What is your sweet spot for AoS Game size?

[Dead Scribe]

I don't own 10,000 points,  I typically only own 2000 points plus a little buffer.

[Forrix]

Definitely feels like the game was balanced for 2k points.  Nurgle summoning in particular isn't really dependent on the size of the game. At 1k points its pretty powerful but at 2k its nice without getting overwhelming.

I've had some fun 1k games and like them a lot too but the table can feel barren depending on the scenario and its awkward to take units like Bloodletters and Plaguebearers that depend on their size bonuses to be effective (i.e. taking a brick of 30 at 1k points feels like too much for one unit but you want the hit modifiers).

[Mutton]

Usually prefer 1500-1750, as that's the point at which I've collected all the models from an army that I'd want to own/model/paint. I prefer more diversity in the armies I collect over having tons of stuff for a single army.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Mutton

[bsharitt]

For me, the as the size of the game goes up, I like my games more streamlined, but I like crunchier games at smaller scales(crunch doesn't necessarily mean complexity). I consider Age of Sigmar to be a fairly streamlined game and I think it's level of stream line really hits its stride at 2000 points and works decently +/- 500 points. At around 1000 points I think it gets a little wonky, where some armies work and some don't(that's not to say it can't work smaller for new players, but I think it gets better as games get bigger) and at the 1000 point and below game size I'm going to want to move from an army scale game to warband scale. I'm really liking the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game at that size. That's also why I'm not a big fan of AoS Skirmish, and there are too many better skirmish games out there, some of them GW used to make. The core AoS rules start to get tedious at 3000+, but I haven't looked at the AoS version of apocalypse rules, so I can't make a judgement there, though I don't think it'd take much more streamlining to make it work at bigger games. A ruleset I do like at bigger games that's even more streamlined than AoS is Kings of War(the fact that your all movement trays helps), and for that one, I find the wonkiness threshold starts when you get below 2000 points.

[Moldek]

2 hours ago, bsharitt said:

For me, the as the size of the game goes up, I like my games more streamlined, but I like crunchier games at smaller scales(crunch doesn't necessarily mean complexity). I consider Age of Sigmar to be a fairly streamlined game and I think it's level of stream line really hits its stride at 2000 points and works decently +/- 500 points. At around 1000 points I think it gets a little wonky, where some armies work and some don't(that's not to say it can't work smaller for new players, but I think it gets better as games get bigger) and at the 1000 point and below game size I'm going to want to move from an army scale game to warband scale. I'm really liking the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game at that size. That's also why I'm not a big fan of AoS Skirmish, and there are too many better skirmish games out there, some of them GW used to make. The core AoS rules start to get tedious at 3000+, but I haven't looked at the AoS version of apocalypse rules, so I can't make a judgement there, though I don't think it'd take much more streamlining to make it work at bigger games. A ruleset I do like at bigger games that's even more streamlined than AoS is Kings of War(the fact that your all movement trays helps), and for that one, I find the wonkiness threshold starts when you get below 2000 points.

Very interesting analysis, and I agree with your point on skirmish.

[King Taloren]

2000 is easier to play at because going any lower and my army losses a lot of its effectiveness/becomes very swingy. Cheapest squad is 140 and when you only have one battline without taking a certain general who can cost as much as two battleline to get another battleline choice it’s kind of limiting when you have to make the minimum requirement for battleline and hero’s to play. Can play at lower but then it’s either I have the unstoppable wave of eels which gets boring cause at lower point brackets almost no one has an answer for Ishalen or Morsaar Guard, or take the foot sloughing Thralls and spend half the game trying to get to the objectives that the enemy has been camping on since turn 1. There is not really enough space for the balance I like to play.

Edited March 16, 2019 by King Taloren

[Kramer]

9 hours ago, bsharitt said:

That's also why I'm not a big fan of AoS Skirmish, and there are too many better skirmish games out there, some of them GW used to make.

Oh absolutely true! But for me the models really sell the Skirmish. The posing, the quality, the details all help sell Skirmish for me and tip my interest towards GW instead of competitors. Just thought i'd throw my two cents in  

 

[Ahriman]

Got to throw my support in for 2,500pts.

I find that 2,000 is the perfect amount to get the foundations of an army, but you have to compromise on some of the cooler, larger models (stardrakes, Alarielle ect).

My group tries to do 2,500pts but with only 3 battleline, so its like 2,000pts of 'normal' stuff, with a 500pts treat of some really cool, more powerful stuff.

[Moldek]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Oh absolutely true! But for me the models really sell the Skirmish. The posing, the quality, the details all help sell Skirmish for me and tip my interest towards GW instead of competitors. Just thought i'd throw my two cents in  

 

I agree that while my first skirmish games were not very tactically rich, playing on a board full of terrain with painted minis was still a blast. I think since I’m really into the hobby part, the game is the moment where all that work comes together so it can be really satisfying even when the balance is kinda wonky. I see how it could be really disappointing for more strategy-oriented people though...

[King Taloren]

For me Skirmish is a very hero style game more than troops game. Especially when you play armies where the only models pointed for skirmish are generally horde troops. It’s so underwhelming having two single models attack each other  with one or two dice generally unbuffed and miss every single time. 

[Kramer]

6 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

For me Skirmish is a very hero style game more than troops game. Especially when you play armies where the only models pointed for skirmish are generally horde troops. It’s so underwhelming having two single models attack each other  with one or two dice generally unbuffed and miss every single time. 

Yeah horde vs horde can be a bit... underwhelming  😂But had a great moment where one Stormcast Retributor was surrounded by 5 clanrats. After three rounds of slashing and gnawing there was one dead retributor with one triumphant clanrat on that objective (who was promptly shot off the turn after by a unpainted castigator 😂). 
So horde vs Elite does has it moments, but Elite vs Elite tends to be most spectacular, I agree.

 

27 minutes ago, Moldek said:

I agree that while my first skirmish games were not very tactically rich, playing on a board full of terrain with painted minis was still a blast. I think since I’m really into the hobby part, the game is the moment where all that work comes together so it can be really satisfying even when the balance is kinda wonky. I see how it could be really disappointing for more strategy-oriented people though...

Oh absolutely. But that's also true for AoS in general I think. If you truly want the full blown tactical and balanced strategy game Aos... isn't the best choice i feel.

[Cyberspidermancer]

I've only started playing, but I really enjoy around 1000 points.  It's enough to go all in and get a battalion bonus with a few points to spare, or make a more balanced list with more variety

[Neffelo]

2k points for me. That's the point where I feel that the game designers have written matched play for. 

[NJohansson]

2K for me as well due to overall “balance”. 2.5 - 3K takes way to long and usually involves most of the players models and 1K is to swingy .

[Saxon]

I like 1000pts to 1500pts for the following reasons:

1) games take max 2 hours

2) wayyyy less meta - playing those big characters with minimum battleline every week is a bit tiresome

3) its just less messy with all the BS some of my group can pull with their armies haha

[AverageBoss]

2,000 for me. Game feels most balanced at that point. At lower levels some armies become so hamstrung, the lists pretty much build themselves just to function. I also find lower point games to usually have a rock-paper-scissors feel to them, due to points limitations forcing armies to be more specialized. Then there is simply the fact that there are too many things you can't even put on the table at lower points (can't even field the Khorne dragon under 1.5K points), which takes away tons of fun.

[Fisren]

FLGS plays mostly 1000~1500 points (using 1000 matched play list composition rules):

Similar to what others have said, games are done much quicker, and it caters well to my FLGS as the AoS scene is still relatively new here ( we have maybe 10~20 regular AoS players, with around 90%  of whom only started in the past 1.5 years or so). Most people here start AoS after becoming attracted to a centerpiece, so want to try and play without finishing too many models (i.e. many of my games are against opponents with 1~2+ behemoths/monsters). To put it in perspective, I live in Asia so most players are experienced figurine modelers coming into AoS (most who used to build Gunpla or other figurines), so buy into the game mostly since they find a big piece they want to make (i.e. GUO, Nagash, etc.). Sometimes it becomes a chore to play monster-bash games, but there's a good enough variety that it keeps thing interesting.  

Personally I enjoy building different armies, so only having to prepare 1000~1500 points for different factions is a sweet spot (I can have a good variety of units, make semi-hordes, and not burnout).  

This is probably a slightly different take than most FLGS, but so far its been great!

On another note, I play a good number of 500 point games against newbies or people who are still building they're armies up as well (just for a quick weeknight 30~1hr game). Usually only requiring one hero, one battleline, and whatever else fits. 

[SuperHappyTime]

I said 4000 points, because my favorite selection of 10,000 wasn’t available.

[NemoVonUtopia]

I prefer 2k or more because there is more flexibility and I have found battleplans to be more doable at 2k.

Most of the 1k games I've played turn into a simple brawl since there are less units that can be spared to hold an objective. I still enjoy them and it's good to play people who dont have as many models but I always feel like I'm not getting the full experience.

[MitGas]

2000 but I always feel like I could use another unit, so in my mind 2250 would be perfect.

[Pellynor]

1000-1500 is my preferred level as well. I find especially with 1500 you get all the fun toys and big bonuses but less of the cheese that's common at 2000. With fewer models on the battlefield it really becomes a game of movement and tactical choices rather than powerful combos.