems like the design team is unable to put a good cost on Battalions. So instead I'd even vote for something like one free Battalion per 1000 points or 2000 as opposed to what they are doing now. 

However GH2017 is just out and these restrictions are not choking me in army list design whatsoever. Which in turn also means to me that I dont really care too much about the restrictions because I like to build my army as I see fit anyway. Likewise we have a lot of options to make X or Y Battleline too so that restriction might as well be gone as we speak. 

In any case GH2017's balance did improve overall, as with GH2016 though I do still believe there are some flaws in AoS' Core Rules that simply can't be fixed by adding content to it, instead I think the AoS Core Rules could recieve an update altogether, even if it's just for Matched Play,

[Darksider]

Yeah i think the chars in 40k are way to good protected, only shooting at them if they are the nearest model is often kinda hard to manage. Hope this never comes into AOS and i hope they fix it in 40k also.

Also think it would be better to remove restrictions when building an army, as you make it easier for newer players to attend at tournaments.

Regarding Battalion, i think they don't know yet how to handle them correctly. I think they don't want that it gets outa hand like in 7th edition 40k with formations, where some of them got you free stuff or were way to good. But i think the point increase is good and so you have to think twice if you better take a battalion or get more guys into your army.

Yeah ghb2 is just out and the restrictions are the same . I sometimes find it dull to invest into some ****** battleline, if i want to field my royal menagerie from flesheaters. I like monsters and i also think they should be viable without some little dudes running around them, doing next to nothing all game long.

 

Balance seems better, you're absolutely right. Regarding core rules, i think they are okay and i like that the game is simple on the surface .

[bsharitt]

The only restriction I have a problem with is battleline, and that's mostly to do with all the battleline-if stuff. If they made a battleline a battleline in any army, I could probably live with it, but I'd really rather seem them remove battleline altogether and instead if they want to encourage army building around those particular units, make them very attractive with battalions. Maybe cheaper battalions, but take up a larger chunk of points(in the units they include, not the battalion price) with those battleline units. Otherwise I don't have a big problem with the restrictions on heroes and monsters in order to avoid herohammer.

[Killax]

56 minutes ago, Auticus said:

, and armies are not composed entirely of elites and big giant dragons.  

Sometimes you don't think it be like it is but it do. 

[Trout]

I enjoy playing with less restrictions. I actually plan on fielding an army of nothing but trolls led by a troll hag in the next few weeks; I'll use points but battleline is impossible.

 

But I guess Im comfortable just saying it isn't matched play.

[WABBIT]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

My problem is that I want to play a wargame with armies, and armies are not composed entirely of elites and big giant dragons.  

The counter to this is always "well flush your existing armies and don't play AOS."  

To which I say "but AOS can be this too."

I agree with this sentiment. An option is to make more units battleline so we have more choice and instead of setting a minimum 2 or 3 or 4 battle line for different size battles, set a max limit of elites. For example max 3 elite units for 2k. Either add a keyword for elites or set what is an elite as monsters/arty/unique characters etc. People will want to max them out to get the most out of them though. 

Theres no reason why we can't have matched play "light" which is less restrictive than the tournament option and more cohesive than open play. Many of  us don't try to min max our armies to win events, we want to maximise themes and harness what we have in our collections. we play at home with friends and family and want a fun game with balance and flexibility. There are so many restriction rules now It's hard to keep up. This give expert players a much bigger advantage and new players an off putting learning curve that doesn't end. The flip side to these rules is it keeps the fanatical aos player interested and looking for the next loop hole ? It's a hard game to balance and I think GW are doing well so far but disenfranchising the compendium army players was an upsetting move even though I understand why they did it. If they had a replacement it would be easier to bear. 

[Klerych]

But you're forgetting all those Stormcast artworks showing ranks upon ranks of hundreds of Liberators standing shield-in-shield forming roman legion-like lines. How many Lord-Celestants do you think get their own stardrakes in a single army?  Not too many! Sigmarines also do have their own rank'n'file footmen that make up the bulk of the army!

Not to ignore the fact that in the artwork you linked there's a column of Liberators marching forth besides that single Lord-Celestant!

20 minutes ago, Killax said:

Sometimes you don't think it be like it is but it do. 

Edit:
As for the question in original post - I don't mind having no limits if people want to make fluffy lists that aren't typical all-rounded forces. 40k did it well with the different detachments, letting people field all-Fast Attack armies or solely Heavy Support forces. It'd be nice to have such flexibility in AoS too, if (of course) battlelines were still attractive enough to take them (or you'd be rewarded for fielding them with things like 40k's spendable command points that can be used to re-roll dice or auto-pass morale).

[Killax]

 Still looks like a lot of elites and a big dragon mate!

[hellalugosi]

i prefer the restrictions. in the long run as factions get more support it will be much better and make more sense. in match play, adding those restrictions closes the gap on unpredictable builds. sure, youre still going to get a really busted army here and there, but imagine if there were no army restrictions, the ecosystem could destroy balanced builds in favor of the most optimized combo or death star.

battlelines ensure that no matter what, both armies have a common core set of units that can face each other. we can already use this system to our favor as many allegiances provide elites as battleline if an army wide keyword is fulfilled. by restricting your army more, you dont have to run the cheapest, weakest battleline.

hero limits hurt the most for me, as i love heroes running around fighting off hordes of warbands, lotr style, but i understand that heroes add all sorts of favorable bonuses army wide that could make the game unfun if exploited. if a tzeentch army just had a ton of cheap heroes using the most powerful spells in their lore, id probably not enjoy playing against it. this limit also ensures that the hero phase does not take 8 centuries to play. 6 hero slots at 2k is plenty.

as for behemoths, id like to play around with this more, as im sure their reason for this was internally playtested to hell and back. aka, something else that could potentially be exploited. that being said, a 2 behemoth limit at 1k is fairly reasonable as most behemoths are priced heavy and would form a significant portion of your list.

luckily, they DO have a version of match play light, it is specifically named "points only" in the match play section, and they encourage its use if the restrictions for list building hinder your enjoyment of the game. its a perfect way to enjoy more balanced versions of path to glory, as well as multiplayer!

[Retro]

27 minutes ago, Killax said:

 Still looks like a lot of elites and a big dragon mate!

Looks like a bunch of battleline and a big dragon riding hero to me

[Killax]

1 minute ago, Auticus said:

That picture is a dude on a dragon and a host of liberators.  Thats an army to me thats not a horde of elite only troops and dragons.

Quote

Only the mightiest of mankind's warriors get to be aspirants to becoming a stormcast, taken from battlefields in a blinding flash and rolling thunder and transported into Sigmaron. Before they suffer through the reforging they must first build their strength, spending three days and night in the endless feast in the Heldenhall.

Elites and big dragon it is.

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, Auticus said:

As I originated the discussion on my preferences allow me to define what an elite is in the context I'm using it:

Elite = not a battleline troop.

It underlines how poor the Battleline rule reflects on lore to begin with. For Warhounds most certainly arnt more elite as Blightkings, yet the latter is a Battleline.

[Retro]

7 minutes ago, Killax said:

Elites and big dragon it is.

I think a distinction needs to be made between elite and not-a-horde.

[Trout]

1 hour ago, WABBIT said:

Theres no reason why we can't have matched play "light" which is less restrictive than the tournament option and more cohesive than open play. Many of  us don't try to min max our armies to win events many of us play at home with friends and family and want a fun game with balance and flexibility. There are so many rules now. It's hard to keep up. 

That suggestion is already in the book. It's in the text right below the chart that lists battleline and other limits.

 

I used to think they should get rid of the restrictions. But now I realize they've put this suggestion exactly where it belongs. The hardcore players need that restriction to keep other lists in line and the more casual players can just use the suggestion listed right below that chart that says you can just ignore it. I think they've struck the right balance.

[bsharitt]

1 hour ago, Trout said:

I enjoy playing with less restrictions. I actually plan on fielding an army of nothing but trolls led by a troll hag in the next few weeks; I'll use points but battleline is impossible.

 

But I guess Im comfortable just saying it isn't matched play.

I've been very tempted to do up 1000 points of all trolls(though under the new GHB points you have 100 points left over that I'd probably use for gitmob grots). I've already got the stone trolls and will probably get the other two flavors one of these days, but not sure if I'll ever get the hag.

[heywoah_twitch]

This would probably fall into two camps depending on what army you happen to run:

1) Very little difference, if any. aka "my battleline units are good choices atm"

2) They might as well stop making the units that used to be battleline, because no one will ever willingly take one again, much less three units.

And so I'm against it, even though it would arguably help me greatly, as I play an elite army. They would need to add a new balancing factor, as requiring battleline units, and which units those are, is part of the balance of each army. You probably don't like taking your battleline guys, the reason is because you would probably be too powerful if you didn't have to. And so if you're now more powerful and balanced army list man whose battleline are good choices (massive reg, or buff stacking-ready) is the same, that's no longer as fair as it used to be.

[WABBIT]

4 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

This would probably fall into two camps depending on what army you happen to run:

1) Very little difference, if any.

2) They might as well stop making the units that used to be battleline, because no one will ever willingly take one again, much less three units.

And so I'm against it, even though it would arguably help me greatly, as I play an elite army. They would need to add a new balancing factor, as requiring battleline units, and which units those are, is part of the balance of each army. You probably don't like taking your battleline guys, the reason is because you would probably be a little/a lot more powerful if you didn't have to.

We  just need more battleline options and better battleline units. If you're stuck with an army with poor and/or expensive battleline units you're not going to enjoy building lists never mind playing the game. Some armies have such low battleline tax like skinks for 60pts that they can buy pretty much what they want. Others have to spend half they total points just to get the most out of the battleline units because they get better at higher numbers and are too poor at smaller numbers.

[AGPO]

Battleline to me symbolises the troops that make up the core of a faction's armies in the narrative. A Stormcast army with no liberators would seem as odd to me as a Napoleonic era Brtish army with no red coated infantry. No matter how cool the Scots Greys and 95th rifles are, it just wouldnt seem right. Thus blight kings are battle line whilst warhounds are not, not because of their relative elite status but because the former is at the heart of what makes a nurgle army what it is. That's why "battleline if" is a great rule. By keeping tight to a certain faction it gives you greater access to their elite troops.

Narrative and open play give you options to pit a band of heroes against an endless tide of clanrats or pack of giant monsters, or pick an army entirely from one elite part of a faction. Matched play is all about testing your skills as a general against a relatively evenly matched opposing army.

When AOS first came out, one of the most common (reasonable) criticisms was that there was no reason to take core troops any more.

[Klerych]

1 hour ago, AGPO said:

Battleline to me symbolises the troops that make up the core of a faction's armies in the narrative. A Stormcast army with no liberators would seem as odd to me as a Napoleonic era Brtish army with no red coated infantry. No matter how cool the Scots Greys and 95th rifles are, it just wouldnt seem right. Thus blight kings are battle line whilst warhounds are not, not because of their relative elite status but because the former is at the heart of what makes a nurgle army what it is. That's why "battleline if" is a great rule. By keeping tight to a certain faction it gives you greater access to their elite troops.

Narrative and open play give you options to pit a band of heroes against an endless tide of clanrats or pack of giant monsters, or pick an army entirely from one elite part of a faction. Matched play is all about testing your skills as a general against a relatively evenly matched opposing army.

When AOS first came out, one of the most common (reasonable) criticisms was that there was no reason to take core troops any more.

I wholeheartedly agree - being a battleline unit doesn't mean being the cheapest formation to field. Warhounds aren't elites, but they're the equivalent of fast attack troops. Situational units that only have a particular role, rather than being the main force. Exactly like how US Marines outclass, say, taliban goons, but still make the brunt of their army.

Not to mention that warhounds aren't exactly something you'd wish to field as a frontline unit as a general, given that they aren't even remotely intelligent as a species and are bad at following orders.  So Blightkings form the main force of their army, just like the Nazgul would be the battlelines of their own faction in Lord of the Rings even if they had access to some other units.

It's about what makes up the main bulk of the army. Doesn't matter if it's more elite, battlelines aren't to be compared between factions. Just look at ogors - they are more "elite" than gnoblars, but they are THE ogors. They are the Gutbusters and members of their tribes that the army reflects.

As for heroes vs hordes - it can be done, but it'd require much more balanced system. Again - 40k did it fairly well, letting you build solely Fast Attack role army, or entirely out of Heavy Support, it just needs to work with the game's balance that way. But until the time that AoS gets proper balance - narrative game where you still use point values, but agree to remove some restrictions!

[Burf]

Games are defined by their limitations.