The Relevance of Battleline

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

One concept that tends to linger in GW's games is the concept that an army's most common unit (Battleline, Troops) are an 'eat your vegetables' selection.   Something everyone has to take before they can have the 'good' stuff in their army.  I am not a fan of this.

I think if Battleline or unit slots/categories are to continue to exist then GW ought to come up with better reasons than forcing players to eat their vegetables before they can have the main/dessert units they actually want.  I think Objective Secured (the old 40k term) is an acceptable, though not optimum, method  to ensure players want to take Battleline units.  Although, realistically I would prefer something a little more emergent.  Players should want to take them not be forced to.

I think one of the big issues in Age of Sigmar is that the game hasn't well defined what role Battleline serves beyond being a more common type of unit for a faction.  Leaning on black powder era armies (that's as far as my historical knowledge goes), there's distinct roles that line infantry, cavalry, artillery have each important in their own way, and a game could be set up without restriction where players would still ensure they cover all three types and still have room for light infantry, skirmishers, dragoons, etc.  However, what commonality does AoS Battleline units have with each other than being a tax unit and occasionally critical to some Battle Plans?  Several factions have infantry and cavalry options while others can have archers/musketeers available.  Conditional Battleline units only aggravate the problem of undefined role of what Battleline purpose.  

Without a defined purpose of what Battleline units do in the game beyond some amorphous 'what we think the army should look like',  I don't think there's much chance to fixing them beyond having players eat their vegetables. 

[MOMUS]

5 hours ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

I think one of the big issues in Age of Sigmar is that the game hasn't well defined what role Battleline serves beyond being a more common type of unit for a faction.

 I don't think there's much chance to fixing them beyond having players eat their vegetables. 

Play 5 games of the better part of valour without any battleline in your army and then tell me how sweet those vegetables are.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

22 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

Play 5 games of the better part of valour without any battleline in your army and then tell me how sweet those vegetables are.

Yeah, the same as Places of Arcane Power without a lot of front line Heroes.  Both create an somewhat artificial reason for those roles via the way they score points.  Which is exactly what I mean by 'eat you vegetables' army building.  Whether a player want those units are not, the game requires then to take them if they know what's good for them.  Not because a player wants those unit is their army.  Much like whether a person wants to or not, they should eat their vegetables if they know what's good for them.

I just don't think that is very effective way to go about putting together a miniatures wargame.  Especially if the 'vegetable' units are supposed to be the core of each factions' armies.  It leads them to be a tax unit taken at the minimum amount to allow the rest of the army to be the good stuff.  Which still leads to armies not really being composed of the core units and players who happen to like those core units having a weaker army because of it.  Example: see Chaos Space Marines or Space Marine armies that don't even have chaos space marines or space marines in them.

I think Age of Sigmar designers should really think about what fundamental element(s) they want Battleline units to accomplish and then write rules that facilitate that.  Perhaps considering cutting the number of unit considered Battleline too.  If for example, I was to say I think Battleline should excel at holding ground/objectives; Battleline units could all have Objective Secured.  Which is still kinda an artificial patch but better than nothing.  I would also consider rules that increase a Battleline's general resilience since holding ground is going to often leave them a target.  Something along the lines of re-rolling Saves, a minor Shrug or Damage Resistance if the Battleline unit did not move/run for example.

I certainly don't think making Battleline inherently weaker than any other units is a good way to go about it.

[Beastmaster]

Historically speaking, even in times/cultures where the actual fighting was mainly done by elite fighters, every army needed a relatively large number of basic troops, for things like guarding, foraging, transporting materials, building or destroying encampments and fortifications, looking after the horses etc pp.  
Of course, all those necessary duties do not translate well on a tabletop. But making them essential in the capturing and guarding of objectives would actually be quite realistic. As is the fact that every army needs them, even if they are not that useful for the actual fighting.

[Sonnenspeer]

17 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Historically speaking...

I dont have a real source for it, just found this in an forum:

• Footmen: 3-4 pence (120-160 USD or 1 g 20-60 s): men wearing armor, having no horse. Likely the bulk of your army; in AoS "battle line"
• Men-At-Arms or Squire: 12 pence (480 USD or 4 g 80 s): trained soldier, heavy armor, very skilled. Call them "Heavy Infantry."
• Knight: ~24 pence (960 USD or 9 g 60 s): Heavily armored troops, with mounts.
• Archer (unmounted): ~6 pence (240 USD or 2 g 40 s): very useful, but need protection

Why battleline?
a) costs: you don't want to waste expansive knights on unimportant tasks (this translates well to the tabletop: hold objectives, screen your heroes etc.)
b) availability: A king has some knights in his Kingdom, but the number is limited (this does not translate well to tabletop games, so some sort of restriction comes in play.

This is also interesting:
https://www.writing-world.com/sf/hordes.shtml

[Joseph Mackay]

Most AoS factions are too small (unit/model selections) which creates a lot of these balance issues around Battleline If units.

for example, Fyreslayers. Auric Runefathers and Auric Runemasters, based on the lore, should both be limited to one per army as the lore very clearly points out that there is only ever one Runefather and one Runemaster within the lodge (or, if you want to represent multiple lodges teaming together then you can, but you should lose access to the lodge rules). The other issue is Hearthguard as Battleline If units. The lore doesn’t support those units being they bulk of your army. Both types are more of a ‘bodyguard’ type unit within the lore.

however, the faction has a very small unit selection, so gw can’t apply those lore based restrictions or literally every list becomes the same as there’s no options. I don’t agree with it, but until gw flesh out more of these armies, then this is just the way they have to do it.

in general, I hate Battleline units, but that’s because I’m more of a visual person. I pick the units I like the models of before any other considerations, and in a lot of cases, Battleline forces me to take models I don’t like and/or clash with whatever weird theme I’m trying to do

[EMMachine]

57 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

for example, Fyreslayers. Auric Runefathers and Auric Runemasters, based on the lore, should both be limited to one per army as the lore very clearly points out that there is only ever one Runefather and one Runemaster within the lodge (or, if you want to represent multiple lodges teaming together then you can, but you should lose access to the lodge rules). The other issue is Hearthguard as Battleline If units. The lore doesn’t support those units being they bulk of your army. Both types are more of a ‘bodyguard’ type unit within the lore.

Yeah the Point with the Runefather and Runemaster is clear.  Some heroes sould only be on the field once.

In case of the Hearthguard, they are not only bodyguards they are the Defenders of the Forge temple. Looking at it this way, if the Scenario is "Defending the Forge Temple" it can make sense to have them as Battleline (it's rarely the case but still).

 

3 hours ago, Sonnenspeer said:

Why battleline?
a) costs: you don't want to waste expansive knights on unimportant tasks (this translates well to the tabletop: hold objectives, screen your heroes etc.)
b) availability: A king has some knights in his Kingdom, but the number is limited (this does not translate well to tabletop games, so some sort of restriction comes in play.

So the problem of the normal battleline is that they don't have the numbers some times?

It works for Skaven where you get 20 Clanrats for the same price as 10 Stormvermin but it doesn't work for example for Stormcast Eternals with Liberators that cost nearly the same as Sequitors.

1 hour ago, Joseph Mackay said:

however, the faction has a very small unit selection, so gw can’t apply those lore based restrictions or literally every list becomes the same as there’s no options. I don’t agree with it, but until gw flesh out more of these armies, then this is just the way they have to do it.

in general, I hate Battleline units, but that’s because I’m more of a visual person. I pick the units I like the models of before any other considerations, and in a lot of cases, Battleline forces me to take models I don’t like and/or clash with whatever weird theme I’m trying to do

So maybe we are more the narrative gaming type. I really like it when I can create an optical theme

[Beliman]

I think that we need more interactions with battlelines (and other positions).
I don't know, maybe some type of "Beastmasters" hero that could turn a Behemoth in to a battleline or  Engineers could turn 1 warmachine to battleline, ... that type of things.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Beliman

[TheCovenLord]

I believe battleline should stay in some form. Maybe expand existing army lines to offer more battleline options. However, I do think they should stay. Armies are spammy enough with the restriction. If certain armies could choose to ignore battleline restrictions it would result in many armies looking like a clone factory of the best unit in the army regardless of how ridiculous it would look (Granted this still happens particularly when the best unit IS the battleline or the battleline unit is viewed as a "tax"). 

Edit: you know what an army of Sea Turtles actually sounds awesome I change my mind. I also realize that I acknowledged and contradicted myself in that the spam is already loose in AOS.  I stand by my final point though. 

 

Make more scenarios hinge on unit classifications for capture/holding/etc. to give them more weight. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by TheCovenLord

[Overread]

If anything I'd actually welcome more army restrictions and mandate to be added to army construction. That said I don't tihnk AoS is ready for that just yet. Armies like Skaven or Stormcast could do it, but many wouldn't have many options to make it fun. So I foresee our current limits remaining for quite a while yet. 

[Joseph Mackay]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

Armies like Skaven or Stormcast could do it, but many wouldn't have many options to make it fun. So I foresee our current limits remaining for quite a while yet. 

Exactly this

[Kadeton]

I strongly agree with those who've opined that Battleline units should have a reason to be taken beyond simply being Battleline (the "vegetables" or "tax" you pay to field the units you actually want).

Your "core" units should be the bulk of your army because they provide solid all-round value, not because they're a mandatory choice. Specialised units should be rare because they're taken to fulfil specific niche purposes with diminishing returns. If you can build an army out of purely "elite" units that is more effective than a similar army which includes "core" choices, then that's an internal balance problem which should be corrected.

The concept of Battleline doesn't need to exist.

[Beastmaster]

But battlelines already have real life disadvantages: Lots to build and paint, often less flashy models than the elites, more difficult to transport and move. I seriously understand anyone who deliberately builds a list where he doesn’t have to build and paint 120 clanrats.  To be attractive without the battleline requirement, they’d have to be noticeably better and more useful than the elite choices. Which completely goes against the concept of standard vs elite.

[Kadeton]

21 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

But battlelines already have real life disadvantages: Lots to build and paint, often less flashy models than the elites, more difficult to transport and move. I seriously understand anyone who deliberately builds a list where he doesn’t have to build and paint 120 clanrats.

I mean, I have three Battleline choices in my current army. They are a single model each. If you don't want to play a horde army, there are non-horde options available.

21 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

To be attractive without the battleline requirement, they’d have to be noticeably better and more useful than the elite choices. Which completely goes against the concept of standard vs elite.

I think the distinction should be more focused on generalist vs specialist. "Core" should be your resilient generalists, providing baseline value in any situation (by soaking damage, holding objectives, etc). "Elites" should be your specialists, providing a niche strength weighed up against a consequent weakness. An "elite" choice shouldn't just do the same thing as your "core" units but better in every way, because if they do that they should be your core units.

You could build a whole army out of specialist choices if you wanted (a "skew" list), but if you ran up against a more "balanced" army (with more generalists) they should be able to counter-play your specialist units in some way and exploit their weaknesses. You would have to hope that your specialists' strength in their narrow focus was enough to overcome the enemy forces before they were able to use your army's flaws against it. As an example, an army that leaned heavily into shooting might be extremely vulnerable to morale, or too fragile to exert much board control.

[Overread]

In the end most armies are going to aim toward wanting more models down on the table than fewer. Even armies that can do smaller forces often have built in tricks - eg Flesheaters can play with only dragons, but you'll be buying getting started sets to get those dragons/terrorgasts so you'll end up with a large army of troops anyway. 

There's a few elite style armies like Ossiarchs, but by and large many armies are going to push for more models. It's a model game and GW makes money from the sale and most customers like models. 

 

I do agree there have to be limits, I recall skaven of old where you needed loads of slave rats before you got to your clan rats before you got to anything else. It was off putting. Today the numbers are smaller and Skaven has options to build armies without needing clan rats only as battleline. There are options and work arounds and the rules system actually works ok at smaller point levels. In Old World 500 point battles were not as good; plus the way units were made up you didn't have much to move around the table either - so it didn't work as well and wasn't as fun. With AS there's Underworlds, Warcry and Meeting Engagements - a lot of ways to play with smaller numbers of models as you build up an army steadily for the higher point values. 

[azdimy]

I m just glad we do not have a 25% min battleline requirement like the last iteration of wfb had

[Beastmaster]

Are they really such a tax for some armies? We recently had a thread where it was asked which army had the best battleline. Most factions were named at least once it seemed. So I would imagine that in most armies there are possibilities to at least make them useful to some extend. 

As a newbie, I must say that the battleline requirement makes list building much easier. It’s a point to start, which often determines the general. Gives the army a backbone, theme and direction. Then you continue building around it.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Beastmaster

[OkayestDM]

3 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Are they really such a tax for some armies? We recently had a thread where it was asked which army had the best battleline. Most factions were named at least once it seemed. So I would imagine that in most armies there are possibilities to at least make them useful to some extend. 

Lol, I did appreciate the irony of the two contrasting threads.

Some of the best battleline descriptions in the other thread came down to aesthetics and concept over function, which means that calling them good there but bad here doesn't necessarily create a conflict. And your right, most battleline can actually be good if piloted well, but there's an alarming disparity between the effort it takes to make some units good as compared to others. It is entirely possible to make liberators a pretty tough anvil if given the right support, but they're never going to hold a candle to Hearthguard Berserkers, who are also a much better hammer than Liberators will ever be, no matter how much you buff them.

Units like Liberators are often  considered a tax because they don't really seem to contribute anything relevant to a game, other than filling the bettleline requirement. They're slow, they don't have much offensive punch, they don't have the numbers to reliably secure objectives, and they're not particularly durable (unless you have the right hero and you're facing an enemy who doesn't have strong shooting, rend, or mortal-wound output, which is a lot less common these days.) In the end, the only reason most people take Liberators is because they're the cheapest option, which thus frees up more points for units that can reliably contribute to your victory. I don't think Battleline should be the best unit on your roster, but I think they need to bring something that makes you want to take them outside of just meeting the minimum requirements. In some armies they do, and in some they just don't.

Everything I've just gone over is most relevant for competitive games, and there's always going to be units that are considered "hot garbage" in a competitive scene that are actually perfectly serviceable in a more casual game.  That said, there are still some Battleline units that fall short of the mark, even in a casual setting.

[Belper]

20 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

Are they really such a tax for some armies? We recently had a thread where it was asked which army had the best battleline. Most factions were named at least once it seemed. So I would imagine that in most armies there are possibilities to at least make them useful to some extend. 

As a newbie, I must say that the battleline requirement makes list building much easier. It’s a point to start, which often determines the general. Gives the army a backbone, theme and direction. Then you continue building around it.

Some armies the battleline is the best thing you got. DoK witch aelves and SoS are both incredible, Tzeentch pink horrors had to be nerfed at least twice, Skinks used to be so good you'd take 40 of them as just allies, Sequitors are probably the best unit stormcast had before they got nerfed.

[Nos]

I think they were designed to ensure the essential integrity and character of armies on the table ie ensure that Skaven are recognisably a chattering rat swarm and not an elite army of 10 models.

Also following the outcry over the initial hobbyist "anything goes" AOS release probably a sop to the crowd who wanted that more traditional battle "structure".

As with anything GW, I think the best and worst aspects of the concept Is that they are clearly not particularly considered in any one  criteria. They're certainly not picked on the grounds of pure gaming balance, or pure fluff on the other hand. They're a concept designed to sell the flavour of the army which in the best cases works both on and off the tabletop- DOK, BR, Ogres- but in the worst cases does only one, or neither-Liberators. 

Then you have your left field cases. I love Tree Revenants mainly for how they look but also they're very powerful on the table *except in combat* which seems to be in direct contradiction of their lore. Regardless they are to me almost the definition of elites, basically ninjas, but they are battle line nonetheless.

As I said I love them so I'm not complaining but there is very obviously to me a confusion there in what they are supposed to be and what purpose they serve both on and off the table.