I've Always thought that the costs for battalions is a bit high for two reasons. A lot of our stuff doesn't function well on their own; the synergy of the battalion is almost mandatory. For example, saurus guards are too squishy outside of their battalion for their intended role. A battalion already forces you to use certain units; this is already a "cost" and it can be quite steep as in the heavenswatch starhost where a whopping 360-560 points and 3 leader slotsare needed just to fill the battalion-requirements. On top of that the leaders all fullfill the same role, they're not even a neat triumvirate consisting of say a support a commander & a melee powerhouse.'And that's just the required stuff for the leaders. Our battalions aren't godlike by any means; they rely on key-units, which can be assasinated to significantly lower, or in some cases completly remove, the benefit the starhost gives. And only starhost that can problematic to deal with is an eternal one in small point games if the opponent has no mortal wounds. And that's more due to the nature of low point games than anything else. What are your thoughts on this? Are we just unique in so far that we're the only army where a lot of our stuff just doesn't function all that well outside of their battalion? Are our battalions maybe less open, whereas other armies have more freedom in their battalions to pick and choose units (or just far less units to pick and choose from so a given battalion includes half their army)? Do the battalions of others simply provide far greater benefits to their troops? I'm really curious, cuz with battalions costing the equivalent of 1-2 units easily on top of the requirements of fielding specific stuff and stuff frequently not being all that amazing outside the battalion it just seems like we have very steep costs.