Jump to content

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


Mr. White

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:



Why? Well its designed that way. AoS is supposed to represent a large battle, so many players prefer to field the largest reasonable army they can. Standard is 2000 points by design - 40k, and WHFB have been using 2000 points as a staple for as long as I have been playing. When they designed the new points system for AoS, they could have devised a simple easy to use system (like power level for 40k) but they re-adopted the standard, 2000 point system.
 

 

 

@WoollyMammoth the original design is the 4-Page-Rules. I get that you like the playstyle you described there, but that is your subjective view on the topic. You might apply this maybe to the GHB. That is more focused to attract the old Warhammer players, which are also much more verbal on forums. The already satiasfied lot of players didn`t really state any issues, as the original 4-Page-Rules did already adress them.

 

10 hours ago, karch said:

We play AoS pretty much as originally released. So 4-page and sudden death it is.

It works just fine if you don't go out of your way to break it.

This is basically how it works. The game forced players to be nicer to each other and communicate better, trying to leave out the upercompetitive note as much as possible.

 

9 hours ago, jkav86 said:

Low point games can be a lot of fun, they go quickly, you can get a few games in on a single night and are also fun for an army you're just starting on. But I do love bigger games, they let you bring out toys you wouldn't get to use otherwise like some of the bigger monsters and large formations and the like. Often in a smaller game I think the big stuff can feel way out of place and kind of ruin some of the fun. 

That is the truth, but only for pointvalued games. I suggest an open game from time to time, you can take and field whatever you want there. It`s also a nice way to give your army a theme. Bonesplittaz and Spider Riders look fantastic in a combined force.

 

@all

I guess it all boils down to the old "Tournament or no tournament" issue. Now don`t get this wrong folks, all playstyes have their pro`s and con`s, it depends on what type of person you are and how the characteristics of the individual playstyles are valued by yourself. If we seek something like a middle, I think an army of two, maybe three units (if they contain fewer models), one ore two heroes and maybe one exceptional thing on the field (monster, construction, exceptional unit). If that is calculated in points, a value around 1000 (+ - 100) ist what you`ll see most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, DinoTitanedition said:

@WoollyMammoth the original design is the 4-Page-Rules. I get that you like the playstyle you described there, but that is your subjective view on the topic. You might apply this maybe to the GHB. That is more focused to attract the old Warhammer players, which are also much more verbal on forums. The already satiasfied lot of players didn`t really state any issues, as the original 4-Page-Rules did already adress them.

I'm talking about points, which could not have anything to do with the core rules, being that they don't include any points. The original design of the points was to match the 40k/WHFB idea of 2k games being the standard.

Even without the points, take a look at the official AoS page:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NO/Age-of-Sigmar

Explore the world of fantasy miniatures with Warhammer Age of Sigmar. Collect vast armies, engage in massed battles and read epic tales of great heroes through an exciting range of miniatures, books and games.

Vast armies engaged in massed battles ... sounds a bit big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

 

Vast armies engaged in massed battles ... sounds a bit big.

 

For as long as I remember that has been the headline for the main games of the company, and I rememberthe  2nd edition of 40K quite well, where a big army was consisting of two troops and a vehicle ;) I`d say that this is also a matter of perspective, depending on what scenario is actually played.

I.E. you can  simulate a certain part of a large battle by smaller forces fielded against each other, meeting in the eye of the storm. I`ve only got the original GHB here and I cannot remember that a certain point value was mentioned as a standard. But then again, at that point Path to Glory and the narrative section were the things that caught my eye most, I swiped through the point section rather briefly so I`m not up to date on what standard value is mentioned in the current book.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play mostly 2k but with the regular range between 1000 and 3000.

The game plays very different bigger. I love the epic feel and it feels great. Its something to work towards when you get your army. I can play 2.5k or 4k dispossessed or free guild almost as fast as 2k. The armies start to get nuts.

Over 2k the monsters come out and the battles get nuts. Duruardin shooting is especially nutty.

I also just played a 1k game today against my friend who is building fyreslayers. 

I am flexible, but build towards 2k with my armies becauase i like the strategy and list building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DinoTitanedition said:

 

I.E. you can  simulate a certain part of a large battle by smaller forces fielded against each other, meeting in the eye of the storm. I`ve only got the original GHB here and I cannot remember that a certain point value was mentioned as a standard. But then again, at that point Path to Glory and the narrative section were the things that caught my eye most, I swiped through the point section rather briefly so I`m not up to date on what standard value is mentioned in the current book.

 

We have always considered warhammer as something less than 1-to-1.  A unit of 10 Chaos warriors would be standing in for 100 or 500 hundred. A single character would have a retinue of elite bodyguards and a warmachine would in reality be a more like a battery. Except monsters, monsters are awesome just as single pieces :D

A battle with 50 minis on the table might well represent a couple thousand. If you play any historicals it's that way too, a stand of roman legionnaires in DbA or Hail Caesar with 5 minis represents a century (and in some rulesets the auxiliaries as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also in the 1000 to 1500 group. I find the sweet spot in the games to be around 40 to 50 models. As my time and attention span is limited, I tend to switch projects at that point. Luckily AoS works nicely in that scale. Actually I have only played one 2000 point match. It didn't change much as our armies weren't really designed with that point size in mind. I would actually be more interested in 4k than in 2k to get really a sense of epicness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much in the 1000 or less club. I've done my time having vast armies of insane proportions. Narrative and character drive my hobby now more so then ever and at this game size I find heroes have far more impact then simply being bullet magnets. 

I prefer to rather heavily convert my forces as well so the limited points allows me a chance to actually finish something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to play religiously Matched Play games as soon as they came out, usually 1,000pts as I could play 2-3 games in one night. I then played 2k for a bit, but my army was a right mish-mash of stuff to reach the points limit and I felt the games just went on forever. 

I think the sweet spot is 1500pts. That's my favourite. For the person who mentioned the Open War cards - I cannot recommend them enough for AoS. If you're like me and are just happy to play a game, they are fantastic. I lay the Deployment cards out, and get my opponent to pick one. Great, that's deployment sorted. Same again for objectives. For fun, I usually pick a Twist card, if it's a truly 'for fun' game at 1k points (ish) I'll offer a Ruse each for a laugh. Then we just deploy and get playing. I've had by far the most fun with AoS playing this way, and at 1500pts the games are just right in length.

The Twist and Ruse cards really do make things amusing. Last game I played using a Twist card, every model on the table got +1 attack for the entire game with each melee weapon. It was a short, yet exceptionally brutal game, like AoS played at 2x fast forward. A unit of Brutes charging in with 6 attacks each thanks to the Twist and the successful Waagh! was quite something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only played 1.5 k+ games so far but am really liking the idea of having some smaller, faster games.

I've accumulated quite a few models for an old school Warhammer Quest campaign / monster lists, so in some cases I'm only a few units away from having a 1000 ish points force of some factions as well. Would give more variety of painting than hammering away on another big army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for lower points games. So low that I stick to Skirmish level.

A bit higher around the 500-700 range could work too but it's not like my surroundings are AoS-action-packed with players to truly test that anytime soon. I actually really prefer sticking to skirmish for AoS. Best part is how easy to collect and fast all is (keeps the focus) while avoiding all the clunkiness the system suffers with larger armies, which turns me off quite a bit. IMO, this is the "light" hobby experience that isn't too demanding/consuming/serious yet satisfying, and AoS is good for that.  For the large wargaming fix, I have to go for other games but that's alright.

Mini-AoS all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/01/2018 at 5:54 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

Why? Well its designed that way. AoS is supposed to represent a large battle, so many players prefer to field the largest reasonable army they can. Standard is 2000 points by design - 40k, and WHFB have been using 2000 points as a staple for as long as I have been playing. When they designed the new points system for AoS, they could have devised a simple easy to use system (like power level for 40k) but they re-adopted the standard, 2000 point system.

AoS points were based on the community created ones for SCGT, so you're right in saying that they were created with 2k games in mind, but from a community driven angle rather than GW's.

I personally feel the AoS system (as a whole) is designed to cater for games from 500 points upwards, it's just a lot of publicity is given to the large 2k games because they look visually impressive so it's natural that people wish to emulate this - plus people love playing with their whole collection!

I'd love GW to tweak the list building to mirror 40k's - so a simplified power system and then a slightly more comprehensive points system.  As a random aside, most GW staff play games using the power system (but without a min/max mentality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd love GW to tweak the list building to mirror 40k's - so a simplified power system and then a slightly more comprehensive points system.  As a random aside, most GW staff play games using the power system (but without a min/max mentality).

What is this 'power system'?

(not a 40k player)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we get time to play I like playing lower point games around 1000 points, they are quick and can still give you enough options to make some good strategies.

Not trying to hijack the thread but in lower point games, what size table are you playing on for sub 2k games? 

I read somewhere that GW suggests 4x4 for 1000 point games (possibly in the ghb). My wife and I have tried playing both 6x4 and 4x4 with lower point games and it feels like there's is a bit too much open space on a 6x4 with 1000-1250 point games. Maybe we are just not using enough terrain though lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. White said:

What is this 'power system'?

(not a 40k player)

Power system is basically the equivalent of what we have in the Generals Handbook.

Normal 40k points are more in line with previous editions of Warhammer. You pay points per model added to a unit. You pay points depending on what equipment options you give the models, etc. It's a more fine grained balance solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. White said:

What is this 'power system'?

(not a 40k player)

It's sort of similar to what we currently use, but reduced.  So a base unit of 5 marines might cost 4 Power, to add another 5 will cost another 4 Power and to add a sergeant might cost 1 Power.  Some units might have a particularly powerful weapon option so that might cost 1 or 2 additional Power.  It's a lot less granular, but really easy to create a list for a 40 Power game.  Conversely, the points system for 40k is done so that you pay for everything - a marine might cost 12 points, a boltgun 3 points and a chainsword another 2 points and so on.  It's a lot more reflective of what your army is composed of and specifically aimed for matched play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kertie said:

When we get time to play I like playing lower point games around 1000 points, they are quick and can still give you enough options to make some good strategies.

Not trying to hijack the thread but in lower point games, what size table are you playing on for sub 2k games? 

I read somewhere that GW suggests 4x4 for 1000 point games (possibly in the ghb). My wife and I have tried playing both 6x4 and 4x4 with lower point games and it feels like there's is a bit too much open space on a 6x4 with 1000-1250 point games. Maybe we are just not using enough terrain though lol

I prefer 6x4 for 1K point games.  4x4 feels too small and it just ends up in melee clumps. I prefer having room to maneuver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chord said:

I prefer 6x4 for 1K point games.  4x4 feels too small and it just ends up in melee clumps. I prefer having room to maneuver. 

Oddly I'm the opposite, the smaller table helps me to get my units into combat a tiny bit quicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we play on a 6x4 we tend to deploy on the 12" line if it's longways. So that gives us a 4' potential battlefield between us so it's more likely to get us into combat in the first turn. But I guess it depends on the scenario as well? We usually just use the open war cards and haven't played the ghb scenarios much. 

I think movement and deployment definitely plays a big role in small games when you have a lot less models and a lot more room to deploy and move. 

1 hour ago, chord said:

I can see that.    I think movement can play a huge role in small games. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Interesting topic.  I came here to see what the current feeling for 1k point games was because that's the sort of size game I want to play.  My restrictions are basically time and transportation. 

I need to be able to get the game played reasonably quickly as my only real option is playing after work.

I need not to have to transport around multiple crates of models as it will all have to go to work with me and the logistics of it not all fitting in one bag are just too much hassle.

I was toying with the idea of dropping AoS and just playing Underworld because of the speed and the fact that you only need a few figures and a deck of cards.  As much as I love that game it's just not the same as playing a fantasy war game.  

I'm taking from the responses to this thread that the game still works well enough at 1k.  I accept that I'm not going to get to play my Maw-Krusher or Skarbrand but that's OK if the alternative is never finishing a game in time or just not playing because of the logistics of getting everything there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play 1k quite a bit, mainly for similar reasons. I find the games fun and not so much of a mental challenge.

Just be aware some armies scale better at 1k and others are better at higher points. So you may need to experiment a bit with builds. For example I find my Idoneth perform better at 1k than my khorne, mainly due to how the armies work ie  Idoneth units are more self sufficient than khorne ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started off playing proper games at 500 points, which were swingy admittedly, though fun and allowed me to test out units I haven't been sure on. It was my intent to reach 2k, though it would take time to get all the models sorted out, so playing at that level until I reached 1000pts was great. Most 500pt games will give you a Hero and two units of troops, which is perfect for playing a game just fine.

On the path to 1000pts I've played a few Path to Glory games with what me and my opponent had at hand. Not balanced, though made for fun games and got me more hyped for 1k.

I finally have 1000pts of my army for my first 'real, balanced, vanguard' games of AoS now. And I'm already planning to get myself up to 1.5k as I play my first 'real' games.

Though yes, AoS is totally viable as a 500pt match and that level made me fall in love with a game I was on the fence about. 2nd edition then sealed the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...