Jump to content

Is it time to rethink 2000 points as the "standard" in AoS?


RuneBrush

Recommended Posts

Double turn and randomness in general have a much higher impact on the outcome of the game when you take it down to 1k or even 1.5k.  With more points you have more opportunity to smooth out your dice roles and win the game with tactics and deception which, imo, makes it more fun.  The only reason I don't go to 2.5k or even 3k is mainly time constraints.  

I mean, I want a little randomness in my game.
I also want enough units and rounds to actually employ some tactics and pull some feints and misdirects.
I also want to throw a lot of models on the table.
I also want to get home on time.

At the moment, 2k feels just about right on most of these fronts and given the balance of units in the game.  I honestly feel that with so many large point units (god models, 500 point GUOs, expensive foot troops in factions like OBR/Slaanesh/Lumineth/Idoneth) in the game and things going up in points seemingly in general that 2.5k might be more worth my attention, but I haven't actually tried it yet.  I'd like to hit the table with slightly more models than I often do now, though that's partially 3.0's new coherency rules at fault there skewing everything toward smaller more elite units and battle tactics making model count less important.  

So yeah I'm pretty happy with 2k, but would consider playing larger games.  Smaller games just feel like they constrain list-building too much and don't let me play with my big toys :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really really would love to see Meeting Engagements (1k) refined and expanded on. The 2k point standard would not hurt as much if GW stuck the landing for smaller games.

As for balance: a big complaint about AOS is how 'involved' Gods and Demigods are on the table. Okay, well, 1000 or 1500 point games could have restrictions on characters and larger units, which means these smaller games could be more about Your Dudes fighting each other. I wouldn't say different rules are needed, but some specific restrictions and/or even allowing undersized units at a discount would do wonders I think. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than 90% of my AoS games are 1500pts or less. In fact most are around 1000pts and I think it's by far the best way to play. Games are fast and exciting without so much mental load that I feel like I'm forgetting half the rules all the time. Bear in mind that I play Sons of Behemat, Seraphon Thunder Lizards, and Beasts of Chaos. I have no issues making fun and varied lists at 1k for either horde or monster mash styles  (ok so not that varied for my SoB but still very fun)! 

7 hours ago, readercolin said:

once people try solving it competitively, it quickly leads to un-fun non-games

Unfortunately this pretty much describes my feeling about all competitive (read: tournament) style AoS games. But then I am a filthy casual who enjoys 'gasp' Open Play.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing a lot of narrative recently at 600 points and I've really enjoyed it more than a lot of recent 2000 point games. However, there is one big caveat, and that's that 600 points only really works when people bring fun fluffy lists. 

We've had a few people bring stronger units and it falls apart pretty quickly as the lower the points the less can be done to counter the strongest thing on the board, so if the strongest unit the opponent has kills your strongest unit, you've had it.

I'd recommend people trying small fun games at 500~pts, but I'd not recommend lower point competitive tournaments. 

Also, I've noticed that it's the newest players who seem the most desperate to get to 2,000 points. A lot of the more experienced players prefer the lower points lower tier games, but the newer players want the opportunity to use all of their coolest stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ve been mostly playing 1k games and PtG rather than 2k at my local club, for the same reasons mentioned in this thread.

Still, I  find that 1250pts is the real sweet spot for me. You have enough points to add the unit/hero/monster/endless spell that you have been missing at 1k to make the game more interesting and balance, yet you still  don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of rules and models. (unlike how a 1500/2k game can be.) 

Edited by Sigmarusvult
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to a local event which is using a 1000-point format with heavy additional restrictions: no duplicate units (except for up to one Battleline), a single Reinforcement, and all lists are individually vetted by the TO for units that might cause problems. It's deliberately aimed at being a fun event with lots of variety rather than a serious competition, and so far that really seems to be working. People are really keen on it and it's shaping up to be a great event.

It's unlikely IMO that 1000 points would ever be commonly accepted as a "competitive" format. 2000 points is the level where the kind of game-breaking gimmicks that you need to invest in to compete at a high level feel "complete" - any smaller than that, and you have to start sacrificing synergistic elements or necessary redundancy. It's also where the game's big centrepieces can be reasonably used, and people enjoy getting them on the table because they're impressive and dramatic. I don't think it actually has much if anything to do with balance, since competitive play is all about focusing on the most unbalanced areas of the game and you can make a broken 2000-point list just as easily as a 1000 or 1500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

In my area, the answer is gatekeeping - the same thing (and usually from the same people responsible) that killed fantasy

for others I know personally, it’s because they have limited free time and feel like going out for a ~1 hour game of 1000pts etc isn’t worth their time or effort

for me, I actually prefer smaller games (I generally enjoy the side games more than the main games, like Warcry etc), but I know the people I regularly play with don’t, so I don’t get to play the smaller games very often.

slightly off topic but somewhat relevant: in all my years of playing AoS, I’ve noticed an interesting trend. armies that are generally considered ‘bad’ do quite well at ~1000pts, while the ‘good’ armies don’t seem to do as well as they normally would 

I've heard really good things about the format that was created for 1k games too, although I haven't tried it yet.

I 100% agree that the games functionality changes with points in the game. The you go I go systems of turns gets less and less ballanced as you go over 2000 points. Under 2000 points it's harder to make combos and a lot of the top tier armies are actually just vehicles for top tier combos.

Also the hoard armies tend to be the weakest in the current meta and these will have a distinct advantage at lower points, where an army like SoB will really struggle.

If we moved to say 1500 as the new standard I'd expect some factions to drop off competitively, that might also cause a backlash as these are generally the popular armies. DoK for example can't really do the Morathhi snakes combo. Pink horros remain really point efficient but it's a big investment in holding one objective when you have less points to threaten others.

 

Edited by Rors
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Enoby said:

Also, I've noticed that it's the newest players who seem the most desperate to get to 2,000 points. A lot of the more experienced players prefer the lower points lower tier games, but the newer players want the opportunity to use all of their coolest stuff.

This is part of the reason why I created this thread.  I'm genuinely curious how we seem to have ended up at 2000 points being perceived as the "normal" or only size of an army when very clearly from this thread, lots of people actually really enjoy games at smaller sizes.  Smaller sized games generally means a quicker game, less models needed and requires different tactics and generalship to win.

What I also find curious is that when it launched AoS actually had no points and GW added them because players pushed for them and created their own points systems, so I don't think that 2000 is something GW actually stuck down as the standard (albeit they are now because that's where the pointer has settled) and in fact the first pointed game they ran at WHW was 1000 points.

5 hours ago, Rors said:

If we moved to say 1500 as the new standard I'd expect some factions to drop off competitively, that might also cause a backlash as these are generally the popular armies. DoK for example can't really do the Morathhi snakes combo. Pink horros remain really point efficient but it's a big investment in holding one objective when you have less points to threaten others.

Is this necessarily a bad thing though?  Should a handful of armies stay at the top of the competitive scene because they're popular?  I've been in the hobby for a long time now and seen the rise and fall of many armies due to changes in the rules and associated army books, I can 100% say that it's not unprecedented to see an army go from smashing face to the middle/bottom of the pack.  Yes there is a load of backlash, but it lasts a few weeks until people spot the latest fomo army and grab that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rors said:

 

If we moved to say 1500 as the new standard I'd expect some factions to drop off competitively, that might also cause a backlash as these are generally the popular armies. DoK for example can't really do the Morathhi snakes combo. Pink horros remain really point efficient but it's a big investment in holding one objective when you have less points to threaten others.

 

My answer to this is that, really, the god characters should have been narrative only from the start, so I wouldn’t have an issue with stuff like the morathi snakes combo going away effectively

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joseph Mackay said:

My answer to this is that, really, the god characters should have been narrative only from the start, so I wouldn’t have an issue with stuff like the morathi snakes combo going away effectively

Unfortunately I think a lot of people treat narrative and open play as "the distraction game", and matched play as the "real" game. Taking away the big centerpiece model from what a large chunk of the community views as the "proper" game wouldn't be taken well.

I do agree that it's very hard to balance god models. A compromise would be for the matched play versions to be called "shades" and to be considerably weaker (and cheaper to compensate), and to leave the full fat versions in open and narrative to have fun with. 

That said, as an aside, for those who haven't played narrative lately, Path to Glory 3e is very similar to matched play - to the point where it more feels like you're building a matched play army slowly. It is more balanced than old P2G but it's not particularly narrative either.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

I really really would love to see Meeting Engagements (1k) refined and expanded on. The 2k point standard would not hurt as much if GW stuck the landing for smaller games.

My favorite games were using meeting engagement (mix them with fluffy battleplans for the best explosive experience). My main complain about playing 1k points games is basically the units that you can take, and how crazy are some of them. You really need to talk to your opponent before the game if you want to have a fun game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really love the feel of 1k up to 1.5k battles & how they play out. You have to have players of a similar mindset, though. Or additional restrictions. 
But my local gaming circle & I are as of now „heavily“ investing in smaller games, building specifically tinkered terrain & gaming plates for it.

I‘d love for someone to take the first step in the direction of more organised 1 or 1.5k games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1500 or 2000? Why not both?

As for competitive games, it would be very interesting to see two different metas evolve.

I also think players underestimate how much fun it actually is to play armies where you cannot plonk down a super unit + how changing things up will add more to their game.

Edited by pnkdth
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 points was and is a legacy from old fantasy battle towards the middle of it's life span.

back in 2nd and 3rd ed the points limit was 3-6k, but then again a chaos knight was costing in the region of 100 points.

When we played 1000 point games what we saw back in fantasy was a change in the power dynamic.

So, in old fantasy, a chaos warrior army was forced to take marauders at sub 1000 points if you wanted to survive, as the smaller points games favoured the low point high model count armies like skaven, goblins etc, with skaven and undead absolutely winning as you could just load up on graveguard.

With a high per model count elite army like chaos you'd be noticing a total shift once you tipped the 1250 points mark as in reality you couldn't bring any wrecking balls to the party below that.

But that was then and this is now.

Perhaps also at the same time, go the other way, and look at the rules and see what could be dreamed up for games of 4k plus - we've all got big collections and I think some sort of apocalypse type rules set would actually be very cool with a totally new way of working with generals and army composition.

I do think small games can be fun, and force you to think differently about not only go to alpha units but also to how you use them and move them in order to mitigate disadvantage when you don't have numbers.   Also it's not like AoS heroes on the whole (unique characters at some specials excepted) are like the heroes of old fantasy, where you could happily do 4-500 points (25% of your army)  just on one character.

I don't doubt that with the advent of homegrown and community comping in AoS1 people just reverted back to the 2000 points of old fantasy and it just stuck, and that was easy for GW to buy into as for them it was a case of "well, if they're happy with that 2000pt thing..."

Perhaps it's time for the community / GW to really examine if this is now fit for purpose or if a new model is required, after all, even things like movement was driven around a standardised table of 4x4 or 4x6, and look at the impact that had when they reconfigured table size to 'dining table pattern' and altering play style and dynamics.  Cut 6-12" off a table and suddenly you rethink taking artillery with a minimum range for example.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago my friends and switched to 1500 points for both AoS and 40K. We have not looked back since. We have found it adds more versatility and allows for more experimentation with units. The games are faster, challenging and way more fun. More people play this game as a past time rather than just as something competitve. If I have 3 hours to play, I'd rather play 2 or 3 games with different outcomes and both parties get to enjoy themselves. In my opinion, I think it's better than playing 1 game where it could leave a sour taste behind. 1500 points also gives you list variety still which introduces a different level of tactics and skills to learn as your army general. Plus, how much more diversity on your shelves can you have if you are playing smaller games? You can learn and paint different armies and perhaps discover a love for one you'd have otherwise missed.

Personally, I'd like to see the game switch in this direction and cater more to the "narrative" or "open" play categories. Let tournament organizers establish their standards for competitive play and balance as they need to for their events. This can be through their own point adjustments, rule changes, etc. They just place it into their tournament packs and good to go. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I‘ve come to or more precisely am coming to the same conclusion. 
It even lets me value my minis more. I‘m in the progress of building my own Kruleboys after testing them out with proxies for a bit (to see if I like them) and with the goal of 1000 points for starters I value each single gutrippa differently & it shows. 
And even though I‘ve always had a strong narrative in my armies (charakters have names and stories etc.) Boss Shashlikk (yeah, sorry not sorry) and his acquired taste is on his way to legend right from the get go & without any effort. He survived his two 600 points games so far and is on fire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

Unfortunately I think a lot of people treat narrative and open play as "the distraction game", and matched play as the "real" game. Taking away the big centerpiece model from what a large chunk of the community views as the "proper" game wouldn't be taken well.

It wouldn't be taken well initially, but the competitive scene is adaptable and used to conforming to arbitrary restrictions. GW could make gods narrative-only and people would certainly get upset... for about a month, maybe. Then they'd just write new lists and move on.

Competitive players are also more than happy to shelve big centrepieces as soon as they become an even slightly sub-optimal choice. Without banning gods and similar uber-heroes, GW could still make them de facto narrative-only just by slightly adjusting their most powerful mechanics and/or increasing their points cost.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think AOS is a great system for skirmish level and about 1500 points is it at its best.

Any system, in anything, that requires you to roll 60+ dice at once and then sift through them, I just can't put into words how shockingly poor design that is from multiple perspectives. AOS at 200p points just feels like a maths lesson to me. Maths and matching games, pick out all the plus 4+s etc. The literal physical act of rolling dice obstructs the game for me at that point.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

It wouldn't be taken well initially, but the competitive scene is adaptable and used to conforming to arbitrary restrictions. GW could make gods narrative-only and people would certainly get upset... for about a month, maybe. Then they'd just write new lists and move on.

Competitive players are also more than happy to shelve big centrepieces as soon as they become an even slightly sub-optimal choice. Without banning gods and similar uber-heroes, GW could still make them de facto narrative-only just by slightly adjusting their most powerful mechanics and/or increasing their points cost.

They aren’t going to take models that cost over $100 and make them narrative only. Sure some competitive people can just shelf it and use something else because they have the money/ability to do so but others might have one army, spent a lot of time and effort to paint that model, and now can’t use it in their game. Saying people would be upset is an understatement when you are talking about wasted time and wasted money especially in an environment where even at its core, the basis of this discussion is related to price increases of their product.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Schauer said:

They aren’t going to take models that cost over $100 and make them narrative only. Sure some competitive people can just shelf it and use something else because they have the money/ability to do so but others might have one army, spent a lot of time and effort to paint that model, and now can’t use it in their game.

As I said, all it takes is for them to tweak the warscrolls or the points and they're "narrative only" in all but name, without any official restrictions. Three months ago, Archaon was the lynchpin of every single competitive Chaos list. And now...?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

As I said, all it takes is for them to tweak the warscrolls or the points and they're "narrative only" in all but name, without any official restrictions. Three months ago, Archaon was the lynchpin of every single competitive Chaos list. And now...?

Since January 1st he’s been in every 2-day event slaves list with the exception of two of them 

 

The only drop in usage he’s had is he’s no longer thrown into tzeentch since he can’t guarantee 6s on his instakill sword anymore

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been playing at 1000pt only since I started AoS due to scarce hobby time (including modelling and playing). This is a really good format imo for listbuilding with a good variety of units, a few combos and fast game.

Some official limitations could be

- No duplicates

- No reinforcements

- Only one Behemoth

- No more than 20% i.e. 200pt of invocation through the game

- The actual 500pt limitation for a unit

Broken units that do outrageous damages for their points (Fulminators) should juste be priced more heavily.

Edited by Kokoshi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...