Low Points Games...Who's Playing Them?

[Mr. White]

As I've mentioned before, I'm into AoS for the Open and Narrative play.

One of the things that drew me into AoS was the ease of building up an army. It seemed the game didn't need the mass of miniatures that WFB did. However, I've read that GHB2017 seems to have pushed for more models. That, plus it seems like most are still playing 2,000pt battles at their LGS. Wasn't 2,000 the standard in the old Warhammer Fantasy?

So...who's playing AoS with a 1,000pts or less? Anyone taking advantage of the rules allowing for lighter games or are players falling back into habits of larger armies? I dunno...maybe some find the games more fun with more points?

Anyway, again not much of a matched point player, but just curious about what's going on out there.

[Sheriff]

I've played nothing but 1000pts since i started playing, as I started the game last year.  Played with others that are in the same situation, and bigger boys that took pity on a new player. 

I will return the favour to noobs once I have 2000pts as it really sucks not being able to find a game when you're new. 

[Mr. White]

@Sheriff, but it sounds like you're moving to 2000pts. I have no issue with it, just curious as to why. Why not stick with 1000pts? 1,000pts seems easier to manage not only with model count to paint or move around the board, but ease of which to spice up your force...it requires less to sub models/units in and out.

[chord]

I actually prefer 1000 points, they go faster, and many of the breaking things don't occur in 1K points  I find.

I've played some 500 point games as well, they are fun with multiple people.

[Sheriff]

3 minutes ago, Mr. White said:

@Sheriff, but it sounds like you're moving to 2000pts. I have no issue with it, just curious as to why. Why not stick with 1000pts? 1,000pts seems easier to manage not only with model count to paint or move around the board, but ease of which to spice up your force...it requires less to sub models/units in and out.

Because 95% of the events are at 2000pts, and the vast majority of players seem to want 2000pt games, and the organised events enforce painting rules (which I like). The UK is smothered with 2k events and I want to gloriously lose at all of them before I get bored of the hobby in a couple years time. 

Basically 2000pts = more games, painted armies. 

Happy to play at 1000pts if someone wants a game though, and actually prefer 1000pts for weekday evenings as it's faster. 

[bsharitt]

At my local shop, there's still a mix of 1000 and 2000 point games. I personally end up liking the larger games better. It lets more stuff happen an more units shine and can feel a bit more strategic with different mini battles going on on different parts of the battlefield. 1000 point can be fun with the right armies and scenarios, but also seems like a much more fragile game where one misstep can make the game a bit too one sided and ultimately less fun for both sides. For small army games, it seems that a tight scenario is almost a requirement, otherwise you can easily end up with all the units from both armies tied up on one little knot and rolling dice back and forth.

[bsharitt]

8 minutes ago, chord said:

and many of the breaking things don't occur in 1K points  I find.

I found the opposite to be the case. Even in non-cheesy lists, once the automatic/easy to get mortal wound spam comes out in a low point game, the recipient probably doesn't have much of chance going forward, where as the higher points you probably still have a viable force, even if at a disadvantage(of course cheesy lists all bets are off no matter the points).

[chord]

I think Mortal Wound spam is a problem in All point values.  But things that can spam mortal wounds tends to be higher point value, so that seems to offset it some (at least the local armies I play).  

What started out as only elite units having is now too common IMO.  But I've found less MW spam at 1K

[chord]

8 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

At my local shop, there's still a mix of 1000 and 2000 point games. I personally end up liking the larger games better. It lets more stuff happen an more units shine and can feel a bit more strategic with different mini battles going on on different parts of the battlefield. 1000 point can be fun with the right armies and scenarios, but also seems like a much more fragile game where one misstep can make the game a bit too one sided and ultimately less fun for both sides. For small army games, it seems that a tight scenario is almost a requirement, otherwise you can easily end up with all the units from both armies tied up on one little knot and rolling dice back and forth.

I agree the scenario is so important at 1K points.  I think the narrative ones tend to be better for this. 

[Warboss Gorbolg]

My local GW encourages 1 - 1.5k to keep games moving.  I'm playing 500 - 1k with a friend who's just started, which works for me as well since I keep bouncing between Destruction factions.  

I agree that 2k is a holdover from WHFB.  In my opinion, the 2k culture is part of the reason that WHFB ultimately was ended.  It created way to large of a barrier for new players and discouraged new players from picking up the hobby.

A willingness for people to play smaller games and different formats will be important for the continued growth of the game, IMO.

[Mr. White]

4 minutes ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

I agree that 2k is a holdover from WHFB.  In my opinion, the 2k culture is part of the reason that WHFB ultimately was ended.  It created way to large of a barrier for new players and discouraged new players from picking up the hobby.

A willingness for people to play smaller games and different formats will be important for the continued growth of the game, IMO.

This was my limited understanding as well.

What I don't get...is that if large armies can turn away potential new players and the game was rebooted with easy of entry in mind...why would GW seemingly turn the game back in that direction with bonuses to hordes in the GHB2017?

Again...I don't have that book nor play games of that magnitude, so I may not know what I'm talking about and will shut up and listen for a bit.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

As someone who loves his Greenskinz and Grots, I agree that warscrolls for many battle line units in particular, naturally pushes players towards higher point values.  

But really, IMO of course, the issue is the players more than the system.  Historically, at least during 7th and 8th edition, so many players were tournament oriented that it was very hard to impossible to find games below 2 - 2.4k.  I think that GW is doing their part to offer players a number of different options to play lower point games.  The question is whether the AOS community is going to revert to  the 2k+ only days of WHFB.  Nothing wrong with bigger games as long as players are willing to occasionally play lower point games to engage the newest wave of players to ignite their passion for the hobby as well.

[Sheriff]

13 minutes ago, Mr. White said:

This was my limited understanding as well.

What I don't get...is that if large armies can turn away potential new players and the game was rebooted with easy of entry in mind...why would GW seemingly turn the game back in that direction with bonuses to hordes in the GHB2017?

From what I've seen since I started last year, GW itself and its stores are very noob-friendly and accommodate smaller armies. The tournament crowd are an influential clique of bigger-is-better types, but they run everything so you gotta play by their rules. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make as I'm not bothered about the time and money needed to get from zero to 2k, but I bet thats not a luxury most new players have. It portents doom...

On the other hand there is the narrative side of the game that I wanna get into but there just aren't any events around like there are for matched, and I find the lore uninspiring. Hopefully portents will help this though. 

I've just got a friend into the game, bought his first box today, so I'm interested to see things from his perspective as a noob. 

EDIT - @Warboss Gorbolg basically said the same thing 

[FRoper]

I always have played small games, I find them more fun and tactical than larger games

[Cinncinnatus]

I've been helping to run a Path to Glory campaign, which has stayed well under 1000 points for it's duration. It's great fun, allowing for multiple games on game night at the FLGS. Still, I like 2000 points, but I know when I play a game that size I'm probably only getting one in.

 

[RuneBrush]

I actually like a mixture of game sizes, from Skirmish up to 2k - at various point sizes rather than "round values" (why not play at 760 points?)

Personally I feel there's a huge difference between 1k and 2k games.  What's viable at 1k might be less optimal at 2k and equally something that's not that fantastic at 1k could well be amazing at 2k.  This does mean that some armies punch above their weight at one size in comparison to another.

The other thing I would say is that 2k games allow you to bring along more big monsters and other such interesting units.  I'd feel a right killjoy if I brought an Exalted Daemon to a 1k game but at 2k it's more acceptable.  Equally you can't beat fitting two or three 1k games in an afternoon.

 

[BURF1]

I play to practice for tournaments most of the time so the only time I play anything but 2k is if I'm practicing a 1k doubles list.

[AverageBoss]

I prefer larger games just for the options they open up. There are some units that are almost unplayable in smaller games, and I like my dragons. There are plenty of low model count elite armies for larger games, so I don't think it is as much of a barrier as it used to be (only Ogres and a niche Chaos build near the very end of 8th filled that role).

My Stormcast list is only 24 models at 2,000 for example. On the other hand, Tzeentch could easily field an army of over 200 models at 1,000 points. There are plenty of options for all tastes, those who like hordes, and those who do not, at all point levels.

[Uveron]

I often play 1000pt games.  They are Quick and a great way to test a single few units.

Though I have found myself playing path to glory games  recently as well, they start nice and small and randomly generating you list before the game is a 'test' of my skills.  

[Sarkazim]

Got a fresh group of players in my area as well.  1k seems to work out fine since the games are short, rules aren't complicated, and table space isn't tied up too long.

[Praecautus]

I seem to be playing 1to 1.5 at the moment, at least when I can as real life is conspiring against me right now. I quite like that level as it's a good speed and i am still trying to learn my army.

[nuttyknatty]

My club is running its third 750pt tournament later this month - it's a popular format!

And another local club has held a 1,000pt tournament just before Christmas for the last two years.

Sadly I'm just as rubbish at those levels as I am at 2,000pts, but I'm convinced I'll find a format that fits my tactics!

 

[hellalugosi]

i play any range but prefer 1k. like some of you guys i also play a lot of path to glory style games, super low point costs but lots of units, so it feels like a bigger game but plays fast. 

in particular you gotta play smaller point games like they are indeed skirmish games, hell, the battleplans in skirmish naturally play well at small points games too. these are also game sizes that play the best with narrative rules as you dont have to dedicate so much time to warscrolls, and can concentrate on things like narrative battleplan rules or times of war.

[Kramer]

1,5K is my jam! 

It's just something about it that allows for fast games even with newer players. It's a great size in multiplayer games and it still allows some bigger monsters without becoming regulars on the tables.  

But if my mates would want to go to a tournament and as such would prefer to play 2K sure. And personally I think that is how those kind of standards in clubs start. It's not wrong to dos so, so if one player wants to play 2k why not?

[Twitch of Izalith]

Yeah I'm mostly playing in a small group of players so we are constantly changing things up to keep it fresh. 1000 point games have been a real success as its difficult to get the full toolbox with less than 1500 -2000.

It also changes the balance a little so that some units that don't feature so highly in our bigger games become a lot more viable - like 5 model cavalry units for example. Many monsters and behemoths become more powerful too - particularly those around the 300 point mark that can die really easily in 2000 point games. 

Its quite hard to take anything too powerful and still compete in the objective game of the 2017 battleplans too so we tend to see a lot more minimum unit sizes.

I'm not a big fan of massive units - certainly not of multiple massive units - so I really wish GW had pitched the bonuses to kick in at more than ten models instead of 20+ or 30+ which would make 20 an optimum size instead of a minumum size for larger units.

I don't think the barrier to entry is very high - even at 2000 points - you can get 2000 points of most armies for around £250 and I can see why its a popular size - you don't have to leave anything out at 2000 points and its big enough to get impressive models like Stardrakes, Nagash or Archaon on the table.