Age of Sigmar: Second Edition

[Brightstar]

1 hour ago, stato said:

You can critique, when you have the information to do so.  Not liking something using the reference of how it was done previously but knowing changes are probable, and then complaining anyway, is not constructive and cant be discussed. It tends to be frowned upon here because it just descends to name calling and grammar pendants. However, you are being considerate and explaining your view and reasons and that you understand the context, so thats cool, its others that are throwing their toys out the pram.

You can see why GW would attach bonuses to battalions though, because they are creating new armies all the time and eventually everyone will have them, sure some dont at the moment but they will eventually (my Dwarfs are lacking as much as anyone). Their approach has always been continual development, especially recently, so they dont tend to just sit on something and reset it entirely, meaning there will be highs and lows. Its how they drive interest in the games, to constantly come out with new stuff or changes to 'the META'. This obviously has to drive sales but its also the rules guys trying to keep the game they love good while also meeting that need to sell stuff to keep their jobs.

 

I disagree with you here.  Great and accessible game play sells more models than poor game design. There are tons of other ways Command Points could be given to armies besides battalions.  Everyone could have gotten the same number then additional points could be earned by in game rewards.  Or A certain number could have been given to each side in a battleplan.  An underdog list could receive more than a more powerful list to even the odds.  When hit with a double turn, you could get a bonus one.    

This decision makes the game far more rooted in battalions  then it was in the previous edition.   If some battalions were too weak or too strong - as a designer - you fix the battalion, not the core rules for battalions because the core rules play the way you want them to.  You could even write some battalions that give extra command points.  You only change a core rule when you wish to change the way a game is played. 

So, the only reason for this change is to make list building far more intrinsic to the game.  It has nothing to do with the hero phase or a command point mechanic.  It is about lists. That is a massive shift to the game that only really benefits list-building players.  Even if they completely rewrite battalions, give everyone a hundred battalions, it doesn't change the fact that those who take battalions will receive an edge over those who don't.  It removes a players choice to build their forces and play how they want to play - which was a fundamental design principle of AOS.    

   

       

[PJetski]

Battalions are supposed to give you an edge in the same way that Allegiance bonuses are meant to give you an edge. You're just speculating about the game being imbalanced before it's even out.

Feel free to houserule otherwise if you don't think it's balanced

[Infeston]

8 minutes ago, Brightstar said:

I disagree with you here.  Great and accessible game play sells more models than poor game design. There are tons of other ways Command Points could be given to armies besides battalions.  Everyone could have gotten the same number then additional points could be earned by in game rewards.  Or A certain number could have been given to each side in a battleplan.  An underdog list could receive more than a more powerful list to even the odds.  When hit with a double turn, you could get a bonus one.    

This decision makes the game far more rooted in battalions  then it was in the previous edition.   If some battalions were too weak or too strong - as a designer - you fix the battalion, not the core rules for battalions because the core rules play the way you want them to.  You could even write some battalions that give extra command points.  You only change a core rule when you wish to change the way a game is played. 

So, the only reason for this change is to make list building far more intrinsic to the game.  It has nothing to do with the hero phase or a command point mechanic.  It is about lists. That is a massive shift to the game that only really benefits list-building players.  Even if they completely rewrite battalions, give everyone a hundred battalions, it doesn't change the fact that those who take battalions will receive an edge over those who don't.  It removes a players choice to build their forces and play how they want to play - which was a fundamental design principle of AOS.    

   

       

I fully agree. You understand what I mean.

That is exactly what I was trying to say.

[LLV]

By all accounts 40k was a massive success for gw. As much as people like it or don’t This will be AoS 2- 40k edition. I can’t wait till the combat changes are announced. The internet’s will explode.

[Brightstar]

6 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Battalions are supposed to give you an edge in the same way that Allegiance bonuses are meant to give you an edge. You're just speculating about the game being imbalanced before it's even out.

Feel free to houserule otherwise if you don't think it's balanced

Yep.  That's what they already do.   I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you there.  

So you think they need more edge? 

I mean, by that logic you would be okay saying that a core rule change that would say:  all models in a battalion automatically strike first at the beginning of each battleround.  

And when you "speculate" the cost of an item seems too high, nobody tells you you have no right to feel that way until you buy it and use it a few times before you can really be sure the cost was too high.  Do they?    

If GW doesn't want the community to speculate a certain way they should release more precise information to say why we shouldn't.  It's not the fault of people who think about change.  It's the fault of the people who put the information out there.  

[Brightstar]

1 minute ago, LLV said:

By all accounts 40k was a massive success for gw. As much as people like it or don’t This will be AoS 2- 40k edition. I can’t wait till the combat changes are announced. The internet’s will explode.

Oh, I know.  Looking forward to it!  ;).  

40k was a success for GW because of how bad 5th-7th edition 40k was for GW.  It went back to the days of Matt Ward.   They literally could have done anything other than 7th edition and it would have been a huge success for GW!

Now, AOS has been a huge success for GW.  I don't see why they think they need to make it more like 40k.  

But yeah, I figure the combat system is going to divide the community like crazy!

 

[Infeston]

10 minutes ago, LLV said:

By all accounts 40k was a massive success for gw. As much as people like it or don’t This will be AoS 2- 40k edition. I can’t wait till the combat changes are announced. The internet’s will explode.

Oh. Well jeah. I would be really happy if this would mean charging units striking first in combat, because I play Destruction.  I on the other hand don't think that this would ruin the whole game. I think it would make melee armies able to compete in the meta.

But I think many people won't like a change like this, because it would propably mean a big shift in the meta. In the end i would think this to be a good change, because many very shooty armies would have to include more close combat units to protect their archers. 

I think this would mean that many army lists get more diverse, because you cannot play armies which only consist of shooting units anymore.

[BunkhouseBuster]

I'm really, really trying to be hopeful here.  I was burned about this time last year by some of the changes to 40K, and I have yet to play 8th Edition.  To be fair, the local 40K players basically all drove me away with their attitudes on the hobby and in life in general.  Age of Sigmar has been my exclusive wargame for more than a year now, and I have greatly enjoyed the game itself and the relationships I have built with other players in my local area, because they don't take the game so seriously as other game players in my area.

To me, I'm not too excited for some of these new changes, particularly about the command points thing and how Battalions are tied into using Command Abilities.  Not because I'm concerned about how some armies don't have any good Battalions (or none at all), and not because I'm afraid of possibilities of how many artifacts might now show up on the table, nor am I concerned with how many command points can be had in a single game.  No, what bothers me is the restrictions and coupling being put into the game now.  Someone in this thread earlier mentioned that they are a programmer, and they ought to be familiar with the concepts of Coupling and Cohesion.

Having now tied command points into Battalions is coupling - one cannot be had without the other now.  That is a defined rule that is going into the core rules and links those two concepts together across all three forms of play (Matched, Open, and Narrative).  This is not adding in another layer on top of the game, but adding one within.  That is Coupling: linking things together in a way that makes it hard to separate them.

When I talk about the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar being its modularity, I'm really talking about Cohesion, and just using the word module as that term refers to cohesion in tabletop gaming expansions, particularly in older RPGs.  What do I mean by Modularity in AoS?  Things like Skirmish, Path to Glory, the Three Ways to Play, points values, battalions, custom warscrolls, narrative battleplans - these can all be used and mixed and matched in ways to enhance the gaming experience for you and other players.

Think of a wargame like ice cream.  You have all these different flavors of ice cream that you can get, right?  Rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and many variations upon.  Cohesion, A.K.A. modularity, is having a plain flavor and adding toppings to it, where Coupling is mixing the ingredients together in a way that it becomes its own thing dependent on its ingredients to exist.  What if I want a banana split?  Or a hot fudge sundae?  Or a choco-banana-mint milkshake?  Should I use the rocky road, the chocolate, or the vanilla to make those?  Personally, I would much rather Age of Sigmar be plain vanilla ice cream that I can add whatever toppings to it I want, rather than a rocky road-type that delivers a unique, special experience that be limited in what you can add without it being overpowering (flavor wise, not game wise).

[LLV]

Quoting Rob formerly of whtv, GW 2 main issues with AoS as they saw it was they thought people viewed AoS as no background and not enough strategy. The decision on AoS2 came last year after the success of 40k, so it’s natural that the rules writers (and remember these are the same guys who do 40k) would incorporate the ‘tactic’ from 40k to AoS. The background issue was dealt with by malign portent and will be another focus of this edition.

 

add- current design philosophy obviously sees tactics as being more options. Whether right or wrong this is all the designers know. Make something more tactical to them means, add more stuff. 

[Infeston]

5 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Having now tied command points into Battalions is coupling - one cannot be had without the other now.  That is a defined rule that is going into the core rules and links those two concepts together across all three forms of play (Matched, Open, and Narrative).  This is not adding in another layer on top of the game, but adding one within.  That is Coupling: linking things together in a way that makes it hard to separate them.

When I talk about the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar being its modularity, I'm really talking about Cohesion, and just using the word module as that term refers to cohesion in tabletop gaming expansions, particularly in older RPGs.  What do I mean by Modularity in AoS?  Things like Skirmish, Path to Glory, the Three Ways to Play, points values, battalions, custom warscrolls, narrative battleplans - these can all be used and mixed and matched in ways to enhance the gaming experience for you and other players.

Think of a wargame like ice cream.  You have all these different flavors of ice cream that you can get, right?  Rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and many variations upon.  Cohesion, A.K.A. modularity, is having a plain flavor and adding toppings to it, where Coupling is mixing the ingredients together in a way that it becomes its own thing dependent on its ingredients to exist.  What if I want a banana split?  Or a hot fudge sundae?  Or a choco-banana-mint milkshake?  Should I use the rocky road, the chocolate, or the vanilla to make those?  Personally, I would much rather Age of Sigmar be plain vanilla ice cream that I can add whatever toppings to it I want, rather than a rocky road-type that delivers a unique, special experience that be limited in what you can add without it being overpowering (flavor wise, not game wise).

Wonderful metaphor. This is also a thing that I am a little bit afraid of. The battalion thing is also really the only thing which I don't like. Otherwise the rules would be perfect. I don't have anything else to criticize but the battalions part. 

[Sleboda]

44 minutes ago, Brightstar said:

  It removes a players choice to build their forces and play how they want to play - which was a fundamental design principle of AOS.    

It still is. No choice has been removed. You are just more incentivized to accept the trade-off of listflexibility in exchange for a bonus.

You can still forgo the perk if you desire a list that takes the best or most interesting bits.

It really is a nice way to encourage armies that look like armies, as well, but that's all it is - encouragement, not restriction 

[michu]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It still is. No choice has been removed. You are just more incentivized to accept the trade-off of listflexibility in exchange for a bonus.

You can still forgo the perk if you desire a list that takes the best or most interesting bits.

It really is a nice way to encourage armies that look like armies, as well, but that's all it is - encouragement, not restriction 

Exactly this. If battalions won't get cheaper you'll rarely see more than one in armies and I don't believe that one CP will do so much difference.

[Lanoss]

So are we inferring here that depending on the number of command points, any number of heroes can use their command ability in any given turn? 

ie. multiple Waaagh!s? A big freaking WAAAGH!

 

or might the warscroll wordings change to not allow multiple effects? 

[Gotrek]

23 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It still is. No choice has been removed. You are just more incentivized to accept the trade-off of listflexibility in exchange for a bonus.

You can still forgo the perk if you desire a list that takes the best or most interesting bits.

It really is a nice way to encourage armies that look like armies, as well, but that's all it is - encouragement, not restriction 

Core of the problem is this: when you are incentivized to play a certain way, its the same as being punished for playing any other way and when you have armies that lack the ability (as in they physically cant) to take the incentives (in this case armies without battalions) it leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Its like when ghb2017 dropped and the battalions got nerfed, people complained that battalions were the only way X army could be competitive and again when the scenarios incentivized hordes and low model count armies complained about how they either couldn't play the scenario without breaking allegiance or paying an "ally tax".

Personal note: the only thing that will affect my list building are points so bonus command points dont bother me especially if they are one offs as implied.

[chord]

52 minutes ago, LLV said:

Quoting Rob formerly of whtv, GW 2 main issues with AoS as they saw it was they thought people viewed AoS as no background and not enough strategy. The decision on AoS2 came last year after the success of 40k, so it’s natural that the rules writers (and remember these are the same guys who do 40k) would incorporate the ‘tactic’ from 40k to AoS. The background issue was dealt with by malign portent and will be another focus of this edition.

 

add- current design philosophy obviously sees tactics as being more options. Whether right or wrong this is all the designers know. Make something more tactical to them means, add more stuff. 

So the vocal minority got there way, VS the more casual players who have been supportive the entire time.

this could have easily been matched play instead of a core rule

[chord]

55 minutes ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I'm really, really trying to be hopeful here.  I was burned about this time last year by some of the changes to 40K, and I have yet to play 8th Edition.  To be fair, the local 40K players basically all drove me away with their attitudes on the hobby and in life in general.  Age of Sigmar has been my exclusive wargame for more than a year now, and I have greatly enjoyed the game itself and the relationships I have built with other players in my local area, because they don't take the game so seriously as other game players in my area.

To me, I'm not too excited for some of these new changes, particularly about the command points thing and how Battalions are tied into using Command Abilities.  Not because I'm concerned about how some armies don't have any good Battalions (or none at all), and not because I'm afraid of possibilities of how many artifacts might now show up on the table, nor am I concerned with how many command points can be had in a single game.  No, what bothers me is the restrictions and coupling being put into the game now.  Someone in this thread earlier mentioned that they are a programmer, and they ought to be familiar with the concepts of Coupling and Cohesion.

Having now tied command points into Battalions is coupling - one cannot be had without the other now.  That is a defined rule that is going into the core rules and links those two concepts together across all three forms of play (Matched, Open, and Narrative).  This is not adding in another layer on top of the game, but adding one within.  That is Coupling: linking things together in a way that makes it hard to separate them.

When I talk about the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar being its modularity, I'm really talking about Cohesion, and just using the word module as that term refers to cohesion in tabletop gaming expansions, particularly in older RPGs.  What do I mean by Modularity in AoS?  Things like Skirmish, Path to Glory, the Three Ways to Play, points values, battalions, custom warscrolls, narrative battleplans - these can all be used and mixed and matched in ways to enhance the gaming experience for you and other players.

Think of a wargame like ice cream.  You have all these different flavors of ice cream that you can get, right?  Rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and many variations upon.  Cohesion, A.K.A. modularity, is having a plain flavor and adding toppings to it, where Coupling is mixing the ingredients together in a way that it becomes its own thing dependent on its ingredients to exist.  What if I want a banana split?  Or a hot fudge sundae?  Or a choco-banana-mint milkshake?  Should I use the rocky road, the chocolate, or the vanilla to make those?  Personally, I would much rather Age of Sigmar be plain vanilla ice cream that I can add whatever toppings to it I want, rather than a rocky road-type that delivers a unique, special experience that be limited in what you can add without it being overpowering (flavor wise, not game wise).

Great post!

[Brightstar]

33 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

It still is. No choice has been removed. You are just more incentivized to accept the trade-off of listflexibility in exchange for a bonus.

You can still forgo the perk if you desire a list that takes the best or most interesting bits.

It really is a nice way to encourage armies that look like armies, as well, but that's all it is - encouragement, not restriction 

I think our difference in opinion stems from the way we play.  the concept of being "incentivized to accept the trade-off of list flexibility in exchange for a bonus" highlights the point.  Not everyone thinks of games in terms of list incentives and army write-up trade offs.  This rule is of course no problem for those who do.  It may seem trivial at best.  For players who don't play the game that way (though they may be a minority), it's a bad call.  

As I said, there are dozens of ways GW could have added more command points to the game, this was just the poorest option.  I don't see you disagree with that point.  In fact, anyone who takes the stance "it's okay this way" has never argued that point at all.  

An army that looks like an army?  You infer that playing without battalions makes it look like that.  If I take all battlelines and a general, but GW hasn't written a battalion bonus for doing it, wouldn't it still "look like an army" without getting a bonus?  

I get in the world of list-spam that there are times where armies don't look like armies.   

Just now, chord said:

So the vocal minority got there way, VS the more casual players who have been supportive the entire time.

this could have easily been matched play instead of a core rule

It could have easily been matched play.  GW should adjust their design to match the 3 ways to play.  That would have been a better way to go.  They did this with the rule of 1 - which my local community doesn't use except at tournaments.

1 minute ago, Gotrek said:

Core of the problem is this: when you are incentivized to play a certain way, its the same as being punished for playing any other way and when you have armies that lack the ability (as in they physically cant) to take the incentives (in this case armies without battalions) it leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Its like when ghb2017 dropped and the battalions got nerfed, people complained that battalions were the only way X army could be competitive and again when the scenarios incentivized hordes and low model count armies complained about how they either couldn't play the scenario without breaking allegiance or paying an "ally tax".

Personal note: the only thing that will affect my list building are points so bonus command points dont bother me especially if they are one offs as implied.

Exactly.  It's not for everyone.   

 

[Brightstar]

1 hour ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

I'm really, really trying to be hopeful here.  I was burned about this time last year by some of the changes to 40K, and I have yet to play 8th Edition.  To be fair, the local 40K players basically all drove me away with their attitudes on the hobby and in life in general.  Age of Sigmar has been my exclusive wargame for more than a year now, and I have greatly enjoyed the game itself and the relationships I have built with other players in my local area, because they don't take the game so seriously as other game players in my area.

To me, I'm not too excited for some of these new changes, particularly about the command points thing and how Battalions are tied into using Command Abilities.  Not because I'm concerned about how some armies don't have any good Battalions (or none at all), and not because I'm afraid of possibilities of how many artifacts might now show up on the table, nor am I concerned with how many command points can be had in a single game.  No, what bothers me is the restrictions and coupling being put into the game now.  Someone in this thread earlier mentioned that they are a programmer, and they ought to be familiar with the concepts of Coupling and Cohesion.

Having now tied command points into Battalions is coupling - one cannot be had without the other now.  That is a defined rule that is going into the core rules and links those two concepts together across all three forms of play (Matched, Open, and Narrative).  This is not adding in another layer on top of the game, but adding one within.  That is Coupling: linking things together in a way that makes it hard to separate them.

When I talk about the greatest strength of Age of Sigmar being its modularity, I'm really talking about Cohesion, and just using the word module as that term refers to cohesion in tabletop gaming expansions, particularly in older RPGs.  What do I mean by Modularity in AoS?  Things like Skirmish, Path to Glory, the Three Ways to Play, points values, battalions, custom warscrolls, narrative battleplans - these can all be used and mixed and matched in ways to enhance the gaming experience for you and other players.

Think of a wargame like ice cream.  You have all these different flavors of ice cream that you can get, right?  Rocky road, cookies 'n' cream, vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and many variations upon.  Cohesion, A.K.A. modularity, is having a plain flavor and adding toppings to it, where Coupling is mixing the ingredients together in a way that it becomes its own thing dependent on its ingredients to exist.  What if I want a banana split?  Or a hot fudge sundae?  Or a choco-banana-mint milkshake?  Should I use the rocky road, the chocolate, or the vanilla to make those?  Personally, I would much rather Age of Sigmar be plain vanilla ice cream that I can add whatever toppings to it I want, rather than a rocky road-type that delivers a unique, special experience that be limited in what you can add without it being overpowering (flavor wise, not game wise).

I had the same experience, but my version of your story started when AOS first dropped.  My group was so fed up with 7th edition 40k that we switched over to  AOS.  It has been the only game we have played since it dropped and we became active and vocal in our community promoting it and creating a player base for it.  

This was well put!

[AthlorianStoners]

Think the changes we’ve seen rumoured so far bode well for my Beastclaws. Very very excited to see how this goes!

[Ar-Pharazôn]

I generally like the changes if I'm honest. The issues of connecting battalions and command points is an improvement. Especially when we consider CP spam in 40k. A flat one point change is important, but also makes battalions more viable, especially considering how reluctant I am to currently grab them for my armies. For those who lack them, yeah it sucks, but hopefully they'll continue to release battletomes like LON to unify old factions, and DOK to completely retool them.

I think that once the dust settles and we all have our copy of the new book, we can see that it isn't the death of AOS, but an evolution. 40K and AoS are bound together, and will continue to influence each other. 40K fans were similarly upset over how 8th was the "AOS" edition, but look how huge that edition has become. 

All of the criticisms are valid, and I agree with some, but I also think we need patience. GW has shown an unprecedented willingness to improve and update rulesets, and should AoS 2nd fumble, the FAQ will be right around the corner.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Gotrek said:

Core of the problem is this: when you are incentivized to play a certain way, its the same as being punished for playing any other way and when you have armies that lack the ability (as in they physically cant) to take the incentives (in this case armies without battalions) it leaves a sour taste in the mouth

I can understand the pain of using an army without even the option to trade off, but that's about it.

I don't agree that not taking an incentive is the same as being punished.

If the incentive came with no down side (lack of flexibility in this case) then maaaaybe I would sort of agree.

[Infeston]

22 minutes ago, Ar-Pharazôn said:

For those who lack them, yeah it sucks, but hopefully they'll continue to release battletomes like LON to unify old factions, and DOK to completely retool them.

Jeah it really sucks for those who lack it. But on the other hand it must have not been this way. There is no reason, besides selling more models, to tie command points to battalions. 

And if GW really wanted to balance the game they shouldn't have included this rule and instead created a rule which caters to everyone.

In the end the only people liking this change are people who are really into theorycrafting and list building.

But I think this is also not why AoS got so succesful. No AoS got more successful, because it was an easy pick up game you could play from the get-go. 

The battalion rule doesn't make sense from a balance and tactical standpoint. The only reason to include such a rule is to sell more models in my opinion. But this might be just speculation. 

And the more I look at comments which don't like this rule, the more I get validated in my point of view.

The only argument from people liking the change is just: "Jeah it is bad for armies without battalions, but wait for the future. Eventually everything will be cool. GW will just fix everything and make everything nice. And if you are playing an army that is at disadvantage with the change, just live with it".

[silentdeathz]

7 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I can understand the pain of using an army without even the option to trade off, but that about it.

I don't agree that not taking an incentive is the same as being punished.

If the incentive came with no down side (lack of flexibility in this case) then maaaaybe I would sort of agree.

I mean, this is just a question of balance.

Either the battalion itself is a benefit worth its cost, and thus its worth using on its own merit, or its not.

If it's not, then is the additional merit of the bonus CP enough to offset whatever deficit is has to the extent of making it worth using.

If you have a battalion that is worth using on its own merit, AND it gives an additional CP, then you start straying in to the territory of NOT using it is disadvantaging yourself.

Since the battalions are mostly rigid, I can see why people may feel that being 'forced' to use a battalion is not desirable - especially from a freedom of unit selection point of view. (One could however easily argue that the top competitive lists arent exactly flexible simply by their nature).

 

It's clearly a 'nerf' to armies without the option to take battalions, and I can see why people might not want to use a battalion in general - so I guess the question has to be asked WHY they need to be tied to battalions. I can't really see any reason for that OTHER than sales or trying to make armies more 'thematic' based on battalions. 

Edit: Another potential "worry" for battalion focus is that if battalion A is balanced with X unit composition, then balancing/adjusting units within that battalion becomes a lot more difficult as it affects the whole battalion and its relative strength each time. 

Tying things together generally makes balance harder to achieve.

[Sleboda]

53 minutes ago, Brightstar said:

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

It still is. No choice has been removed. You are just more incentivized to accept the trade-off of listflexibility in exchange for a bonus.

You can still forgo the perk if you desire a list that takes the best or most interesting bits.

It really is a nice way to encourage armies that look like armies, as well, but that's all it is - encouragement, not restriction 

I think our difference in opinion stems from the way we play.  the concept of being "incentivized to accept the trade-off of list flexibility in exchange for a bonus" highlights the point.  Not everyone thinks of games in terms of list incentives and army write-up trade offs.  

I don't think I've mentioned how I play. I'm just saying that when you build a list for matched play, you have to make choices about what to include. Battalions have always given you a thing in exchange for accepting a more rigid list. You have a limited resource, points, and can't take all the things. So maybe you want to include some nifty units that eat up some of those points, but you also want whatever bonus (which now includes a command point) a battalion offers. You can't do both for the game you are about to play, so you make a choice one way or the other.

Now, I prefer Open Play where I can just put down whatever I think would look cool and have a nice game, but I'll do Matched Play as well, and when I do, I'll have another thing to consider.

Not really seeing the issue, tbh. (Other than for those with no battalion options. Sort of.)

[Infeston]

The thing is there are also many people playing armies without access on battalions, which should not be at a disadvantage. Why include a rule like this if you could easily just exclude it and make everyone happy? Also the people without access to the battalions?

Then there is also a huge part of the players who don't play tournaments and also play 1000 point matches. I think propably more players play 1000 point matches than 2000 point matches because of the easy accessibility. In a 1000 point match there is not much place for battalions.

The thing is that we get a cool new mechanic with the new game system (to use multiple command abilities) which most of the players won't even use or only have the ability to use the old way (Only one command ability at a time) whereas many people (me included) had hoped the new mechanic won't be so restricted. 

In the end it is just an unfair rule, which could have been avoided and just seems like it is there to bust sales.