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

[Toddy]

I like the approach they have taken in 40k with the battle-forged detachments. There are sufficient detachment variety to allow you to take whatever combination of units you like (or very nearly), but you are encouraged to use 'Troops' (e.g. 40k Battleline) by making it advantageous to do so (bonus command-points).

[RuneBrush]

Personally, I'd be less inclined to play without some form of army tailoring (I still prefer the percentage cap on things) and personally enjoy seeing/playing against an army that has a decent variety of units.  "Oh you've brought an army entirely of behemoths - good job I've crammed in ten units of wrathmongers, a bloodsecrator and aspiring deathbringer".  That would quite simply make an awful game and lets be honest, fielding armies like that do run the risk of giving AoS a really bad reputation.  All good and dandy in a Open Play situation but don't really think it works within Matched Play in my opinion.

[EMMachine]

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

"Oh you've brought an army entirely of behemoths - good job I've crammed in ten units of wrathmongers, a bloodsecrator and aspiring deathbringer"

If you play Beastclaw Raiders you can mostly do this, because Stonehorn Beastriders and Thundertusk Beastriders should be Beastclaw Raiders Battleline. In most cases the army could have 1 Behemoth more than normal, in rare cases 2.

[Killax]

Were nearing a game where the balance is allright as is. I also believe that again it's more benificial for Games Workshop to eventually remove the Battleline related rules. Perhaps even that for Monsters, Heroes and Artillery. The thing is though that AoS is currently at a stage where it's groing in smaller steps. The change for AoS with GH2016 was massive, by comparison 80% of GH2017 is the same as GH2016, logical also because you don't want to completely upset the fanbase.

The way I see it from a designers perspective though is that AoS is very close to actually archieving the balance you want to have for certain units, being that the right cost is attached to the right power. However I also see that within the design team there is a specific Faction interest, which in turn means that specific Factions most certainly get more attention from the designers as others. We know this because in certain examples mistakes are made for what is relatively a really small Faction to begin with (so the room for error should be really small also). We also know this because certain Allegiances have been created that technically don't even play a massive role in the lore right now. 

What we see is that the design team, has a particular vision of what a typical AoS army should look like and this is why we have some caps on unit choices. This vision does not match all narrative design however which in turn we can see when we look at "1K/2K/2.5K Unplayable Battalions".
 

[Darksider]

I don't think it would be a meta full of behemoths or only elites.  You also take Bloodletters in blobs of 30 cause they are good and not only cause they are battleline.

Units always get taken cause they provide some synergy to your army or cause they are undercosted in points or to strong for the points.

Now you take your 3 battleline if you don't have good ones and put the rest of your points into all the good units you can find. Some armies have worse battleline then other or more expansive ones and can't put more points into stuff they really want.

People always pretend that someone will make a 6 behemoth army and steamroll everyone. That won't happen that easy, cause Missions and Objectives exist in the Rules and in the ghb. An all monster army would have a real disadvantage holding objectives.

[Killax]

Absolutely, which leads me to a specific Battleline question; Who actually still has a 'bad' Battleline? I don't believe there are any left, in fact there are a lot of Battleline units who are arguably the best assets of their Faction. 

[Iradekhorne]

sorry but i dont want see ingame units of 10 retributors/protectors and one vexillior for every unit, ty.

And that isn't the spiritt of age of sigmar for me.

[Klerych]

43 minutes ago, Iradekhorne said:

sorry but i dont want see ingame units of 10 retributors/protectors and one vexillior for every unit, ty.

And that isn't the spiritt of age of sigmar for me.

Imho it should be possible for people to take just Retributors or build a warmonger army, but more well-rounded armies should have bonuses that counter-balance the powerhouse. And they should be pointed appropriately. It can be done, GW is already doing that in the other game and it works well - you have to weigh the raw output and army's potential synergies when you decide whether you should build army in a skewed or balanced way.

[Double Misfire]

Yes. Ironweld Arsenal in the house!

[Moonlightwolf]

Using points without the restrictions can help to balance a narrative or open play game but I can see the problems there would be in competitive play, I'd still play it if it was but that's more because competitive is the easiest way to get games and I don't really care about winning. That said I would love to see how viable an army made entirely of gargants using the Sons of Behemat battalion from the realmgate wars - godbeasts would be. (and yes I know that battalion doesn't have points but It would be cool if it did.)

[Iradekhorne]

Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals

Leaders
Knight-Vexillor (140)
- Meteoric Standard
Knight-Vexillor (140)
- Meteoric Standard
Lord-Celestant (100)
- General
- Trait: Staunch Defender 
- Artefact: Obsidian Blade 

Battleline

Units
20 x Paladin Retributors (880)
3 x Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (180)
3 x Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (180)
20 x Paladin Retributors (880)

Total: 2500/2500
 

 

I dont want see this tipe of thinks ingame, in first turn teleport the retris and you can say gg with 40 retris on melé hitting whatever he want hit.

You only can do it with 20 if  you need have 4 battlelines

[Trout]

There are many kinds of military engagements, not just pitched battles. I wouldn't mind seeing guidelines for a variety of other kinds of engagements. Perhaps a "tip of the spear" category that restricts battleline units and focuses on elites. Perhaps a "special forces" battle with a minimum number of heroes rather than a maximum and a limit on total model  count. There could even be "asymmetrical" engagements where one side uses elites and the other primarily battlelines. Paired with a new set of battleplans designed for the new game modes, this could create new categories of competitive play.

 

I'm not sure if AOS has the player base yet to support multiple tournament formats, but as it continues to grow, I wouldn't mind seeing other formats emerge. I think there's room for a lot more than just battles between full armies.

[wayniac]

I like doing this anyways.  I feel that the matched play restrictions are too much to "WHFB Lite", Battleline especially, and stifles too many good ideas with a "tax".  

[Lucio]

Neither of the poll options appeals, my real problem with AoS is the squad size bloat. Same reason I didn't play WFB is now becoming an issue for AoS. It's not fun to need 60+ copies of the same model to be effective, or to field an army and frankly, a typical table gets too cluttered when you do this anyway.

[Bedge]

I sometimes think it would work better if there were no battleline, instead the battalions would encourage the variation of units that we would like to see.

[Trout]

3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

That comes into the desire to play skirmish scale vs an army battles game.

Remove the requirements for battleline as well and you might as well remove those models from the GW catalog.  There'd be no point in ever taking or seeing battleline again barring the stupid powerful battleline.

Sure there would be. A lot of them are cool models and some people enjoy building and painting them.

[decker_cky]

On 04/09/2017 at 3:23 AM, RuneBrush said:

Personally, I'd be less inclined to play without some form of army tailoring (I still prefer the percentage cap on things) and personally enjoy seeing/playing against an army that has a decent variety of units.  "Oh you've brought an army entirely of behemoths - good job I've crammed in ten units of wrathmongers, a bloodsecrator and aspiring deathbringer".  That would quite simply make an awful game and lets be honest, fielding armies like that do run the risk of giving AoS a really bad reputation.  All good and dandy in a Open Play situation but don't really think it works within Matched Play in my opinion.

I think the point is that the pitched battle missions are already great incentives to bring more models (and to bring a variety of models). I'm sure there would be a few issue armies, but for most armies I don't think it changes much.  

[decker_cky]

For various missions, you need raw number of models, number of units, mobility, monsters/heroes, etc.. 99% of armies have strong battleline options so the strong units you want to compete in missions are already in armies. 

[wayniac]

Maybe the solution would have been to make battalions more appealing, so you wanted to take "core" unit Battalions?  Reallythough my problem with Battleline is I feel it stifles what I want to play by "forcing" me to take not only certain units, but certain amounts of them.  It feels too much like the old WHFB "at least 50% Core" stuff.  

[decker_cky]

19 minutes ago, Auticus said:

We have differing opinions of what constitutes a strong battleline option then lol.

Some armies do have strong battleline options.  Other armies not so much.  I'd definitely not say its 99% that have a strong battleline option.   Maybe 99% of the armies I see on the table regularly do, but thats why those same armies are fielded; to lessen the "battleline tax" by choosing a force that has a strong battleline.

Given the choice of not having to take any battleline at all, I know a lot of people that would jump right on that boat and sail it into the horizon.  The lack of strong battleline units is why a lot of what I experience are samey armies and the tournament lists I see on forums etc all seem to be spamming the same things.

I haven't seen anything in GHB 2017 that would indicate to me that the spam will be lessened now.

I'm honestly wondering what list worries you. What army has non-battleline units that provide the numbers to compete in missions that eclypse the strongest lists in the game ? If the army isn't better than the best, it doesn't affect game balance.

[decker_cky]

I don't see how those 'heroic' type armies compete with lists using 100+ infantry models (ie, those who take more than min battleline) in the GHB2017 missions. 

For the easy example I played against recently, Freeguild can easily bring two blocks of 40 guild guard with shields, benefiting with a command trait for +1 armour (3+ save, rerolling 1's, boostable to 2+ reroll 1's with magic). You need volume of attacks and rend to deal with that, and very few 'elite' options can put out the necessary attacks. 

[decker_cky]

4 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I dunno.  I wish I could transplant you here and you could go to town on the armies that run our tables then.

I'd genuinely like to see some examples of what you're concerned about. 

[Charles]

I have no issue with battle line restrictions.

What does feel a bit odd is when I cannot field a fluff inspired army due to Hero restricts. I would love to run my Mighty Lord of Khorne and his Gorechosen but it is always illegal in matches play ?

 

In in fact I may write to GW about this, perhaps asking for permission to use the gorechosen as a unit?

[Guest]

I'd prefer the resttrictions didn't exist so that Sons of Behemat can be a thing.

[heywoah_twitch]

I would say that requiring some units is different than limiting other units, and you use both interchangeably, and unconvincingly leap many steps ahead from there.  Also the spell rule of one goes very far in disincentivizing wizard stacking. 

Points are one method of balance, requiring Battleline and what qualifies is another. If you wouldn't take Battleline if you weren't forced to, then you'd be buffed by not having to, ergo it is balancing your list in some way. If your Battleline is great already like fyreslayers and ironjaws, then by removing it you'd stay the same while others get buffed, and the balance would again be proved. It might not be perfect, or in many cases sensical unit types, but fix those instead of fishing for a buff and pretending it's for some other reason.