Let's speculate on the upcoming 1k games specific rules

[pseudonyme]

Following the Warhammer Fest reveal on the upcoming 1k games specific rules, I am rather excited to give tje opportunity to throw even more money out of the window in buying viable smaller armies.

Being a complete newbie, what do you think they will change to scale AoS to 1k points games ? What could they do to make the experience different and yet similar to 2k games ? Do you think they could go alternative activations / phases for small games ?

[Tzaangor Management]

I'm excited about this too, as my painting had slowed down recently (stupid new job) and 1K armies are seeming much more likely for me to be able to produce.

I'm wondering if it will be something to do with unit categorization. At the moment armies that can take cheap battleline and then a bunch of elites are in a good position, so I wonder if they'll make the army selection rules more restrictive.

[jaebird]

My bets are:

1) Single Battleline req, heavily restricted behemoths and leaders
2) Smaller boards to make movement matter more
3) Objectives that aren't just "hold place on map w/ the most models"

These would solve the biggest problems with smaller games, imo. Big units and Behemoth spam encourages a meta of very extreme lists, and I'm pretty sure the reason people feel movement matters more on a 6x4 is because it's way more full of stuff than a 4x4.

[pseudonyme]

Not sure about the single battleline requirement, but I can imagine a restriction on the maximum point of any unit / warscroll to avoid block of 40 something and too powerful monsters.

[Thiagoma]

On my community the "meta" is 1250pts.

What happens is that whoever can summon more , wins.

I supose they will restrict it a bit .

[Overread]

I can see them restricting or restructuring the points of battalions so that they are either not in the format or repriced so that they work without taking too many points out of the army. I can see them also imposing a points limit on summoning and also on characters - eg no character over 400 points or such. That would remove some of the bigger elements that can swing games heavily on their own. 

[Aelfric]

Reducing LoN to 2 gravesites instead of 4 would also be nice.

[Neffelo]

I imagine there has to be some kind of limit to summoning, otherwise it will be lopsided in some armies favor at 1k points. 

[Inquisitorsz]

I wouldn't expect any radical changes.

I think it will be stuff like limiting the army allegiance rules like how many grave sites or wyldwoods or nurgle trees or summoning points each player can get. 

That and adjusting scenarios/objectives for 4x4 tables, which isn't too hard to do already anyway. 

[Wraith01]

Probably similar to Kill Team but for AoS. 

[Fairbanks]

1 hour ago, Wraith01 said:

Probably similar to Kill Team but for AoS. 

I would guess 1000 points of AoS would play most similarly to 1000 points of 40K.

[Kasper]

It sounds great if there would be a bigger focus on 1.000 pts armies. Means more but quicker games. Easier to collect etc. Im personally not a fan of huge characters like Nagash, so hope there will be some restrictions.

[peasant]

Dont allow units of >= 300

Doubling point costs for summoned units

Resurrecting miniatures nerfed in different  ways.

It would be my favourite playing Mode, absolutely

[Slaktor]

Really looking forward to this! In my “meta” a thousand points is also the basic army size. I’m starting my third as soon as my new stuff arrives.

It seems that the battlefield size is 4x4 which is great for me! Again I’m building a total of three 4x4 boards and I got to say, sometimes adjusting that 6x4 battle plan isn’t always that easy.  It isn’t always obvious how the map maker intended the game to play out so there is a lot of guesswork.

I also hope this will tie-in with Warcry, and I imagine it will.

Anyway - stoked!

[Bufkin]

Different table size and battleplans made for a 1000 points are the most needed change.

If table size goes down, summoning becomes harder for a lot of armies, not everyone of course, but for a lot of them.

[Gecktron]

Summoning is quite rare in my group. In fact, no army besides FEC summons new stuff to the table (LON doesnt count as summoning for me). 

So I dont get that complain. Nurgle, Tzeentch, Khorne are all pretty limited in smaller games. I havent played against slaanesh in a while, so I dont know how they fare. 

[ledha]

4 hours ago, Gecktron said:

Summoning is quite rare in my group. In fact, no army besides FEC summons new stuff to the table (LON doesnt count as summoning for me). 

So I dont get that complain. Nurgle, Tzeentch, Khorne are all pretty limited in smaller games. I havent played against slaanesh in a while, so I dont know how they fare. 

Khorne is not an issue, because 1) its summoning is horseshit and 2) it rely on number of units killed, making it the only summon system that actually scale with the point number

Nurgle's summoning is stronger but not really an issue too. Tzeentch is already more annoying (10 pinks horrors will create 20 blue then 20 brimstone) but it force to play demons to really play around it and they aren't THAT strong.

But other armies are insane. A seraphon can, with 0 investment, pop 20 skinks per turn, which, combined with the teleport, make fighting them absolutely horrible in 1K pt. FEC summon is basically "bring units for free", such as the archeregent who summon his own cost of ghouls or other units.

LON can use 1 CP to bring back a dead unit. Imagine fighting and killing 30 grimghast reapers only for your opponent to snap his fingers and bring them back.

Slaneesh summoning is complete ****** too. Fir example, if you one shot two keeper of secrets without them doing anything, the slaneesh player can bring back a third one because of the depravity points.

[Kevin K]

What I'd like to see is:

1. Clear definition/diagram of scenarios on a 4x4 table.  Most aren't that hard now, but it creates a discussion and is not exactly obvious.  Around here, this makes most people just do 4x6 for 1k games to avoid the confusion.

2. Limit max unit sizes.  Small games play great when they are basically the same number of moving parts but fewer total models.  1k games can tend to just skew hard because of other factors that encourage big units.  Units of 30-40 in small games make for less fun games.  My first thought would be minimum sized units only, but there are probably units which would be too hard hit by that so maybe they could just have a separate max for 1k vs 2k games.

3. Some summoning probably needs to be adjusted, but not all.  That is covered well in other peoples posts.

[Jamopower]

This sounds very interesting. 1000 points is my sweet spot for this game.

 

I agree with the unti sizes. I would even halve the minimum sizes and put the maximum to roughly twice per minimum size (so for example stormcast units would be 3 to 10 models). Having big units that you can "grease" with command abilities and spells make the games pretty boring.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Jamopower

[jaebird]

It would be really messing and kind of weird to try to change every warscroll on the fly. It seems like it would be easier just to limit squad sizes to only one upgrade past their first. But even still, in 1000pts you can field 7 minimum sized units of goblins. That's 140 wounds with enough points for a Loonboss. Honestly, I'm not convinced that larger units are necessarily a problem. Slow, low offense units dependent on a command ability to be useful seem like they would be easily to deal with by screening them with smaller units, or giving up an objective to focus on others.

Summoning does seem like it's a really weird place. You have Chaos armies that need to do things to summon stuff, and they seem completely fine. I'd be worried about Seraphon summoning, but you are giving up an entire expensive spellcaster to toss out free units (mind you, this can be changed in the GHB update). The Arch-Regent is just absurd and almost certain will be changed I feel (honestly I just looked him up to re-read the rules, and I'm shocked how the model just doubles it's points for free).

I think it's important for GW to get these Meeting Engagements right, but warping how units work seems to make the game less fun and accessible.

[ChaosLord]

Smaller cheaper battalions seems like an obvious thing. Can't fit the current ones in a 1000 point list.

[Equinox]

Since everyone is wish-listing, here is what I would like to see:

1.  No battalions.  Removing them from 1000 point games eliminates 1 drop armies and limits the vast majority of armies to 1 magic item.

2. 0-1 Behemoths.  At a 1000 points, a single behemoth is plenty. 

3. Some type of point limit on hero models that prevents people from bringing Nagash/Morathi/etc., but doesn't stop the smaller unique heroes (Masque/Skulltaker/etc...) from being used.  

4. No maximum size units.  Give the option to vary the sizes of units without going to the limit means no point discounts.  

5. Battleplans that are specifically written for 1000 point games

 

[SleeperAgent]

15 hours ago, Equinox said:

Since everyone is wish-listing, here is what I would like to see:

1.  No battalions.  Removing them from 1000 point games eliminates 1 drop armies and limits the vast majority of armies to 1 magic item.

2. 0-1 Behemoths.  At a 1000 points, a single behemoth is plenty. 

3. Some type of point limit on hero models that prevents people from bringing Nagash/Morathi/etc., but doesn't stop the smaller unique heroes (Masque/Skulltaker/etc...) from being used.  

4. No maximum size units.  Give the option to vary the sizes of units without going to the limit means no point discounts.  

5. Battleplans that are specifically written for 1000 point games

 

I agree with most of this. But I think we should be able to take big units, maybe not 800 points big. Cap it at 400. 

[Scurvydog]

On 5/13/2019 at 3:59 PM, ledha said:

Khorne is not an issue, because 1) its summoning is horseshit and 2) it rely on number of units killed, making it the only summon system that actually scale with the point number

Nurgle's summoning is stronger but not really an issue too. Tzeentch is already more annoying (10 pinks horrors will create 20 blue then 20 brimstone) but it force to play demons to really play around it and they aren't THAT strong.

But other armies are insane. A seraphon can, with 0 investment, pop 20 skinks per turn, which, combined with the teleport, make fighting them absolutely horrible in 1K pt. FEC summon is basically "bring units for free", such as the archeregent who summon his own cost of ghouls or other units.

LON can use 1 CP to bring back a dead unit. Imagine fighting and killing 30 grimghast reapers only for your opponent to snap his fingers and bring them back.

Slaneesh summoning is complete ****** too. Fir example, if you one shot two keeper of secrets without them doing anything, the slaneesh player can bring back a third one because of the depravity points.

Seraphon summon at 0 point investment? That is completely false. A slann as general is required to summon at all. That is 260 points and they also have to sacrifice casting any spells to get summon points. To get the 20 skins you mention a turn an astrolith bearer is needed too for 160 pts. That is then maximum if casting 0 spells 3x3+1+1d3. So you still have to roll a 3+ on that d3 to summon 2 units of 10 skins for a total of 12 points. So your 460 points made you summon 120 points of skins a turn without doing much else. 

Most games are decided before they even get a point return of investment from summoning. 

[DavisMMA125]

On 5/13/2019 at 1:21 AM, peasant said:

Dont allow units of >= 300

Doubling point costs for summoned units

Resurrecting miniatures nerfed in different  ways.

It would be my favourite playing Mode, absolutely

I agree 100% limiting huge horde units, and fixing summoned units so they don’t over take the game would be nice.