The Relevance of Battleline

[OkayestDM]

I've been contemplating the function that battleline fulfills in AoS, and I'm not sure if I think it's really necessary at this stage of the game.

Battleline units aren't balanced between factions. In some factions they're among the best units you can take, whereas in others they are considered a waste of valuable points.

Some factions have so many options that they don't even have to worry about it, whereas others have tight restrictions on what can be battleline. This in and of itself would be fine if it was used to reign in more powerful factions, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I understand that the thematic point of Battleline units is that they represent the basic or fundamental troops of each army, and while that is excellent for things like narrative play, I'm not sure it currently serves a purpose in matched play.

What are your thoughts? Is there an element to this that I'm missing?

[Neverchosen]

I am a really big fan of armies in which the general will dictate the battleline as it makes choosing your leader create an actual impact in terms of your army selection process. However, I think that this should be tied more directly to keywords than to specific units: for example choosing a Lord Arcanum should open up all of Sacrosanct as battleline whereas a Lord Aquilor would open up Vanguard units as battleline. I wonder how this would go if taken a step further and the battleline was entirely dictated by the general? For example Liberators would not be battleline for the previously listed examples and would require a warrior chamber hero as general.

Essentially rethinking the concept of battleline from an army tax into a hero tax. A great example in practice is with the Idoneth Deepkin, you can make an Akhelian King your general permitting your cavalry to be battleline but you loose access to reversing the tides. Whereas you can choose a Tidecaster as general but you have to run a certain number of Namarti to do so. In this manner your general dictates army composition and strategies making your general feel more important to the game. Even though the Akhelian King gives access to arguably better battleline it is at the cost of a terrific ability and so it creates some unit diversity in an otherwise stale army in terms of troop choice.

[Kramer]

I think there are armies that ‘suffer’ from ‘bad’ battleline or have a massive advantage from ‘too good’ battleline.

But that shouldn’t be the reason to drop it. That should be a reason to address those factions. 
And I agree it serves a thematic purpose as well. But that can be filled/changed/ignored for narrative whenever you want. So I’m going to give my arguments regarding matched play. 

for me battleline does 3 things that make battleline * a must:

1. Battleline is part of the battlefield role restrictions. So it’s not just battleline, but leader/behemoth as well. Together with battleline if, it forms a list building challenge. That in turn is not only a fun part of the hobby but (should) prevents spam lists.  Sadly this is not always well done. Partly because battleline if is too big a thing. for example in KO every single non leader unit Except for the ironclad can be battleline. 

2. It is a good tool to make core units valuable.  The battlefield roles allow units to shine. If there is no restrictions my elite unit cannot be better than the core unit. If the core unit has battleline, that immediately makes it compete with other battleline units but not the elite unit. 

3. not every unit can be the 💣. If nobody brings sucky battleline units and everything is elite, nothing is elite. Not saying that would happen for every army because bodies have value. But still I want my cool thing to be able to smash through stuff, not be the new battleline because only elite things see play. But this last one is a preference thing of course.

*  or some similar restriction system on list building. 

[OkayestDM]

30 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

Essentially rethinking the concept of battleline from an army tax into a hero tax. A great example in practice is with the Idoneth Deepkin, you can make an Akhelian King your general permitting your cavalry to be battleline but you loose access to reversing the tides. Whereas you can choose a Tidecaster as general but you have to run a certain number of Namarti to do so. In this manner your general dictates army composition and strategies making your general feel more important to the game. Even though the Akhelian King gives access to arguably better battleline it is at the cost of a terrific ability and so it creates some unit diversity in an otherwise stale army in terms of troop choice.

Ok, that's an idea I see value to. It forces a bit of give and take in list-building (which is always a good thing) but won't necessarily limit the player too much.

3 minutes ago, Kramer said:

1. Battleline is part of the battlefield role restrictions. So it’s not just battleline, but leader/behemoth as well. Together with battleline if, it forms a list building challenge. That in turn is not only a fun part of the hobby but (should) prevents spam lists.  Sadly this is not always well done. Partly because battleline if is too big a thing. for example in KO every single non leader unit Except for the ironclad can be battleline.

Fair point, and I'd say I agree with you on this. I don't necessarily mind the restrictive quality of battleline, so long as it is something that impacts everybody. KO and Ironjawz are two examples of armies that can make most or all of their units battleline. Considering the limited range of models for both factions, I appreciate that they are allowed more open build options, but it also removes any amount of give-and-take from list-building.

17 minutes ago, Kramer said:

2. It is a good tool to make core units valuable.  The battlefield roles allow units to shine. If there is no restrictions my elite unit cannot be better than the core unit. If the core unit has battleline, that immediately makes it compete with other battleline units but not the elite unit. 

Ok, I see that. If it actually gives a role and function to core units that gives them an equal but different value to elite units, battleline has it's place. Recent matched play rules have made heroes and battleline more valuable for generating victory points, which I approve of. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of ways to make "elite" units  battleline, or else to buff up battleline so that they outshine the elites.  A little more delineation between the two  could greatly increase the relevance of having those battlefield roles. An elite unit wouldn't even need a defined role, it is just needs to be clearly superior to battleline units in x-way while battleline are of more value in y-way (and since objectives are the name of the game, giving battleline units a more objective-centric role  would increase my perception of the role's relevance. That said, I don't know how well this would translate across all of the different armies.)

41 minutes ago, Kramer said:

3. not every unit can be the 💣. If nobody brings sucky battleline units and everything is elite, nothing is elite. Not saying that would happen for every army because bodies have value. But still I want my cool thing to be able to smash through stuff, not be the new battleline because only elite things see play. But this last one is a preference thing of course.

I think I touched on this a bit in my reply to your second point.  I agree with the statement, but I feel that the line between elite and battleline isn't as clear-cut as it should be. Eels are better than Namarti Thralls - as they should be - but can become battleline. A properly assembled and buffed unit of Witch Elves is the very best unit in DoK, outshining the snake-ladies and bat-ladies by a long sea-mile.

There are other armies that do this better. Paladin units are much scarier in a fight than Liberators are (which isn't saying much these days, but that's a different conversation.) Kurnoth Hunters are much scarier than Dryads or reverants. 

End of the day I just don't feel like battleline is functioning as it should. The way you described it is exactly what I would want: List-building challenge, defining roles and giving everything value, separating high-teir units from low-teir units.  I just don't think we're there yet.

 

[Kramer]

36 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

Ok, that's an idea I see value to. It forces a bit of give and take in list-building (which is always a good thing) but won't necessarily limit the player too much.

Fair point, and I'd say I agree with you on this. I don't necessarily mind the restrictive quality of battleline, so long as it is something that impacts everybody. KO and Ironjawz are two examples of armies that can make most or all of their units battleline. Considering the limited range of models for both factions, I appreciate that they are allowed more open build options, but it also removes any amount of give-and-take from list-building.

Ok, I see that. If it actually gives a role and function to core units that gives them an equal but different value to elite units, battleline has it's place. Recent matched play rules have made heroes and battleline more valuable for generating victory points, which I approve of. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of ways to make "elite" units  battleline, or else to buff up battleline so that they outshine the elites.  A little more delineation between the two  could greatly increase the relevance of having those battlefield roles. An elite unit wouldn't even need a defined role, it is just needs to be clearly superior to battleline units in x-way while battleline are of more value in y-way (and since objectives are the name of the game, giving battleline units a more objective-centric role  would increase my perception of the role's relevance. That said, I don't know how well this would translate across all of the different armies.)

I think I touched on this a bit in my reply to your second point.  I agree with the statement, but I feel that the line between elite and battleline isn't as clear-cut as it should be. Eels are better than Namarti Thralls - as they should be - but can become battleline. A properly assembled and buffed unit of Witch Elves is the very best unit in DoK, outshining the snake-ladies and bat-ladies by a long sea-mile.

There are other armies that do this better. Paladin units are much scarier in a fight than Liberators are (which isn't saying much these days, but that's a different conversation.) Kurnoth Hunters are much scarier than Dryads or reverants. 

End of the day I just don't feel like battleline is functioning as it should. The way you described it is exactly what I would want: List-building challenge, defining roles and giving everything value, separating high-teir units from low-teir units.  I just don't think we're there yet.

 

Yeah, reading your response it seems that we are both have a problem with the execution not the concept. 
And I agree that battleline-if is a big part of it. 

good point about the in game battleplan effects as well. Hadn’t thought about it. 

[PraetorDragoon]

If you want something to make Elite units more valueable then Elite units should be limited. Battleline or Core or Troops haven't balanced armies nor provided balance any game I've played. Basically add an Elite tag, and give it a limit like artillery and behemoths. And as for it makes armies look like armies argument, I have seen too much min-core, max-elite armies to believe that.

It is nice from a thematic standpoint, to show what kind of units are core or massed in large numbers for a faction, but its kinda medicore from a gameplay perspective.

[Kramer]

Just now, PraetorDragoon said:

If you want something to make Elite units more valueable then Elite units should be limited. Battleline or Core or Troops haven't balanced armies nor provided balance any game I've played. Basically add an Elite tag, and give it a limit like artillery and behemoths. And as for it makes armies look like armies argument, I have seen too much min-core, max-elite armies to believe that.

It is nice from a thematic standpoint, to show what kind of units are core or massed in large numbers for a faction, but its kinda medicore from a gameplay perspective.

Maybe in general no more than 2 repetitions of a unit would be a nice idea? 🤔

because removing battleline and adding Elite is doing the same thing but approaching it from the opposite angle. 

[PraetorDragoon]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Maybe in general no more than 2 repetitions of a unit would be a nice idea? 🤔

because removing battleline and adding Elite is doing the same thing but approaching it from the opposite angle. 

Something akin to that, but more based on keywords, as a number of particular strong elites do have multiple warscrolls. such as Kurnoths.

In a way it is the same thing, but being limited in certain choices is different than having to take certain units. It also prevents the "tax" mentality that sometimes arises, making the battleline units being able to stand more on their own rather than stand being part of battleline.

[OkayestDM]

2 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Basically add an Elite tag, and give it a limit like artillery and behemoths.

I think having quantified roles and associated restrictions could be an amazing tool for balance, if implemented properly.

Some folks might balk at the restrictions, but that's what narrative or open play are for.

[Frowny]

I kinda like the battleline if approach.

As an example, while KO Can make almost anything battleline, it's not all at the same time. Based on your general and sky-port you only get some smaller subset of them. That makes for interesting tradeoffs. Want battleline thunderers? Gotta pick the right Barak. It makes for interesting list building tradeoffs. Ogors have much the same, but I think creates reasonable design challenges about what general you pick. 

 

I think it is mostly just a balance problem. Some armies have weak battleline, others very strong.  But I think it can be fixed by balancing the points and warscrolls rather than throwing out the system. 

 

[Sleboda]

Minor tangent, but I miss the 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy rule of compulsory troops.

For instance, all undead armies required skeletons with scythes ("the very embodiment of death" or some such.

This really made armies that looked like armies, and, more specifically, armies that matched the idea of what that army was.

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, Frowny said:

As an example, while KO Can make almost anything battleline, it's not all at the same time. Based on your general and sky-port you only get some smaller subset of them. That makes for interesting tradeoffs. Want battleline thunderers? Gotta pick the right Barak. It makes for interesting list building tradeoffs. Ogors have much the same, but I think creates reasonable design challenges about what general you pick

I play both armies and I close to never have to worry about it. I build my list. Double check if I have ticked off all the requirements and usually I have. The only choice it forces on me is that I cant make my Frostlord a general. Which is a shame because I don’t get the command trait. Everything else is usually covered. 

[Overread]

When it comes to wargames and balance its important to realise that balancing isn't just a numbers game, its also a visual game. This is why wargames use things like Battle line requirements; the old Force Organisation chart; helix systems etc....

 

Basically they are all means to define part or all of the structure of the army the gamer builds. This in turn imposes minimums and/or limits on specific types of unit in the game. With the intention being that the army visually represents an army. Now granted some armies do twist this through special rules, but those are outliers not the general mainsteam.

 

So for AoS the idea of a min-battleline requirement is pretty common and simple. It's forcing the player to at least have some basic/core troops in their army. It's forcing them to basically have an "army" in a traditional sense. 

 

 

Some systems, like Helix where you have pre-constructed army blocks with specific units that form a helix; allow for the developer to have even more control. These helix might even introduce weaker units that the player can't "avoid" if they want to take other more powerful units. Helix can be very good at defeating min-max type situations. I've also seen it used in games with smaller models to define model packs when you buy them off the shelf. 

 

In general Battleline in AoS is not a bad thing, its a good thing. It stops every army purely being leaders or monsters. Sure we all like the odd wildcard; like the approaching Giants army; but broadly speaking the "cinematic" side of an army game is having troops on the table. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

I have just started an all snake DoK army. Technically they are elite units, but can be opened up as battleline with the correct general. I'd be pissed if I had to add in non snake units to the army to make it matched play legal because battleline rules had changed, it would ruin the theme of the army.

Battleline is fine as it is. Some are good some are bad, same for elites, same for heroes, same for behemoths, etc... 

[zombiepiratexxx]

40k in the new edition for matched play only has a rule that you cannot have more than 3 units from the same datasheet (warscroll) to prevent spam. Some armies also have limits on the numbers of specific HQ models they can have. T'au can only take one Commander keyword model per detachment.  I believe the new Space Marine Codex will have a similar limit on some of the Space Marine HQ units. 

It may be something that gets introduced into AoS at some point. 

[Belper]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:17 AM, zombiepiratexxx said:

40k in the new edition for matched play only has a rule that you cannot have more than 3 units from the same datasheet (warscroll) to prevent spam. Some armies also have limits on the numbers of specific HQ models they can have. T'au can only take one Commander keyword model per detachment.  I believe the new Space Marine Codex will have a similar limit on some of the Space Marine HQ units. 

It may be something that gets introduced into AoS at some point. 

I hope not. Those rules were introduced into 40k as lazy patchjobs covering up the fact that GW can't make a book without 1 or 2 units head and shoulders above everything else.

[Fairbanks]

When you’re playing a competitive game, is it about “Who brought the more broken stuff?” Or “Who is the tactical genius that can win in a fair fight?”

What do you then choose first? What units you like? Or the faction that represents your army?

Would the US/UK/Canadian/Aussie army go into battle with zero troops that went through Basic?  If they did, would they succeed if they turned everyone in the army into Artillery?

As for Battleline-If, I think too often it is given out when it would never create a difficult choice. Example would be Big Waaagh, and that time period when Brutes were more effective than Ardboys, which creates a scenario in which Ardboys (which would probably make up at least 50% of an ideal Orruk Warclans army) would never be on the tabletop.

Where I love Battleline-if is in a place like Cities, where it’s dependent on the General or SubFaction. That pushes certain choices in the armymaking process that lead to interesting decisions.

[stratigo]

On 8/27/2020 at 10:14 AM, OkayestDM said:

Ok, that's an idea I see value to. It forces a bit of give and take in list-building (which is always a good thing) but won't necessarily limit the player too much.

Fair point, and I'd say I agree with you on this. I don't necessarily mind the restrictive quality of battleline, so long as it is something that impacts everybody. KO and Ironjawz are two examples of armies that can make most or all of their units battleline. Considering the limited range of models for both factions, I appreciate that they are allowed more open build options, but it also removes any amount of give-and-take from list-building.

Ok, I see that. If it actually gives a role and function to core units that gives them an equal but different value to elite units, battleline has it's place. Recent matched play rules have made heroes and battleline more valuable for generating victory points, which I approve of. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of ways to make "elite" units  battleline, or else to buff up battleline so that they outshine the elites.  A little more delineation between the two  could greatly increase the relevance of having those battlefield roles. An elite unit wouldn't even need a defined role, it is just needs to be clearly superior to battleline units in x-way while battleline are of more value in y-way (and since objectives are the name of the game, giving battleline units a more objective-centric role  would increase my perception of the role's relevance. That said, I don't know how well this would translate across all of the different armies.)

I think I touched on this a bit in my reply to your second point.  I agree with the statement, but I feel that the line between elite and battleline isn't as clear-cut as it should be. Eels are better than Namarti Thralls - as they should be - but can become battleline. A properly assembled and buffed unit of Witch Elves is the very best unit in DoK, outshining the snake-ladies and bat-ladies by a long sea-mile.

There are other armies that do this better. Paladin units are much scarier in a fight than Liberators are (which isn't saying much these days, but that's a different conversation.) Kurnoth Hunters are much scarier than Dryads or reverants. 

End of the day I just don't feel like battleline is functioning as it should. The way you described it is exactly what I would want: List-building challenge, defining roles and giving everything value, separating high-teir units from low-teir units.  I just don't think we're there yet.

 

If you ever build a KO list, I can tell you, It's all give or take. You do not choose lists for the battle line.

[PraetorDragoon]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:06 AM, Overread said:

When it comes to wargames and balance its important to realise that balancing isn't just a numbers game, its also a visual game. This is why wargames use things like Battle line requirements; the old Force Organisation chart; helix systems etc....

 

Basically they are all means to define part or all of the structure of the army the gamer builds. This in turn imposes minimums and/or limits on specific types of unit in the game. With the intention being that the army visually represents an army. Now granted some armies do twist this through special rules, but those are outliers not the general mainsteam.

 

So for AoS the idea of a min-battleline requirement is pretty common and simple. It's forcing the player to at least have some basic/core troops in their army. It's forcing them to basically have an "army" in a traditional sense. 

 

 

Some systems, like Helix where you have pre-constructed army blocks with specific units that form a helix; allow for the developer to have even more control. These helix might even introduce weaker units that the player can't "avoid" if they want to take other more powerful units. Helix can be very good at defeating min-max type situations. I've also seen it used in games with smaller models to define model packs when you buy them off the shelf. 

 

In general Battleline in AoS is not a bad thing, its a good thing. It stops every army purely being leaders or monsters. Sure we all like the odd wildcard; like the approaching Giants army; but broadly speaking the "cinematic" side of an army game is having troops on the table. 

I understand this, but my whole problem is that with Battlelines and the concept of forced to take "weaker" units is that it ends with people trying to avoid them. I have seen way too many armies on the table against me (and played) where there was the barest minium of core/battleline and the rest elite spam. When elites outnumber the core something has gone wrong in the whole visual aspect.

[Saxon]

On 8/27/2020 at 3:37 AM, OkayestDM said:

I've been contemplating the function that battleline fulfills in AoS, and I'm not sure if I think it's really necessary at this stage of the game.

Battleline units aren't balanced between factions. In some factions they're among the best units you can take, whereas in others they are considered a waste of valuable points.

Some factions have so many options that they don't even have to worry about it, whereas others have tight restrictions on what can be battleline. This in and of itself would be fine if it was used to reign in more powerful factions, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I understand that the thematic point of Battleline units is that they represent the basic or fundamental troops of each army, and while that is excellent for things like narrative play, I'm not sure it currently serves a purpose in matched play.

What are your thoughts? Is there an element to this that I'm missing?

I feel like the rules around battlelines are too loose. I absolutely loath coming up against 2k lists with minimum battlelines. 

I don't know if the solution is to make point scoring battleline specific or make minimum battleline points based on the size of the game. 

[MOMUS]

On 8/26/2020 at 6:37 PM, OkayestDM said:

I've been contemplating the function that battleline fulfills in AoS

I'm not sure it currently serves a purpose in matched play.

What are your thoughts? Is there an element to this that I'm missing?

I can understand your thoughts pre GHB2020, but now they have specifically placed emphasis on battleline for scoring in the scenarios. 

[EMMachine]

This was actually part of this thread:

I would say, Battlelines as well as battalions are partly a medium of saying "an army of this faction / with this subfaction / with this general should be structured that way.

This way it makes sense having a Melusai Army when having a Melusai General or having Corsairs as battleline if the Fleet Master is Battleline. It gives the army flavor (which wasn't the case in WHFB for example where every army had there fix set of Battleline units).

If elite units can be used as battleline they often trait strength for numbers (you can have Grundstok Thunders as Battleline but 5 of them are more expensive than a 10 man Arcanaut Company. (so they have a disadventage when holding objectives)

But there are also cases were lore isn't even buildable (for example the Extremis Chamber, or that you need a Lord Arcanum to make Sequitors Battleline, while in the Lore there is often a Knight Incantors Leading because a chamber has more Knight Incantors stan Lord Arcanums.)

So it is not only a balance thing, but also a lore thing (more or less) giving an Army a theme.

The advantage of the normal battleline units is that they are not restricted to a special allegiance (so chaos Warriors and Marauders can be battleline in Slaves to Darkness as well as in the four chaosgod armies or in the grand alliance as well).

Edited September 5, 2020 by EMMachine

[Maddpainting]

Battleline is to give the army its feel. It can help in balance a little but its more of a "Hey this i an army we want it to look like this a bit, but here are some options too".

[stratigo]

The size of "armies" in this game aren't really large enough to need the thematic grounding of a battleline. Battlelines are a balancing tool.

[Enoby]

Pre this generals handbook, I think battleline could often feel like a tax for some armies, but fine for others (often being the core part of the army you'd want to take a lot of). This could leave you in a feel bad position if you had to buy, paint and find room in your list for 30 models you didn't want to use and who would probably act as screens at most.

I think they've come up with a good idea of making battleline more attractive with scoring in battleplans now. It's a good approach that doesn't force you to take more battleline, but encourages it through natural gameplay means. Personally, I'd prefer this approach all the way through - as in, we don't bother with numerical restriction but instead come up with reasons people would naturally want to choose battleline. This would let players who didn't want to buy 3 boxes of troops play what they want with the understanding they'll be at a large disadvantage for scoring points, and more competitive players could weigh the pros and cons of taking more or less battleline.