What if Battalions didn't cost regular points?

[Kugane]

I think the issue of battalions is that point-wise they tend to be too expensive for 2k games. If you look at, for example, 5k games a lot of these battalions become a huge bargain, since it gives a blanket-boost to almost everything in the army (if you max out units).

I think therefore for matched play at 2k points it is a hit or miss with lots of them, which may be a good thing.

[chord]

I'm not familiar with 40K but the strategm and command points sounds like it would make AOS more complex.  I would prefer to keep it a simpler game in terms of putting together the army.

[DantePQ]

Another point system for items and Battalions is terrible idea it would be pretty hard on new players and I don't see much sense. 

Battalions aren't cheap but you play for specific bonuses with any drawbacks. I love that GW addressed problem and made them more expensive. But even then armies still use them. 

I play WH40k as well and I like stratagems and CP a lot but they have their flaws. I hope Battalions will stay in AoS. 

[Kugane]

Another thing is that even though battalions are generally not very good, it requires 0 painting and assembling to use it. So it does help new players in a way of fielding a 1k or 2k army quickly without losing out too much.

[Carnelian]

I second getting rid of 1 drop and first turn shenanigans but keep points on them

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, chord said:

I'm not familiar with 40K but the strategm and command points sounds like it would make AOS more complex.  I would prefer to keep it a simpler game in terms of putting together the army.

I like them in 40k, but I agree. AoS has already become much more complicated (esp. list creation) than I prefer. Another layer would disincline me to play much, opting to spend my gaming time on Shadespire,  Black Plague, or Arcadia Quest instead.

[Twitch of Izalith]

1 hour ago, Kugane said:

Another thing is that even though battalions are generally not very good, it requires 0 painting and assembling to use it. So it does help new players in a way of fielding a 1k or 2k army quickly without losing out too much.

Thats a good point. I hadn't even considered that!

I've been playing a few 1250 point intro games with a friend who has shown some interest in Aos lately and found the game to be really enjoyable on a 4 x 4 at that level. At the oppposite end of the scale we did a couple of 3000 point games over the xmas break and everyone had at least one batallion. Gore Pilgrims and Murderhost in the same list reared its ugly head too 

Its interesting that everyone still sticks religiously to the 2000 point mark for the majority of events (in the UK anyway) even though that level was established when battalions mostly cost 100 points or less and minimum unit sizes were a lot more common. Now people are maxing out their units its really hard to take a game to turn 5 in 2 and a half hours. The fact that big units got a discount and battalions got an increase + battleplans that favour large units has really slowed the ganme down in my opinion - not to mention all the armies that get 3 saving throws...

Some unintended consequences maybe...

 

[NemoVonUtopia]

I like battalions because of the variety they bring. For example,  my Skyre army works radically differently when I take their battalion or not. For my bloodbound army I can use battalions to change up how my army works without changing models very much. I think they are even more important for smaller armies like fireslayers since they have so few unit types.

 

[DanielFM]

What I don't understand is: why do Death Legions get the base Death Allegiance ability (6++ save) plus special deployment+healing plus two other flavourful, mostly useful abilities, plus their own Command Trait and Artifacts lists, while Stormcast must pay through the nose to get a Stormhost battalion (around 350 points) in order to get a few thematic abilities and a mostly useless unique artifact/command trait to complement their awful Allegiance ability?

Do you also see the comparative grievance?

If it's good for Legions of Nagash it should be good for everyone else.

GW should bake most of those battalion rules into Allegiances.

[KnightFire]

52 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

 

Its interesting that everyone still sticks religiously to the 2000 point mark for the majority of events (in the UK anyway) even though that level was established when battalions mostly cost 100 points or less and minimum unit sizes were a lot more common. Now people are maxing out their units its really hard to take a game to turn 5 in 2 and a half hours. The fact that big units got a discount and battalions got an increase + battleplans that favour large units has really slowed the ganme down in my opinion - not to mention all the armies that get 3 saving throws...

 

 

2000 points is the standard because its what GW recommend, and what they run at their events. It is the level that the game is "most tuned for" - the level that all playtesting occurs at etc.  However I have not found any problems fitting games into 2.5 hours, either before or after GHB17, it just takes time management (from both players) and making sure you are fairly sure what you are going to do before its your turn. Anyone that reliably doesn't finish their games has probably picked an army that is too complex for their ability to play (at the moment, they will get faster) and will probably find themselves penalized by TOs (because they are preventing their opponents finishing games), and this is one of the reasons why double kunnin rukk was never very common even when it was tier 1 (it just took too long to roll the dice, your opponent complained to the TO and you lost points).

 

2 hours ago, Carnelian said:

I second getting rid of 1 drop and first turn shenanigans but keep points on them

One drop armies have a very important place in the metagame - they are alpha strike lists that rely on taking the first turn and using that first turn to dismantle key parts of your opponents army, hopefully to the point where your opponent never recovers. That is needed as a playstyle as it is a counter to a couple of other playstyles (combos that rely heavily on specific characters, etc etc). If you take the one drop armies away you will be back here complaining about how there is no way to take out heavy combo armies. One drop armies are not very common in the current metagame (I haven't played against one in months) and I would say only about half the armies I have played against since GHB17 have had battalions at all.

[Naflem]

Going first being linked to drops probably had something to do with trying to control for the fact that there was no point system and to give people a reason to stop deploying units, initially.  Seems kinda antiquated in a post GHB world, when you think about it. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

18 hours ago, PJetski said:

40k killed Formations in 8th edition...

Thank goodness for that!  Though it felt more like Formations killed 40K 7th Edition, at least in my anecdotal experience.  The sheer number of ridiculous boosts that you could get on your armies was insane, and there was no way of reining in the abuse aside from taking "tax" units that would be there for minimal point intrusion.  Granted, I had to deal with some serious powergaming shenanigans in my local 40K scene, but those days were not fun for me, and I really hope that Age of Sigmar doesn't go in that direction.  I like how AoS handles it in comparison, but I have no idea how it currently works in 40K (no time, money, nor patience for another game system and dealing with those cheesy WAAC powergamers, and I have mixed feelings on Primaris Marines and the new fluff).   But with Age of Sigmar, I like how things are set up and are much more relaxed and less cheese-driven.

As much as I enjoy Age of Sigmar, I was one of those players who didn't want to play when it was released due to the lack of a points structure to the game.  Not because I had to play with points, but because that there are local players that have the pay-to-win attitude to get as many victories in their games as they can.  WIthout a doubt in my mind, if those players had started playing Age of Sigmar, they would have been the players to bring a table full of models in order to win their games.  When GW released the GH2016, I jumped into AoS fully, and haven't looked back.  Turns out that those players aren't interested in AoS, so I don't have to worry about them.  And now, I'm ready to go back to the way things were, where games were played with gentlemen's agreements and no points were necessary to play the game.  That said, I am glad that now there are the 3 Ways to Play in the General's Handbook, and the modularity of the different game styles can be swapped around and interchanged for many unique gaming experiences.

As someone who also played Cities of Death, Planetstrike, and Battle Missions for 40K back in 5th Edition, I do have a great appreciation for non-competitive and non-standard army construction methods and non-tournament game missions.  My favorite tabletop gaming moments don't have anything to do with tournaments (with one exception for a doubles tournament when things got goofy) but rather in non-competitive, more Narrative games with special mission rules.  With my 8 years of wargaming experience, across many tournaments, campaigns, escalation leagues, and teaching new players, here's what I would do if I were to change AoS Battalions army composition, and Matched Play army bonuses:

• Get rid of the one-drop rule for all Battalions (make it a special rule for some Battalions, sure, but not a catch-all for all of them).
• Remove the association of Artifacts to Battalions, and give them each individual points profiles.
• Make each army's Artifacts limited to 1/army/player (so repeats are okay in mega-battles or mirror matches).
• If Battalions are to ever be used in Matched Play, then they ought to have points attached to them.
• Give a base cost for the Battalion, and then have a +XX points for each unit in the Battalion within after the minimum Battalion requirements (if every unit gets a bonus, then every unit should pay for it).
• Give points costs for all Battalions, including the over-the-top Narrative ones (and with the above items already accomplished, then ascribing points to them will be much easier).
• Have Matched Play options that can be played without the use of army-wide rules, artifacts, and Battalions (Warscrolls and points, my personal favorite way to play!)

[Twitch of Izalith]

17 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

Anyone that reliably doesn't finish their games has probably picked an army that is too complex for their ability to play

I'm not sure that's the case. You see a lot of very competent players struggling to get 5 full turns in. All it takes is some rules discussion or something and you are behind schedule immediately.

Kunnin Ruk is not a complex list neither is 90+ Vulikite berserkers but these armies suck time out of the game. 

Admittedly my gaming group is really small so I shouldn't assume it reflects the whole picture but I don't think its fair to suggest our games are taking longer because our gh17 armies are too complicated for us! They are taking longer because they have twice as many models with more re-rolls and saving throws than the Sylvaneth/bloodbound/stormcast games we played in the first part of 2017. We are now more experienced players who are not looking up stats and rarely looking up rules but our games take longer. 

[KnightFire]

6 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

I'm not sure that's the case. You see a lot of very competent players struggling to get 5 full turns in. All it takes is some rules discussion or something and you are behind schedule immediately.

Kunnin Ruk is not a complex list neither is 90+ Vulikite berserkers but these armies suck time out of the game. 

Admittedly my gaming group is really small so I shouldn't assume it reflects the whole picture but I don't think its fair to suggest our games are taking longer because our gh17 armies are too complicated for us! They are taking longer because they have twice as many models with more re-rolls and saving throws than the Sylvaneth/bloodbound/stormcast games we played in the first part of 2017. We are now more experienced players who are not looking up stats and rarely looking up rules but our games take longer. 

Time management is as much an aspect of competitive aos as model placement and knowing the metagame and counters. If your games are taking too long you need to do something about it or you will be penalised because of it. If you feel you are playing at a reasonable pace you may well have too many models, in which case you need to remove some (I assume your already using movement trays for them all, if not then this is your first answer). Juat because you can field 300 models doesn't mean you should, and one of the main reasons not to is because you won't finish your games in 2.5 hours.

[chord]

2 hours ago, DanielFM said:

What I don't understand is: why do Death Legions get the base Death Allegiance ability (6++ save) plus special deployment+healing plus two other flavourful, mostly useful abilities, plus their own Command Trait and Artifacts lists, while Stormcast must pay through the nose to get a Stormhost battalion (around 350 points) in order to get a few thematic abilities and a mostly useless unique artifact/command trait to complement their awful Allegiance ability?

Do you also see the comparative grievance?

If it's good for Legions of Nagash it should be good for everyone else.

GW should bake most of those battalion rules into Allegiances.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease I would imagine. 

[Red]

19 hours ago, Yeled said:

 

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.

THIS! 100% this!

[Aeryenn]

I'm happy to see a change in minds of many regarding the topic. It was whole other discussion in GHB2017 topic. Since the announcement of points increase for battalions in GBH2017 I still believe that book was the single most harmful thing for AoS since premiere. I remember how some said that it is impossible to divorce battalions from 1 drops and artifacts. Now I see many/most people want that. Battalions are a great way to customize your army around a certain topic/mechanic. It was a mistake to remove them (that is what relly happened) by increasing their cost. I'd add that aside from points cost we still have a cost of taking units or army composition that we normally wouldn't but we do so in order to receive bonuses that battalions give. Remove one drops and artifacts bond from battalions and make them free/ reduce the cost or introduce a system with command points.

[Killax]

18 hours ago, DanielFM said:

What I don't understand is: why do Death Legions get the base Death Allegiance ability (6++ save) plus special deployment+healing plus two other flavourful, mostly useful abilities, plus their own Command Trait and Artifacts lists, while Stormcast must pay through the nose to get a Stormhost battalion (around 350 points) in order to get a few thematic abilities and a mostly useless unique artifact/command trait to complement their awful Allegiance ability?

Do you also see the comparative grievance?

If it's good for Legions of Nagash it should be good for everyone else.

GW should bake most of those battalion rules into Allegiances.

The prime reason for that is that even now, Legions of Nagash does not have cheap relevant units. Compair some 100 point Stormcast options to 140 and 110 point LoN options and suddenly see that even their support that will not see the melee combat daylight isn't cheap. There are some cheap units but these too crumble with relative ease.

What I think is that Battalion rules should be baked into Stratagems. It's the easiest way to do it.
1. Pick all Battalion abilities and attach a Command Point cost to them. (Which differs from Matched play points).
2. As a secondary effect remove all the one-drop/low-drop things that are attached to them.
3. Make the same Artefact Stratagem we see in 40K, 1 CP obtains you one additional Artefact, 3 CP obtain you two additional Artefacts.

Put a Command Point system in place that is:
- You start the game with 3 CP
- obtain 3 CP for every 1000 points played

What you end up with is a very simpel system that catches so many of the current oddities with Battalions, adds a whole slew of tactical depth and also removes the walls that armies need to be build in because of Battalions. I for one am 100% certain the game would drastically improve with that and obtain new interest akin to that of Gh2016.

Because you can also adress weaker units with more potent Stratagems to obtain interest for all units. 

18 hours ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

I like battalions because of the variety they bring. For example,  my Skyre army works radically differently when I take their battalion or not. For my bloodbound army I can use battalions to change up how my army works without changing models very much. I think they are even more important for smaller armies like fireslayers since they have so few unit types.

I personally dislike Battalions for the variety they remove. The way the army works isn't because of the Battalion but the ability obtained into it. These abilities can work as a seperate system very well. But have a peek at Malign Portents to test it out  

1 hour ago, Aryann said:

I'm happy to see a change in minds of many regarding the topic. It was whole other discussion in GHB2017 topic. Since the announcement of points increase for battalions in GBH2017 I still believe that book was the single most harmful thing for AoS since premiere. I remember how some said that it is impossible to divorce battalions from 1 drops and artifacts. Now I see many/most people want that. Battalions are a great way to customize your army around a certain topic/mechanic. It was a mistake to remove them (that is what relly happened) by increasing their cost. I'd add that aside from points cost we still have a cost of taking units or army composition that we normally wouldn't but we do so in order to receive bonuses that battalions give. Remove one drops and artifacts bond from battalions and make them free/ reduce the cost or introduce a system with command points.

The thing is really that I don't see Battalions as a great way to alter army composition. What was so very well highlighted in GH2016 is that the armies with the most relevant Battalions where always top dog. This will not change with just point costs alterations because Games Workshop has not developed a particular policy for their Battalion designs.

The fact that Stormcasts have a load of cool lists that are different because of those many relevant Battaliosn is nice and all but most factions can only work with 1 to 2 Battalions that are remotely close and as such are a huge rarity.

As above, I can only say, look into what Stratagems do for 40K. Detach Battalion abilities from costs. See how it allows for builds to be up to the player and decide buffs that are available to particular builds only because they target units/seek for units in the same way as Battalions.

[chord]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

The prime reason for that is that even now, Legions of Nagash does not have cheap relevant units. Compair some 100 point Stormcast options to 140 and 110 point LoN options and suddenly see that even their support that will not see the melee combat daylight isn't cheap. There are some cheap units but these too crumble with relative ease.

What I think is that Battalion rules should be baked into Stratagems. It's the easiest way to do it.
1. Pick all Battalion abilities and attach a Command Point cost to them. (Which differs from Matched play points).
2. As a secondary effect remove all the one-drop/low-drop things that are attached to them.
3. Make the same Artefact Stratagem we see in 40K, 1 CP obtains you one additional Artefact, 3 CP obtain you two additional Artefacts.

Put a Command Point system in place that is:
- You start the game with 3 CP
- obtain 3 CP for every 1000 points played

What you end up with is a very simpel system that catches so many of the current oddities with Battalions, adds a whole slew of tactical depth and also removes the walls that armies need to be build in because of Battalions. I for one am 100% certain the game would drastically improve with that and obtain new interest akin to that of Gh2016.

  I'm not sure I'd call it simple.    Personally just divorce them from rules, drops, artifacts.  Way more simple. 

[DanielFM]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

The prime reason for that is that even now, Legions of Nagash does not have cheap relevant units. Compair some 100 point Stormcast options to 140 and 110 point LoN options and suddenly see that even their support that will not see the melee combat daylight isn't cheap. There are some cheap units but these too crumble with relative ease.

What I think is that Battalion rules should be baked into Stratagems. It's the easiest way to do it.
1. Pick all Battalion abilities and attach a Command Point cost to them. (Which differs from Matched play points).
2. As a secondary effect remove all the one-drop/low-drop things that are attached to them.
3. Make the same Artefact Stratagem we see in 40K, 1 CP obtains you one additional Artefact, 3 CP obtain you two additional Artefacts.

Put a Command Point system in place that is:
- You start the game with 3 CP
- obtain 3 CP for every 1000 points played

What you end up with is a very simpel system that catches so many of the current oddities with Battalions, adds a whole slew of tactical depth and also removes the walls that armies need to be build in because of Battalions. I for one am 100% certain the game would drastically improve with that and obtain new interest akin to that of Gh2016.

Because you can also adress weaker units with more potent Stratagems to obtain interest for all units. 

I personally dislike Battalions for the variety they remove. The way the army works isn't because of the Battalion but the ability obtained into it. These abilities can work as a seperate system very well. But have a peek at Malign Portents to test it out  

The thing is really that I don't see Battalions as a great way to alter army composition. What was so very well highlighted in GH2016 is that the armies with the most relevant Battalions where always top dog. This will not change with just point costs alterations because Games Workshop has not developed a particular policy for their Battalion designs.

The fact that Stormcasts have a load of cool lists that are different because of those many relevant Battaliosn is nice and all but most factions can only work with 1 to 2 Battalions that are remotely close and as such are a huge rarity.

As above, I can only say, look into what Stratagems do for 40K. Detach Battalion abilities from costs. See how it allows for builds to be up to the player and decide buffs that are available to particular builds only because they target units/seek for units in the same way as Battalions.

Have you checked 10 Direwolves for 120 points? How are they not head and shoulders better than 3 prosecutors for 100 points? Or even than 5 Liberators? (if they are still battleline, even more).

How many relevant battalions do Stormcast have at their current point cost? Aetherstrike and Vanguard wing. Hammerstrike and Skyborne Slayers are in the limit of being overpriced, and the rest are brutally so. Maybe I'm spoiled or something, but that doesn't sound like a lot amongst their 28+ battalions.

[Killax]

21 hours ago, DanielFM said:

Have you checked 10 Direwolves for 120 points? How are they not head and shoulders better than 3 prosecutors for 100 points? Or even than 5 Liberators? (if they are still battleline, even more).

How many relevant battalions do Stormcast have at their current point cost? Aetherstrike and Vanguard wing. Hammerstrike and Skyborne Slayers are in the limit of being overpriced, and the rest are brutally so. Maybe I'm spoiled or something, but that doesn't sound like a lot amongst their 28+ battalions.

I certainly have. They arn't head and shoulders better because in the army context they do not have 100 point models that add armour to them and strut around with 3+ armour saves themselves. The cost of Hero support is such an important aspect of competitive army building that one of the reasons Legions of Nagash isn't easy to create comes forth out of it. LoN pays 500 points for 4 support Heroes (VL 2x Necromancer 2x) by comparison most pay 400 points for 4 support heroes (Khorne: Bloodsecrator, Bloodstoker, Slaughterpriest, Slaughterpriest... Stormcast come with the very much same story). 
The moment you want to have good Direwolves you have to account of the additional 100 points that are paid for support and if you want to make them better/akin to have good saves you even need to have a Corpse Cart close to them which is another 80 points. None of these are bad, it's just adding up costs really quick.

In terms of relevant Battalions I completely argee, if you see this first and second topic page you can read my thoughts about removing Battalions altogether and incorporating their abilities into a Stratagem/Command Point system akin to 40K's but better CP balance.