2000

[Ciotola]

hello, why in many forums, fb pages and various social networks the majority of the community thinks according to the 2000 points?

let's clarify the reason: at 2000 the competitive is balanced, it is the one played in tournaments and gw sells more and is happy.

but what always leaves me confused is the following situation:

1: "hello I'm looking for 1000 pt competitive lists"
2: "there is no competitive 1000 pt"
1: "so at 1000 points you are not able to think about what is strong and breaks the meta? Or if there are mini combos that can be implemented to take advantage of the opponent? And who plays 2v2 how does he do it?"
1: "there is no competitive 1000 points"

would someone be able to explain to me why most of the players do not know how to reason lists below 2k points? is it really that hard to figure out what's strong in the half of the standard points?

I'm not clarifying a meta / tier list (which in any case arises as a consequence of the reasoning about what is strong in the chosen format, ergo it can exist at 1000 pt) I ask nevertheless not most of the players can not build a list that has strengths , a minimum of synergies, cohesion and meaning at 1000 pt

thanks for the answer, I hope to find a more reasoned answer than "1000 pt is not competitive"

[Overread]

I don't know, I've seen a fair few people ask about Meeting Engagement or 1K armies and get good solid advice in general. 

 

Sure there's no real competitive scene at 1K compared to what there is at 2K so there's no real "competitive meta builds"; but there's plenty of advice on helping build lists and people willing to help people build 1K lists.

[Doko]

Very easy,the game plans are balanced with 2000 points.

At 1000 points if you use the same battleplans that for 2000 points wont be balanced.

You have to defend and get the same number of objetives but you have the half units to do.

So at 1000 points expensive units are useless and horde is even better than it is at 2000 points allready.

 

Example at 2000 points a elite army with 6 units can use 3 to defend and other 3 to attack but at 1000 points only have 3 units and now or defend or attack but cant do both.

But a horde army have around 14 units at 2000, 3 to defend and 11 to attack,at 1000 points gonna have 7 units,enough to defend and attack with 3 units.

 

At 2000 its balanced,at 1000 is umbalanced and it is autowin for the horde army.

Also at 2000 points models as nagash,archain etc are around 50% of you list but at 1000 almost all you list.

 

Even at 2000 we would call it umbalanced if we had 4000 points games,

[TheCovenLord]

Part of this I believe is not that there aren't "broken" and competitive choices at 1k points. Its just that there are fewer options for many forces (that rely on armywide synergies or various buff pieces that can be impossible to fit into such a small list) to deal with them. It also encourages skew listing as the ability to counter extreme strategies becomes limited when your options are so low. In effect the list of "haves vs have-nots" only becomes more heavily weighted into the "have-nots" category at 1k and many people do not like that and it shows.  It also chews into armywide playstyles which may be encouraged by battalions/sub factions that do not particularly work well at 1k.

I guess a simple example is very few armies can carry enough kit in a 1k list to deal with  a ghoul king on terrorgheist that can fight twice or a mega-gargant if they are not capable of fielding their own independent piece of equal power.

 

Its less that people don't want to find good stuff its just that the list of good stuff becomes so slim that you would probably only ever see a few factions played at a high level there (even fewer than at 2k which is already ENDLESSLY complained about from a balance perspective but is actually pretty reasonable as far as it goes). Furthermore a list that small starts to become a skirmish game and frankly there are better systems offered by GW let alone by other companies that do skirmish games way better than AoS.

Edited February 22, 2021 by TheCovenLord

[Ciotola]

7 minutes ago, Doko said:

Very easy,the game plans are balanced with 2000 points.

At 1000 points if you use the same battleplans that for 2000 points wont be balanced.

You have to defend and get the same number of objetives but you have the half units to do.

So at 1000 points expensive units are useless and horde is even better than it is at 2000 points allready.

 

Example at 2000 points a elite army with 6 units can use 3 to defend and other 3 to attack but at 1000 points only have 3 units and now or defend or attack but cant do both.

But a horde army have around 14 units at 2000, 3 to defend and 11 to attack,at 1000 points gonna have 7 units,enough to defend and attack with 3 units.

 

At 2000 its balanced,at 1000 is umbalanced and it is autowin for the horde army.

Also at 2000 points models as nagash,archain etc are around 50% of you list but at 1000 almost all you list.

 

Even at 2000 we would call it umbalanced if we had 4000 points games,

when we play at 1k, by logic, we halve even goals and halve the odd ones in excess. we halve the size of the field and the number of scenic elements. this more easily leads to melee, ranged abilities that are easier to trigger but the random component of this is just one more after the different dice rolls that affect much of the game.

[MarkK]

35 minutes ago, Doko said:

Very easy,the game plans are balanced with 2000 points.

At 1000 points if you use the same battleplans that for 2000 points wont be balanced.

You have to defend and get the same number of objetives but you have the half units to do.

So at 1000 points expensive units are useless and horde is even better than it is at 2000 points allready.

 

Example at 2000 points a elite army with 6 units can use 3 to defend and other 3 to attack but at 1000 points only have 3 units and now or defend or attack but cant do both.

But a horde army have around 14 units at 2000, 3 to defend and 11 to attack,at 1000 points gonna have 7 units,enough to defend and attack with 3 units.

 

At 2000 its balanced,at 1000 is umbalanced and it is autowin for the horde army.

Also at 2000 points models as nagash,archain etc are around 50% of you list but at 1000 almost all you list.

 

Even at 2000 we would call it umbalanced if we had 4000 points games,

I would like to see battleplans based on  points level like 40k in the next edition of AoS, there could even be points limits on single models to stop people bringing things like Morathi to 1000 point games.

Personally I prefer the smaller format, as I can build, paint and play much sooner, whereas a full 2000 point army would take me ages to put together and paint, before I can even think about playing a game.

[Doko]

I prefer 2000 because i have more room for more units.

But i have played some 1000 points against new players and i usually just run my 2000 lists but cutting heroes and elite units.

Also we never tougth reduce the objetives,we played with the measures of meeting engagement that are smaller than regular 2000 points maps.

[Joseph Mackay]

8 hours ago, TheCovenLord said:

Part of this I believe is not that there aren't "broken" and competitive choices at 1k points. Its just that there are fewer options for many forces (that rely on armywide synergies or various buff pieces that can be impossible to fit into such a small list) to deal with them. It also encourages skew listing as the ability to counter extreme strategies becomes limited when your options are so low. In effect the list of "haves vs have-nots" only becomes more heavily weighted into the "have-nots" category at 1k and many people do not like that and it shows.  It also chews into armywide playstyles which may be encouraged by battalions/sub factions that do not particularly work well at 1k.

I guess a simple example is very few armies can carry enough kit in a 1k list to deal with  a ghoul king on terrorgheist that can fight twice or a mega-gargant if they are not capable of fielding their own independent piece of equal power.

 

Its less that people don't want to find good stuff its just that the list of good stuff becomes so slim that you would probably only ever see a few factions played at a high level there (even fewer than at 2k which is already ENDLESSLY complained about from a balance perspective but is actually pretty reasonable as far as it goes). Furthermore a list that small starts to become a skirmish game and frankly there are better systems offered by GW let alone by other companies that do skirmish games way better than AoS.

Ironically, I’ve found a lot of armies that don’t do particularly well in 2000pts are great at 1000pts

[dekay]

Another thing that can break 1000 pts games is summoning. It's very clear that for many armies it's balanced for larger battles. Take Abhorrant Archregent for instance. In 2000 pts game he gives can increase your army size up to 10% for free. In 1000 pts game its 20% while his cost stays the same. One can easily fit two of them in 1000 pt army list. In smaller game getting extra 40 wounds to chew through might be impossible for some armies.

Additionally, take faction terrain into account: it's free and has a fixed effect. Said effect is likely balanced around larger point values, making the faction with better terrain more powerful in smaller games. Sometimes it's easily quantifiable. Say, bone tithe nexus can generate a free mortal wound every turn (it's a minor effect but the easiest one to calculate). in larger game, opponent's army may have for example 200 wounds in total. In a smaller game, it will be 100. Comparative worth of reducing enemy army by 1 wound per turn doubles in a smaller game.

Things like these mean that yes, there are competitive lists for 1000 pts. Problem is, they're often very different to 'standard' competitive lists ,because they take different factors int account. We have large amount of data on which you can base a 2000 point list, because of tournaments and such while no such database exists for smaller games - a lot of most competitive army compositions might be still undiscovered, or at the very least, poorly tested.

So  "there is no competitive 1000 pt" is an oversimplification, but "there's no defined meta for creating 1000 pt lists and data from 2000 pt games may on occasion be worthless if you try to make one" is closer to reality.

[Kaleb Daark]

in a mixed doubles tournament at warhammer world they would ask for 1000 points from each player so it's not unknown territory.

As everyone has said above, the 1000 point game is a very different animal to the 2000 point game where things can easily be turned on their head.

[Fairbanks]

Id like to say “Because at 2000 points, one model isn’t 1/3 to 1/2 my army (if not more)”

Real answer is that it’s an arbitrary number tied to another metric: The time it takes to play a game. Read the WFB 3rd Ed book. Paraphrasing: We expect a 1,000 point battle to last 1-2 hours, and a 2,000 point battle to last 2-3 hours. Idea is supposed to be the same, but we’ve gone bananas with points to where it’s sometimes a 1 hour affair and other times it’s 4 hours.