What if Battalions didn't cost regular points?

[PJetski]

The benefits of Battalions are very significant in Matched Play. You can get unique bonuses for your units, you have more options in deployment since you can drop the battalion units all at once or piecemeal, you are more likely to finish deploying first, and you get an additional artifact. GHB17 recognized the power of Battalions and increased the cost of nearly every battalion in the game significantly.

I think Battalions are a great system, but a lot of potentially cool and fun Battalions are either difficult or impossible to field in a regular Matched Play game because of their high point costs. This is particularly true for Battalions formed of other Battalions, like the Sylvaneth Wargroves or Stormcast Stormhosts. In addition, armies without access to many competitive Battalions (like Grand Alliance armies and the factions without a Battletome) are left in the dust while other armies can stack multiple artifacts and have all sorts of cool abilities.

40k killed Formations in 8th edition but the core idea of the system (ie: getting specific bonuses for having specific units) lives on in the Command Point and Stratagem systems. Layered on top of the "Chapter Tactics" system providing thematic bonuses, this creates a tremendous amount of options, customization, and playstyles for both casual and competitive play. I believe that Battalions are meant to fill the same role in AOS, but they are currently too cumbersome to use.

I would like to see Battalions and Artifacts cost an alternate form of points - for the sake of discussion let's call them "Battalion Points". 

You could have 100 Battalion Points in Vanguard, 200 in Battlehost, and so on. A weaker battalion may cost 60, while a stronger one may cost up to 200. Artifacts could all cost 40. Rather than choosing between bringing more units or bringing a Battalion, players would choose between making their heroes stronger or a powerful battalion or a weaker battalion and 1-2 artifacts.

This would open up a lot more variety in building lists and make every currently printed Battalion a lot more enticing since you wouldn't be hamstrung by unit choices.

TL;DR:

1. I am not suggesting battalions should be free

2. Battalions and Artifacts could cost an alternate point system

3. Weak battalions cost less, stronger battalions cost more

4. If you don't want to use any Battalions then you can spend all your Battalion Points on Artifacts instead

 

What do you think?

[rokapoke]

Caveat: I'm not a particularly talented player.

Honestly, to me, I'd like to see Battalions just removed from matched play in general. Conceptually, they tend to be related to the "fluff" of an army anyway. Some of them (particularly from the Realmgate Wars books) were absolutely ridiculous for matchups and are therefore not pointed for matched play anyway. But GW raised the points in GH2017 (too much, according to many players) because of issues that GW had not foreseen with Battalion usage in matched play. The easiest way to fix the balance issue from Battalions is to just remove them from the equation.

However, as my "solution" is unlikely to work, I think the idea of an alternative point system is intriguing. Ultimately, though, there's still a long road ahead in terms of accurately balancing the points for the different battalions -- and introducing artifacts to the alternative system will initially make the balance seem even worse (certainly between top-tier and mid-tier players, at the very least).

[Lucio]

I like Battallions and what they add to the game in general.

The op's suggestion makes sense from a tehnical stand point but feel that by making them almost mandatory, you take away the choice that's inherently present.

My suggestion to fix Batallions is to start with deploymemt, remove them deploying together. There also needs to be a check on bonus movement, because that is one of the most likely way to "break" the game balance

[Guest]

The fact that both battalions and allegiance abilities exist is a really perplexing redundancy. Both are just slightly different ways of giving buffs and abilities to an army, since most of the time a single battalion will form the bulk of an army anyway. I can understand why competitive players would appreciate having access to multiple layers of buffs and will no doubt defend battalions to the hilt, but from a game design perspective I find the idea of having two different systems that overlap significantly in terms of their function to be messy, unnecessary and unsatisfying. Now that allegiance abilities are becoming even more layered, complex and flexible in and of themselves, whilst also being 100% free, there's even less of a case for battalions to remain as part of the game. There's really no need for both.

I guess what I'm saying is no, I don't think battalions should have their own separate points system. I think they should be removed completely to help streamline the game, and the ideas they represent should be folded into allegiance abilities instead (which is largely happening already). I suspect that the only people who would truly miss them would be the small fraction of players who play competitively at tournaments, who will fight for any extra advantage they can squeeze out of the game.

Ironically I think the most interesting allegiance abilities are the more narrative-focused ones that don't even have points (and as a result don't even exist in the eyes of most players) such as the 'Sons of Behemat' which gives you a fluffy way to field a tribe of gargants. If there's any justification for keeping battalions around it's to give people these kind of fun and interesting structures within which to field narratively interesting forces that are unlikely to be covered in a battletome. Another example might be a battalion that mixes Freeguild and Deathrattle units as seen in one of the recent Malign Portents short stories. It would be interesting to see battalions reimagined as a resource for narrative play only where they might actually serve some purpose.

[someone2040]

My wish for battalions would be:

1. You can't 1 drop battalions except in specific circumstances (generally special off board deployment)

This is because a large amount of power in the game is tied into this mechanism. And really, there's no real logical reason why battalions drop all at once as opposed to a fighting formed army that isn't in a battalion.

2. Artefacts are tied to a different mechanism (Either 1 per 1000 points, or first free, subsequent cost X points to purchase).

Not all factions have battalions. It's a shame that the ones that do and have cheap/good battalions get the reward of being able to get access to more artefacts, while the factions that don't can't access more. I'd love to be able to take more of my Free Peoples artefacts, but only have 1 battalion that forces me to spend almost all my points on it and build the army in a very specific way.

3. Any abilities (other than battalion abilities themself) that effect Battalions are changed. 

This is mainly because of stuff like Gordrakk, where he is likely super pricey because his once per game command ability can effect an entire battalion (And hence is either pretty good or REALLY GOOD depending on whether you use it on a single unit or an entire battalion).

 

I don't think battalions themself should be tied to a different points mechanism. Just that you need to stop them from providing so much advantage in the game. They have to be pricey at the moment because of all the free stuff you're getting along with them. You get the choice of determining drop order, you get the additional artefact, and then you get the additional perks the battalion brings. Of course they need to be expensive.

[Yeled]

Yep. I agree with the sentiment above that Battalions are a problem. Conceptually I like them. They are fluffy and thematic. But in practice they are either too expensive or serve to break the game through redundant buffing, one drops and extra artifacts. If there is one thing that throws off most games, or forces an unnecessary arms race in casual matched games, it's battalions.

I really hope GH2018 divorces one drops, artifacts, and battalions. There is no reason they should be tied together. Breaking them up wouldn't fix all the problems they create, but it would sure help a lot.

[chord]

I would say battalions should not be used for deployments (1 drops).   Also don't tie extra artifacts to battalions.  Make it just one artifact.  And then lower the points.

[heywoah_twitch]

Echoing agreement with the posts here. Battalions being linked to drops - and drops having anything to do with going first - is a huge diversity killer and a generally unfun mechanic in the game period. 

[Killax]

11 hours ago, PJetski said:

1. I am not suggesting battalions should be free

2. Battalions and Artifacts could cost an alternate point system

3. Weak battalions cost less, stronger battalions cost more

4. If you don't want to use any Battalions then you can spend all your Battalion Points on Artifacts instead

As discussed elsewhere I believe that a Stratagem system such is seen in 40K is ultimately more fun, leads to more army creativity and in general allows for the game to obtain depth instead of having Battalion relevancy as a filter system for the competitive options a particular army has.

1. I would suggest free Battalions but instead of keeping them as a bonus directly/all the time would thake their individual abilities and convert them into Stratagems.
2. I agree, I think the Command Point system from 40K is great. I'd love to see the abilities split in cost 1CP/2CP/3CP and have every 2K army function with 9 command points to spend.
3. What I believe is that Battalions cannot be costed correctly in actual Matched play points because their imput in almost all cases is too variable. The result of this is that certain Battalions are taken with minimum requirements and others are maxed to stay a 1 drop. I don't think 1 drop/auto starts are great for a dice game.
4. I think that a general Stratagem seen in 40K fixes wishes for Artefacts altogether. What they have there is spend a 1CP to obtain an additional Artefact or 3CP to obtain two. This cuts directly into your Command Points so you obtain Artefacts but lose out on other abilities.

The Stratagem principle is an amazing asset to 8th edition Warhammer 40.000. The only small mistake the design team has made for them is that Command Points are obtained by using Detachments/filling Detachments and as such are now only available (the most) if you thake a bunch of cheap minimum requirements.

With this in mind it would actually be incredibly easy to thake all Battalion effects from AoS and convert them into Stratagems which then would open a whole other dimension of tactical gaming. I really hope AoS' design team is considering this. Because the abilities in all Battalions are all really cool but the costs attached to them mean 80% of the Battalions out there are quite frankly unplayable due to Matched play costs.

Relevant article to the above: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/14/new-warhammer-40000-stratagems-may14gw-homepage-post-4/

[Arkiham]

A proper look into battalion costs would do just as well.

 

It was very lazy and heavy handed in ghb17 to just add 100 points to all battalions, and all new battalions costing typically 200+ 

[Trayanee]

The battalions definitely shouldnt be one drops. Thats not a good feature. The additional artifact. Well, thats weird too. Just remove it and let everyone purchase additional artifact for points individually.

[AdamR]

5 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

A proper look into battalion costs would do just as well.

 

It was very lazy and heavy handed in ghb17 to just add 100 points to all battalions, and all new battalions costing typically 200+ 

I agree.

I have no problem whatsoever with battalions,  I just wish more of them were usable at 2000 points, whether that be by points reduction (along with a proportional reduction in bonuses perhaps),  or simply reducing the number of units required to take the battalion a little. 

 

[Arkiham]

5 minutes ago, AdamR said:

I agree.

I have no problem whatsoever with battalions,  I just wish more of them were usable at 2000 points, whether that be by points reduction (along with a proportional reduction in bonuses perhaps),  or simply reducing the number of units required to take the battalion a little. 

 

Well there is obviously "bad" battalions in each book. 

 

Either as it's over priced, the units aren't that good, the bonuses are negligible, or the tax for the battalion  (unwanted units you're forced to take) is too high.

Well, make the great battalions cost more than the worse ones. 

We'll see greater diversity in battalions, units and more varied games

[Killax]

28 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

A proper look into battalion costs would do just as well.

I don't believe that's really the case. Because bonusses obtained out of them are simply said too variable to put a point costs into.

A Battalion becomes better the more units you include, but because you do not have to include all units into a particular Battalion that cost will only lead to it being too cheap or too expensive. This was highlighted in GH2016 and GH2017 and most certainly isn't fixed by making some 50 points cheaper either.

There are so many variables attached to Battalions that a whole different point system such as CP would bring more fun and depth to the game as costs would. By large also because there is that same Detachment format to AoS games, it might not shine through too much but Hero and Artillerly limits functionally work the same as HQ and Heavy Support limits etc.

Edit: I also don't think that it's a coincedence that Malign Portents basically incorporates (Command) Points in their games for bonuses (Stratagems)...

[KnightFire]

4 minutes ago, Killax said:

I don't believe that's really the case. Because bonusses obtained out of them are simply said too variable to put a point costs into.

A Battalion becomes better the more units you include, but because you do not have to include all units into a particular Battalion that cost will only lead to it being too cheap or too expensive. This was highlighted in GH2016 and GH2017 and most certainly isn't fixed by making some 50 points cheaper either.

There are so many variables attached to Battalions that a whole different point system such as CP would bring more fun and depth to the game as costs would. By large also because there is that same Detachment format to AoS games, it might not shine through too much but Hero and Artillerly limits functionally work the same as HQ and Heavy Support limits etc.

Edit: I also don't think that it's a coincedence that Malign Portents basically incorporates (Command) Points in their games for bonuses (Stratagems)...

The bonuses you get from battalions are no different to the bonuses you get from  buff units - im intrigued as to how you consider battalions too hard to point, but are still adamant that AoS can be balanced via points. 

The OP post is an interesting idea, but one of the really good things about AoS is the simplicity of its core systems (including buying units in multiples rather than individual models, and not paying points for weapons etc). While its a nice idea I think its not best placed for use in normal AoS games, but it has a lot of promise as a fan produced system, probably as part of a campaign system (i.e. your kingdom has multiple resource incomes of different types, gold that equates to points that can buy units, and political currency that is used to organise those units into coherent battalions, equip characters with ancient artifiacts, and potentially buy other one off triumph style benefits).

[Arkiham]

31 minutes ago, Killax said:

I don't believe that's really the case. Because bonusses obtained out of them are simply said too variable to put a point costs into.

A Battalion becomes better the more units you include, but because you do not have to include all units into a particular Battalion that cost will only lead to it being too cheap or too expensive. This was highlighted in GH2016 and GH2017 and most certainly isn't fixed by making some 50 points cheaper either.

There are so many variables attached to Battalions that a whole different point system such as CP would bring more fun and depth to the game as costs would. By large also because there is that same Detachment format to AoS games, it might not shine through too much but Hero and Artillerly limits functionally work the same as HQ and Heavy Support limits etc.

Edit: I also don't think that it's a coincedence that Malign Portents basically incorporates (Command) Points in their games for bonuses (Stratagems)...

i dont agree with this. they can easily add costs to account for the gains.

for instance, the Nurgle battalions, there's one which allows you to do mortal wounds on a roll of a 6 in your hero phase or one which gives blightkings rend.

 

rend is much more potent than the mortal wound one but they cost the same... why?

[AdamR]

 

41 minutes ago, Killax said:

There are so many variables attached to Battalions that a whole different point system such as CP would bring more fun and depth to the game as costs would. By large also because there is that same Detachment format to AoS games, it might not shine through too much but Hero and Artillerly limits functionally work the same as HQ and Heavy Support limits etc.

 

Meanwhile, over on Bolter and Chainsword - "Why does this have to be a stratagem, why can't I just buy it with my points..."

[KnightFire]

1 minute ago, Arkiham said:

 

rend is much more potent than the mortal wound one but they cost the same... why?

That isnt true at all - mortal wounds are really strong against armies with good armour saves - something with a 1+ save rerolling 1s doesn't care much about rend 1, so mortal wounds a re really potent, but mortal wounds bypass all the points they spent on making their model have a 1+ with rerolls and kill it anyway. 

Rend is good against things with medium armour saves - turning a 5+ into a 6+ or a 4+ into a 5+ is very strong  but it has no use against a  unit with no save, and (as mentioned above) is of no real use against models with really good saves. 

 

The two battalions are good in different circumstances, its certainly not the case that one is always better than the other (in fact in the current UK tournament metagame most people would prefer dealing mortal wounds to having rend,) but they both offer you an extra artifact and the ability to reduce your drop count, which makes up much of their value.

[Arkiham]

3 hours ago, KnightFire said:

That isnt true at all - mortal wounds are really strong against armies with good armour saves - something with a 1+ save rerolling 1s doesn't care much about rend 1, so mortal wounds a re really potent, but mortal wounds bypass all the points they spent on making their model have a 1+ with rerolls and kill it anyway. 

Rend is good against things with medium armour saves - turning a 5+ into a 6+ or a 4+ into a 5+ is very strong  but it has no use against a  unit with no save, and (as mentioned above) is of no real use against models with really good saves. 

 

The two battalions are good in different circumstances, its certainly not the case that one is always better than the other (in fact in the current UK tournament metagame most people would prefer dealing mortal wounds to having rend,) but they both offer you an extra artifact and the ability to reduce your drop count, which makes up much of their value.

while I get the mortal wounds>wound thing. a 1 in 6 chance in your hero phase compared to every single combat phase and in a tournament setting where you will face a variety of armies, the rend is by far superior.

 

and. looking at the new death battalions, which are cheap in comparison to new battalions and ones in ghb17 which was meant to have been changed to stop artefact spam

++ Mod Edit ++

Please don't post pictures of the points from the Legions of Nagash before it's released.

[KnightFire]

4 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

 

and. looking at the new death battalions, which are cheap in comparison to new battalions and ones in ghb17 which was meant to have been changed to stop artefact spam

 

They are, and we can probably take this as an indicator that some or most battalions will get a points reduction in GHB18. Part of the issue I think comes from many people still being in the mindset of previous editions - when once a book was out and the points were set for something it was set in stone until a new book. We don't have that with AoS, if something is in need of changing its likely that we will have to wait at most 12 months for it to change. That really isnt that long, many of my army projects don't see the battlefield for 12 months after I start painting them.

[Killax]

25 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

i dont agree with this. they can easily add costs to account for the gains.

for instance, the Nurgle battalions, there's one which allows you to do mortal wounds on a roll of a 6 in your hero phase or one which gives blightkings rend.

 

rend is much more potent than the mortal wound one but they cost the same... why?

If you think it is so easy, feel free to provide your thake on all of them  

[RuneBrush]

I think I'm of a similar opinion to most of the comments.  I think remove the one-drop and artefact components of battalions and keep them as a way of adding narrative driven abilities to a specific group of units.  I do think some battalions perhaps need a more indepth look though as the rules don't really seem to tie up with the background in certain places.

[Arkiham]

7 minutes ago, Killax said:

If you think it is so easy, feel free to provide your take on all of them  

I could, but it's pointless as it won't change. 

 

[Killax]

38 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

I could, but it's pointless as it won't change. 

I'm a fan of pointless Battalion suggestions  So you can at least try to blow me away!

[Twitch of Izalith]

I think a points revision probably wouldn't be a miracle cure but it wouldn't do any harm either. I would like to see more batallion themed armies being played but there are very few that are worth the investment of points in 2000 point games. 

The force organisation charts in 40k are actually terrible in my opinion. There are lots of charts but they are so flexible that you can basically do anything - including narrative abominations like having Tyranid units from different hive fleets in the same list..

Stratagems are a positive addition but I am always a little cautious of too many abstract mechanics being introduced to a miniatures game. I think its much better when mechanics are directly related to a miniature in play rather than being "off table". The miniatures abilities should always be the focus.