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.

Are there points for taking the Warscroll Battalions in the Start Collecting boxes? I read the rules for the skeleton box, thought it was pretty slick, so I built the models for that battalion and then realized... crap... I don't think I can actually use it in Pitched Battles.

There are not. Only SOME of the released product is eligible for play in Pitched Battles. Pretty crappy considering that they said everything would have a points value. They went back on that promise.

Well poo. Fortunately I can only build skeletons as skeletons, and I was going to build the Mortarch as Arkhan regardless (probably the worst of the bunch, but I like his appearance the best.)

Thanks.

I think most players would be happy for you to guesstimate a cost for the battalion - somewhere between 40-100 (in a block of 20) points I would imagine. Or you could let them have one "free" battalion too.

Yeah it's a shame the start collecting formations don't have points. I am all for some of the wacky ones not being allowed (like that Stormcast one with orbital bombardment at the start), but the start collecting ones are small and harmless from what I have seen.

Wait, are you saying Thunderstrike Brotherhood is disallowed, Bottle? It's in the GHB for 80 points.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Wait, are you saying Thunderstrike Brotherhood is disallowed, Bottle? It's in the GHB for 80 points.

That would be the Thunderhead Brotherhood in the General's Handbook for 80 pts.

For what its worth, PPC has point costs for the start collecting battalions (and all of the campaign book battalions) at the same scale as the GHB. While some haven't made it into the documents proper yet the others are mentioned here.

 Ghaz wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Wait, are you saying Thunderstrike Brotherhood is disallowed, Bottle? It's in the GHB for 80 points.

That would be the Thunderhead Brotherhood in the General's Handbook for 80 pts.

You're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.
I thought Thunderstrike (from the core AoS starter book was Thunderhead in GHB.
Must be something from the Stormcast-specific book.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Wait, are you saying Thunderstrike Brotherhood is disallowed, Bottle? It's in the GHB for 80 points.

That would be the Thunderhead Brotherhood in the General's Handbook for 80 pts.

You're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.
I thought Thunderstrike (from the core AoS starter book was Thunderhead in GHB.
Must be something from the Stormcast-specific book.

I seriously think they need to retool names a bit. Like, there's a couple of easy ones like ironfist, ardfist, gorefist that are virtually self-explanatory but others are very byzantine and similar.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For what its worth, PPC has point costs for the start collecting battalions (and all of the campaign book battalions) at the same scale as the GHB. While some haven't made it into the documents proper yet the others are mentioned here.

Ooh, that's handy. Thanks! The only people I've played AoS with are pretty laid back, so as long as it's in the ballpark they'll probably be fine with it.

 Lansirill wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For what its worth, PPC has point costs for the start collecting battalions (and all of the campaign book battalions) at the same scale as the GHB. While some haven't made it into the documents proper yet the others are mentioned here.

Ooh, that's handy. Thanks! The only people I've played AoS with are pretty laid back, so as long as it's in the ballpark they'll probably be fine with it.

And if for what ever reason it is over powered by chance let them have a few rerolls or unit back and hopefully that would compensate and points can be adjusted for next game and have fun.

Davor wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
For what its worth, PPC has point costs for the start collecting battalions (and all of the campaign book battalions) at the same scale as the GHB. While some haven't made it into the documents proper yet the others are mentioned here.

Ooh, that's handy. Thanks! The only people I've played AoS with are pretty laid back, so as long as it's in the ballpark they'll probably be fine with it.

And if for what ever reason it is over powered by chance let them have a few rerolls or unit back and hopefully that would compensate and points can be adjusted for next game and have fun.

And if the power value feels off according to its points, don't forget to let us know so we (or rather, Ninth) can check it out

its mostly due to the rocky start. Most of the start collecting are great, pick up 2 and you would be set for a 1k army most of the time.

Possibly they might be included in the next version of the General's Handbook, guess we will have to wait and see.

motski wrote:
Possibly they might be included in the next version of the General's Handbook, guess we will have to wait and see.

We had Start Collecting boxes released before the General's Handbook came out.

This highlights one of the problems with matched play in my opinion. You can't expect them to give everything points, but anything that doesn't have points might as well not exist because nobody wants to think that's close enough for a regular game. For a tournament I understand using only what is officially there, but for a regular game who cares? Apparently a lot of people do to where they won't even say well this looks to be about 80 points so include that and you can use it, it's not in the list can't use it all doesn't matter what it is

Extra funny given that the values actually present vary between completely reasonable and wildly off, with battalions being even less consistent than the units.

I am alright for every battalion not having points. I think every faction should have 2-3 battalion options for matched play. Anything beyond this and balance can go awry. I do think they should have start collecting formation points. The main reason being is since this the intro into the game it makes sense they have points. Most of the start collecting battalions formations are very mild anyways.

Wayniac wrote:
This highlights one of the problems with matched play in my opinion. You can't expect them to give everything points, but anything that doesn't have points might as well not exist because nobody wants to think that's close enough for a regular game. For a tournament I understand using only what is officially there, but for a regular game who cares? Apparently a lot of people do to where they won't even say well this looks to be about 80 points so include that and you can use it, it's not in the list can't use it all doesn't matter what it is

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect GW to give everything points. The should presumably have a master list of unit and battalion warscrolls. Each item on that list should have a points value. I think it's far more unreasonable to think a design studio would create, say, six battalions for a given army, but only assign points to five of them. Did they run out of time? Was it 4:55PM on a Friday when they started working on that fifth? Did they say 'close enough' and decide to go home? It feels incomplete. I can't imagine any other major game doing this...

Privateer Press releases a new Trollbloods model without a points cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. PP should do it.
Magic the Gathering releases some new cards without a listed casting cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. WotC should do it.
Star Wars X-Wing releases some a new ship without a fleet cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a fleet cost. FFG should do it.

Why is it OK for GW not to provide a points cost here? There are three "equal" ways to play. GW is only fully supporting two of them. Matched Play isn't fully supported.

I think each box comes out to roughly 500 points?

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
This highlights one of the problems with matched play in my opinion. You can't expect them to give everything points, but anything that doesn't have points might as well not exist because nobody wants to think that's close enough for a regular game. For a tournament I understand using only what is officially there, but for a regular game who cares? Apparently a lot of people do to where they won't even say well this looks to be about 80 points so include that and you can use it, it's not in the list can't use it all doesn't matter what it is

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect GW to give everything points. The should presumably have a master list of unit and battalion warscrolls. Each item on that list should have a points value. I think it's far more unreasonable to think a design studio would create, say, six battalions for a given army, but only assign points to five of them. Did they run out of time? Was it 4:55PM on a Friday when they started working on that fifth? Did they say 'close enough' and decide to go home? It feels incomplete. I can't imagine any other major game doing this...

Privateer Press releases a new Trollbloods model without a points cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. PP should do it.
Magic the Gathering releases some new cards without a listed casting cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. WotC should do it.
Star Wars X-Wing releases some a new ship without a fleet cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a fleet cost. FFG should do it.

Why is it OK for GW not to provide a points cost here? There are three "equal" ways to play. GW is only fully supporting two of them. Matched Play isn't fully supported.

It isn't the same though, since non of the unpointed options are actual products (even the white dwarf is simply a warscroll for a model that has one in matched play). But as it stands a person playing matched only needs the GHB and relevant battletome to have everything for their army, while the campaign books have exclusively narrative content. I think leaving the campaign books exclusively narrative is a good thing, both for encouraging the narrative side of the hobby and for ensuring GHB players don't feel at all pressured to buy them, but more importantly because there is no way GW could balance that many battalions. As it stands, Stormcast have quite a few battalions in the GHB -- 11 of them. The campaigns would nearly triple that total to 30. And in a few months this would be narrowed down to a half-dozen passable ones that actually get used and 2-3 among those which were overpowered enough to see tournament play. I would bet the majority of matched players would prefer GW focus on just putting the 11 on even terms rather than shoving in 19 more only to have 15-18 of them be irrelevant.

However, I do agree that its a little bit silly to not include points for the start collecting battalions (and the bigger army box battalions); they come with the box that many people will be buying to use in matched play. The box-exclusive battalions I feel should be made available to buy on the app for the normal ~$2 price in case players who didn't buy a box were interested.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
This highlights one of the problems with matched play in my opinion. You can't expect them to give everything points, but anything that doesn't have points might as well not exist because nobody wants to think that's close enough for a regular game. For a tournament I understand using only what is officially there, but for a regular game who cares? Apparently a lot of people do to where they won't even say well this looks to be about 80 points so include that and you can use it, it's not in the list can't use it all doesn't matter what it is

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect GW to give everything points. The should presumably have a master list of unit and battalion warscrolls. Each item on that list should have a points value. I think it's far more unreasonable to think a design studio would create, say, six battalions for a given army, but only assign points to five of them. Did they run out of time? Was it 4:55PM on a Friday when they started working on that fifth? Did they say 'close enough' and decide to go home? It feels incomplete. I can't imagine any other major game doing this...

Privateer Press releases a new Trollbloods model without a points cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. PP should do it.
Magic the Gathering releases some new cards without a listed casting cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. WotC should do it.
Star Wars X-Wing releases some a new ship without a fleet cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a fleet cost. FFG should do it.

Why is it OK for GW not to provide a points cost here? There are three "equal" ways to play. GW is only fully supporting two of them. Matched Play isn't fully supported.

It isn't the same though, since non of the unpointed options are actual products (even the white dwarf is simply a warscroll for a model that has one in matched play). But as it stands a person playing matched only needs the GHB and relevant battletome to have everything for their army, while the campaign books have exclusively narrative content. I think leaving the campaign books exclusively narrative is a good thing, both for encouraging the narrative side of the hobby and for ensuring GHB players don't feel at all pressured to buy them, but more importantly because there is no way GW could balance that many battalions. As it stands, Stormcast have quite a few battalions in the GHB -- 11 of them. The campaigns would nearly triple that total to 30. And in a few months this would be narrowed down to a half-dozen passable ones that actually get used and 2-3 among those which were overpowered enough to see tournament play. I would bet the majority of matched players would prefer GW focus on just putting the 11 on even terms rather than shoving in 19 more only to have 15-18 of them be irrelevant.

However, I do agree that its a little bit silly to not include points for the start collecting battalions (and the bigger army box battalions); they come with the box that many people will be buying to use in matched play. The box-exclusive battalions I feel should be made available to buy on the app for the normal ~$2 price in case players who didn't buy a box were interested.

I feel like by not giving points to certain model and battalions, GW is encouraging the other two styles of play. If you want to use Grombrindal (sp?), you have to use something other than Matched Play to do it. If everything had a points cost, there would be less reason to play narrative.

And yeah. I fully agree when it comes to SC and battleforce battalions. That is how a lot of people are getting into Matched Play, so they should have points.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
This highlights one of the problems with matched play in my opinion. You can't expect them to give everything points, but anything that doesn't have points might as well not exist because nobody wants to think that's close enough for a regular game. For a tournament I understand using only what is officially there, but for a regular game who cares? Apparently a lot of people do to where they won't even say well this looks to be about 80 points so include that and you can use it, it's not in the list can't use it all doesn't matter what it is

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect GW to give everything points. The should presumably have a master list of unit and battalion warscrolls. Each item on that list should have a points value. I think it's far more unreasonable to think a design studio would create, say, six battalions for a given army, but only assign points to five of them. Did they run out of time? Was it 4:55PM on a Friday when they started working on that fifth? Did they say 'close enough' and decide to go home? It feels incomplete. I can't imagine any other major game doing this...

Privateer Press releases a new Trollbloods model without a points cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. PP should do it.
Magic the Gathering releases some new cards without a listed casting cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a points cost. WotC should do it.
Star Wars X-Wing releases some a new ship without a fleet cost. Nobody is going to be ok with just making up a fleet cost. FFG should do it.

Why is it OK for GW not to provide a points cost here? There are three "equal" ways to play. GW is only fully supporting two of them. Matched Play isn't fully supported.

It isn't the same though, since non of the unpointed options are actual products (even the white dwarf is simply a warscroll for a model that has one in matched play). But as it stands a person playing matched only needs the GHB and relevant battletome to have everything for their army, while the campaign books have exclusively narrative content. I think leaving the campaign books exclusively narrative is a good thing, both for encouraging the narrative side of the hobby and for ensuring GHB players don't feel at all pressured to buy them, but more importantly because there is no way GW could balance that many battalions. As it stands, Stormcast have quite a few battalions in the GHB -- 11 of them. The campaigns would nearly triple that total to 30. And in a few months this would be narrowed down to a half-dozen passable ones that actually get used and 2-3 among those which were overpowered enough to see tournament play. I would bet the majority of matched players would prefer GW focus on just putting the 11 on even terms rather than shoving in 19 more only to have 15-18 of them be irrelevant.

However, I do agree that its a little bit silly to not include points for the start collecting battalions (and the bigger army box battalions); they come with the box that many people will be buying to use in matched play. The box-exclusive battalions I feel should be made available to buy on the app for the normal ~$2 price in case players who didn't buy a box were interested.

I feel like by not giving points to certain model and battalions, GW is encouraging the other two styles of play. If you want to use Grombrindal (sp?), you have to use something other than Matched Play to do it. If everything had a points cost, there would be less reason to play narrative.

And yeah. I fully agree when it comes to SC and battleforce battalions. That is how a lot of people are getting into Matched Play, so they should have points.

This is what I think as well, I think it's specifically to say without saying it "Matched Play isn't for ALL games" which people seem to ignore anyways. In fact, I almost want to see them have MORE things without points, if only to drive home the fact that Matched Play is for tournaments, not regular games. I rant about this a lot, so I apologize, but I think it needs to be drilled in repeatedly that Matched Play is not intended from GW to be something used in every AOS game, and a lot of the restrictions/FAQs and such make sense as a rules packet (think ITC) for a tournament and make no sense at all when applied as a blanket set of restrictions to every single game because "points".