Should standard game size be larger than 2k in AoS 2.0

[Johann]

13 hours ago, syph0n said:

 

I've only played around the 1k mark since starting back, so maybe experiencing 2k might make the difference. I feel like 1250 might be my personal sweet spot to allow variety, spells etc. 

Same here, love 1250 Point games.

you really have to think about, what you want to archive with your list  and do some trade offs, because can’t include everything.  Also we play Slow with lots of talking, so fits perfect for a evening.

[Overread]

The sliding slope of price isn't an issue so long as the game retains things like Shadspire, Skirmish and smaller point options. What harmed Fantasy was that it didn't really have those near the end, it was full armies or nothing. Furthermore its marketing was almost non-existent. Limited marketing to draw in new players and a steep barrier for getting into anything Fantasy - likely also coupled with many being attracted to Lord of the Rings during that era all added up to fantasy dwindling. 

 

Sigmar avoids most of those issues and the ramping up of larger games at the upper end has been happening for years anyway.

[stratigo]

5 hours ago, BobbyB said:

For the last year 2000pts has definitely felt too big for tournament games.  People routinely taking 90+ of the same model and flooding the table and making everything a grind leads to not only overlong games that run over, but also significantly less fun games.  It really felt like games should have been 200-500pts lower.  I'm hopeful that the changes to coherency, the addition of command points, and the proliferation of 'wholly within' will make this work out a little better in AoS 2, but I guess that will depend on how summoning affects the game. I certainly wouldn't entertain the idea of increasing game sizes

The thing is, as you cut points, the big 30 model units usually aren't going first. GW's skewed balance for a lot of armies to max sized units. Skeletons are a slat worse unit at 30 than 40. Berzerkers are a worse unit at 20 than 30. et cetera

[Deadkitten]

I would like the "Official" limit to change annually.

 

[Seraphage]

2k is the best size big time ! 

It makes you take tough choices, still has many things to work out, isn’t too big but also isn’t too small as too many armies have advantages of over other at less points where 2 units colliding can decide the whole battles result !

[Slaanesh]

I think 2000p is good but it would be nice of they removed the horde points reduction! 

[Ryan Taylor]

No Change to the army I played in OldoS and NewoS. 

[Warboss Gorbolg]

8 hours ago, Overread said:

The sliding slope of price isn't an issue so long as the game retains things like Shadspire, Skirmish and smaller point options. What harmed Fantasy was that it didn't really have those near the end, it was full armies or nothing. Furthermore its marketing was almost non-existent. Limited marketing to draw in new players and a steep barrier for getting into anything Fantasy - likely also coupled with many being attracted to Lord of the Rings during that era all added up to fantasy dwindling. 

 

Sigmar avoids most of those issues and the ramping up of larger games at the upper end has been happening for years anyway.

I don't really agree with this. WHFB 8th edition had options to play at lower points levels that worked fine. The real barrier to entry was the gaming community that established 2k+ games as the "standard" and broadly refused to play lower pointed games. The dominant  tournament mentality greatly limited new players from joining the hobby (IMO of course) as the money and time commitments were huge for new players.

I would hate to see AOS trend in that direction as well.

[Gorthaur]

I think it should be 1500-2000 max, but I prefer 1k points as far as actually bothering to play this game. I don't really like it when games get huge it gets clunky and messy.

[TheOtherJosh]

So, rather than talking about points... should we be talking about unit limits/requirements?

For example:

If one were to be playing at non-standard “levels” eg 1500 ... should one be working with the vanguard leader/battleline etc requirements, or the Mid-level 2k limits?

Especially with the +/- Rules For Pitched Battle type options.

[Luke82]

13 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

 I love seeing endless hordes of models on a tabletop - it's really atmospheric and looks amazing.  However the concept of playing a game like that leaves me dead inside (or deader than I normally am).  It's bad enough moving one unit of 40 skeletons, let alone half a dozen of them and knowing that I'd have nowhere near enough heroes to provide buffs just wouldn't make an enjoyable game

A pal and I are having a 5800 point a side, which is the max we could each muster fully painted, battle this weekend, to celebrate the new launch and hopefully the spectacle of the big battle with fully painted armies will get a few of our group who are sitting on the fence with AoS to take the plunge. I imagine it’s going to be a lot of work... praise Nurgle for the 5 man movement trays i’ll be using!

2000 points is our standard battle and seems right, the forces can have a few big hitters and still look like an army. I like the idea of smaller games but can’t stand seeing things like Nagash, Supreme Overlord of Undeath,  heading to battle with 2 units of 20 skeletons. I think small games need a limit on the heroes you can take to still look and play right (just my opinion of course).

[Deadkitten]

4 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

So, rather than talking about points... should we be talking about unit limits/requirements?

For example:

If one were to be playing at non-standard “levels” eg 1500 ... should one be working with the vanguard leader/battleline etc requirements, or the Mid-level 2k limits?

Especially with the +/- Rules For Pitched Battle type options.

OMG YES.

2000 pts

3 Leaders Max

6 Battle Line Min

is completely different from

6 Leaders Max

3 Battle Line Min

[Bellfree]

No. Fortunately Sigmar isn't running into the 40k problem where about 50% of all games fail to finish in a 3 hour period, but enough games still do go to time that increasing the point level just isn't necessary. 2000 is fine.

[Jamopower]

9 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

I don't really agree with this. WHFB 8th edition had options to play at lower points levels that worked fine. The real barrier to entry was the gaming community that established 2k+ games as the "standard" and broadly refused to play lower pointed games. The dominant  tournament mentality greatly limited new players from joining the hobby (IMO of course) as the money and time commitments were huge for new players.

I would hate to see AOS trend in that direction as well.

There is still certain limit how small WHFB games can go to still be able to play the "same game" as with the larger points, as the block combat doesn't really show its strengths when you only have two blocks, a hero and a cannon on the table or something equal to that. AoS doesn't have that. Of course there are less synergies and such in small games, but the main good part, which is the combat system, works equally fine in 500 points as in 5000 points.

[AaronWilson]

I will say after making lots of lists last night, it still feels very tight at 2000 points and I'm having to make lots of tough decisions. Though this may be more of a Tzeentch thing as all the price increases have made list building extra tight. 

[Guest]

The only reason that people talk about 2000 points as if it's the best/normal/default option is because certain sections of the community have collectively told themselves that this is true even though really it's just an anachronistic and irrelevant hangover from WHFB and 40K.

The game works and is fun at any size. 2000 points of models is a lot for most people to buy, build, paint and keep track of in-game. 2000 point evangelists pushing the idea that the rest of us should accept 2000 points (or more, apparently!) as some kind of official standard need to reel it in.

There is no official standard points size. Any number you pick is arbitrary. The only time that a determination over points size is needed is between 2 people immediately prior to a game - and it should be a discussion, not a foregone conclusion.

For what it's worth, I like 1000 points games on a 4x4 table. I've played 1500 points and am working up to 2000, but I think smaller games will always be my preference. So far everyone in my group has always been happy to give me a game at 1000 points - even the tournament regulars who instinctively gravitate towards 2000 points.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I don’t like the idea of a “standard” point level for AoS.  The system is very flexible and plays very well at a wide variety of levels. I’m also not happy with the “standard” being considered tournament level matchedplay but that’s a different conversation.

I’d don’t think 2000 pts could really be considered standard for tournament play either I’ve cerrainly seen as many that are other points levels. 

I worry that it’s the sort of thing that creates a barrier to entry for people wanting to get into the game. In WFB it almost boardered on gatekeeping “sorry son you’ve not got 2000 move on till you get some more”. It’s also a false premise created within the community itself and creates a very static view of the game, in that certain things are only worthwhile if good in a small number of scenarios at one particular points level. 

Now this isn’t to rundown tournaments or 2000 point plus games. It’s just my concern when it’s advertised or pushed as the standard or ideal  way to play it can be to detriment to everyone in the long run.  No problem with people prefering certain play styles but it causes issues then opinions are presented as objective fact. 

[AaronWilson]

I think people are overreacting a bit, I don't think anyone has stated "2000 points is law, 2000 is only the point level tournaments can be played at". Most people that said they like playing 2k also have said they enjoy smaller games. 

2000 points is just currently what most tournament organisers feel gives the most "complete" list for people to compete at, that said they are events that are bigger / smaller points. Personally I prefer 2000 points as I feel I get to have a list with 80% of the things I want in and can cover more corners, at 1000 points I feel it skews harder to certain things. That said, in the new edition I've not played 2 1500 and 3 1000 point games as locally people are building up forces and I've enjoyed them all. 

[Karol]

But isn't it just tournaments, no one is saying that If you try to play 1950pts you get hit by a lightning, but 2000pts seems to be the thing played in tournament games too. When people post their lists we don't see many 750 or 1500 pts ones.

[Dragobeth]

2k points is fine,  if you make the "standard" something like 2500 or 3000 it could affect balance and new players (that's just what happend with WFB, we DON'T want to follow that path, trust me)

You may say that 500 or 1000 points more will help you with having more things in your list but limitations are a good thing, having a limit amount of points makes you do decisions in list building and 3000 or 2500 could be too loose and make us just have a lot of CPs or batallions, etc.

And, as other said already, if the "standard" is bigger, that could make it harder for the new players. Ofc, you can say that the "standard" doesn't force you to play at that points but it makes harder to find games at others levels of points. 

TL;DR 2k is fine, having limits for list build helps balance, prevents too many models on the table outside horde armies and CP/batallions spam and the bigger you make the "standard", the harder you make it for new players

 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Karol said:

But isn't it just tournaments, no one is saying that If you try to play 1950pts you get hit by a lightning, but 2000pts seems to be the thing played in tournament games too. When people post their lists we don't see many 750 or 1500 pts ones.

I think one is the subject of the other & visa-versa.  Because many tournaments run at 2000 points, those are the lists people post up.  That ultimately suggests to newer players that 2000 points is the "standard" size and we end up in a vicious circle

In truth, I'm a massive fan of the way 40k's army building set-up works.  You have a very granular matched play points system - you pay for individual models, specific pieces of equipment etc.  You then have the more casual Power Level system, where a unit is worth x PL for so many models.  It's super quick to work out a list and people play PL based games of all sorts of different sizes - "I've got 23 PL painted up - fancy a game?"  "Yup, I can do 24 PL if that's OK?".  Part of me hoped deep down that we'd see the same implemented in AoS for the new edition.  Yes, the Power Level system is flawed - you can "min-max" units, but most people are able to create pretty balanced lists without going silly and for quick games it's a really solid way of creating an army

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think one is the subject of the other & visa-versa.  Because many tournaments run at 2000 points, those are the lists people post up.  That ultimately suggests to newer players that 2000 points is the "standard" size and we end up in a vicious circle

Exactly this. People who are inclined towards competitive play are more likely to A) take the more common tournament points size as their default, and B) try to hone their lists by soliciting advice online.

I'm more inclined towards narrative play, open play and lower point games. I sometimes discuss tactics and army composition in very broad terms, but I've never felt the need to post a full list online for feedback, because I don't care about maximising my competitive edge.

[Overread]

Don't forget most people don't look online - some even consider using army lists posted online as cheating. 

In fact its not abnormal that at any club (barring the biggest) there might only be one or two people who actually go online and interact and not many more who read extensive online articles or forums. Even though warhammer is very "geeky" not many people get into the online world at large. 

 

So army lists online only impacts a portion of the market influence. The greater influence is what happens at the actual clubs themselves. If everyone at a club pays 2K points and no one plays less then that has a far bigger effect no matter if online army lists are 500, 2000 or 5000 points on average. The marketing also plays a big part, GW just wasn't pushing any real marketing for fantasy besides new army launches when they happened. So as a result players were not made more aware of skirmish rules nor encouraged into them. GW can improve that easily by simply releasing some skirmish focused content and focusing a bit of attention on it every now and then; that should filter down to local games. 

 

I think its one reason that Kill Team now has its own rules structure; its not just "40K with less models" but its own unique game. That makes it interesting in itself and provides something different for gamers to engage with. 

[Infeston]

I am one of the people who also never started to play Warhammer Fantasy, because of the huge money and time investment needed for most battles. At this time I only bought the models, because I liked painting aspect. I always wanted to start playing, but everytime I looked at the requirements for playing I gave up. ?  The huge requirements which I were needed in Warhammer Fantasy to play an "official standard game" were also one of the reasons, why I never played Warhammer Fantasy. AoS was the first Tabletop game which really pulled me in. I really like that most of AoS battles are smaller games and that they are often shorter.

I think this has pulled me and others back into the game. If the standard game size would be increased I have to say that I might start loosing interest again, because the game goes back to catering to the hardcore/elite players. 

Me and my gaming group are all relatively new to the tabletop gaming hobby and most of the time we play 700-1300 point games. And we often need 2-3 hours to finish them. I am strictly against increasing the game size. I also have to say that I never understood why the standard game size was 2000 points instead of 1000 points. 

I have never played Warhammer Fantasy, but maybe this is still a leftover from Warhammer Fantasy? I don't really know. I like small battles. I would prefer decreasing the standard game size.

Because the moment I started with AoS I played 500-1000 points games with my gaming group. And we were mostly "new players". After some time I searched the internet about how "the internet" and the community plays this game and I was seriously "shocked" that the standard game size was "2000" points. 

My first thought was: "How much money do these people have???" Now after having painted more models and build a bigger collection I can some kind of "understand" why people want to play bigger games, because you really want to use most of your models. And I think many people who want to play 2000 point games are also coming from the Warhammer Fantasy era. 

 

But why even make 2000 points the standard game size? "Standard" would be the "average player". That means that the average AoS player has to invest 200-300 Euro (I'm from Europe ;-)) to play the "standard game size". 

I would say that the standard AoS player most of the time owns an army which consists of 1000 points. I think more people would play AoS if the "standard game size" was even lower.

 

Edit: Even when I read this thread i see more people playing and preferring 1000-1500 point games rather than 2000 point games. So why has it even become the standard if most of the people play smaller games anyway?

[erasercrumbs]

The standard should be a 50 point game of Skirmish.