Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the tale of gamers that the AOS facebook posted, it appears that there is a battleline classification for models now, and that you must have some of those in your army again.

Or... core is returning to the competitive format so you can't just take all elites.

I'm personally excited about this as I believe there should be *some* core in armies.

The question is - what units will be marked as "battleline" or will GW just invalidate it by putting elites into the battleline classification as well, thus allowing people to basically bypass it anyway?

By their description staying keyword loyal moves elites into battle line.

Yep, it looks like they are troops - and while there *is* a way to bypass it, that way is pretty cool too. So if your army has the same Faction keyword throughout you get access to better units for your "battleline" selection.

Seems cool so far.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

Bummer if its easy to bypass then its not really core, its "battleline is if you are the same faction".

So you can still load down on elites.

So it enforces same faction but not "core" or taking an army of superheroes.

 auticus wrote:
Bummer if its easy to bypass then its not really core, its "battleline is if you are the same faction".

So you can still load down on elites.

So it enforces same faction but not "core" or taking an army of superheroes.

I wouldn't say its "easy" at all. In their example, your ENTIRE army needs to be specifically Ironjawz, or Flesh-Eater Courts, to take those mentioned units as troops. Considering how small individual factions are it feels like a very modest way of allowing those low on volume of different units, to still field somewhat diverse lists, while incentivizing theme. If anything it feels like they're trying to acknowledge the spirit of Age of Sigmar, even while moving to points, and I dig that.

Bring on the battle-field roles. Obviously this means some level of restriction is in place, so I am guessing things that prevent someone from going all war-machines, etc.

Need to know more about this so speculaltion doesn't poison the waters.

Great stuff

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Bummer if its easy to bypass then its not really core, its "battleline is if you are the same faction".

So you can still load down on elites.

So it enforces same faction but not "core" or taking an army of superheroes.

I wouldn't say its "easy" at all. In their example, your ENTIRE army needs to be specifically Ironjawz, or Flesh-Eater Courts, to take those mentioned units as troops. Considering how small individual factions are it feels like a very modest way of allowing those low on volume of different units, to still field somewhat diverse lists, while incentivizing theme. If anything it feels like they're trying to acknowledge the spirit of Age of Sigmar, even while moving to points, and I dig that.

Since there is no limitation, from the way it seems, as to how many of a unit you can take? It doesn't matter how "small" the individual factions are--especially not when talking about Ironjawz or Flesh-Eater Courts when there are factions like Shadowblades(two units--Dark Riders and Assassins), Swifthawk Agents(Shadow Warriors, Skycutters, and Chariots), etc.

Bring on the battle-field roles. Obviously this means some level of restriction is in place, so I am guessing things that prevent someone from going all war-machines, etc.

If there were a concern about things like Warmachines, then they could just say something like "Your army can only contain X number of Warmachines/Monsters/Heroes/whatever" as a percentage ala LOTR.

 Bottle wrote:
Yep, it looks like they are troops - and while there *is* a way to bypass it, that way is pretty cool too. So if your army has the same Faction keyword throughout you get access to better units for your "battleline" selection.

Seems cool so far.

Yea, all good thus far

A little less impetus for cherry-picking the best units across a grand alliance (or entire game if GA-limitation isn't a thing), a little more reward for staying in-subfaction, and a little hand slapping for those taking all heroes all the time. Dig it.

- Salvage

It's actually a pretty clever little idea, and if Age of Sigmar had shipped with it, I don't think I would have been quite so hard on it. There's still a lot of things I take issue with about most aspects of the game, but they could do far worse than building around this as an army construction mechanic.

I like mass battles and require large infantry on the table. Someone apparently thinks that's impossible in AoS for whatever reason so I'm glad I don't play that person

I'm wondering if 'battleline' is an equivalent to scoring units.
We know matched play will have specific competitive scenarios, so maybe 'battleline' units might be something related to that?
E.g. each scenario can be won by tabling or holding objectives, then it's a 'reward' for sticking in faction because you can take better troops that can still win the game for you?

RoperPG wrote:
I'm wondering if 'battleline' is an equivalent to scoring units.
We know matched play will have specific competitive scenarios, so maybe 'battleline' units might be something related to that?
E.g. each scenario can be won by tabling or holding objectives, then it's a 'reward' for sticking in faction because you can take better troops that can still win the game for you?

Yeah that's what I am thinking.

I need to see this book now. Like yesterday.