Playing at lower points (750, 1k, 1.5k) - Share your experiences!

[Arzalyn]

Recently some discussion about popularizing games at smaller points range than the "standard" 2000 points. Many people have pointed out how we default to 2000 points and rarely we discuss games at other points ranges. Knowing what work and what don't at those points could help taking the myth that the game can't be balanced at sizes smaller than 2000, point to things that may need to be changed to make those games more enjoyable and help popularize those games.

So share your experiences playing games at those points ranges with us!

[Enoby]

I've played a lot of sub 1000 point games in Path to Glory, and have enjoyed all of them a lot They have always been with friendly lists, but one thing I have appreciated is that on foot heroes feel much more heroic - my Chaos Lord actually did a decent amount of damage, and one of the opponent's Orruk Megaboss on foot is very scary with Destroya (or whatever that +3 damage weapon is called). 

This is narrative so there will be more friendly games and unbalanced battleplans, but each unit feeling more impactful is a huge boon when you want to be a bit more experimental with unit choices (you can of course experiment in 2000 points, but the smaller the points the more a unit will stand out usually). 

The speed is also nice too - I've played a lot of 750 point games, and getting them done in an hour or so is great.

There are a few issues, but nothing that's been game breaking. As mentioned, every unit is proportionally more impactful, so certain units may be too big to use in a fun way. For example, I was asked to stop using the Karkadrak lord at 750 points and under as it was too difficult to deal with. That wasn't an issue with a group of friends, but may be harder to moderate with strangers.  

[Noserenda]

Played a load of 600pt games of ptg, just climbing to 1000 in the last couple and it was great fun, though some monsters just under 300pts were a bit brutal! 

[Ferban]

I've played dozens of games 1k and below.  Especially with Path to Glory.  I think if you were trying to bring a hyper-competitive list, it would feel very unbalanced.  But with narrative focused games, I've had a blast every time.  And I agree that the shorter game time can mean the difference between getting Warhammer to the table or not playing at all. 

[amysrevenge]

The trick that I've noticed in myself with small games in general is that the more time I spend thinking about my list ahead of time, the less fun the games end up being.

If I whip together something and play it, and my opponent does something similar, we both have a nice time win or lose.  If either or both of us spend a bunch of time fine tuning the best list we can get, the game isn't as fun.  It feels like there are more stakes.

Edited March 4, 2022 by amysrevenge

[Nos]

On 3/4/2022 at 10:39 PM, amysrevenge said:

The trick that I've noticed in myself with small games in general is that the more time I spend thinking about my list ahead of time, the less fun the games end up being.

If I whip together something and play it, and my opponent does something similar, we both have a nice time win or lose.  If either or both of us spend a bunch of time fine tuning the best list we can get, the game isn't as fun.  It feels like there are more stakes.

Yeah same.

PTG/low point games are a way for me to paint stuff I like and then get it on the table without a headache or high stakes. It's an extension of the creative side.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I frequently play games around the 1000 point mark. In one word, I would characterize the experience as janky. What I mean by that is that everything kinda works, but not really and you need a lot of good will on all sides for things not to be come absurd.

Just a few points:

It is often hard to hit 1000 points exactly. At a smaller game size, one unit more or less can make a big difference. But you hit situations where you are at 900 or so points and can't reasonably fit anything else in your list pretty often. In 2000 points, I would say just rejigger your list a bit, take an endless spell or go for a triumph. At 1000, there is often not enough room to adapt your list, however, and wasting the points on non-units is a notable disadvantage.

Likewise, there are plenty of units in the game that only have a functional real role reinforced and with support. Otherwise they just don't perform. Example: Soulblight Skeletons. They have a defensive role in blocks of 30 with a necromancer supporting them. At a lower size and without a necromancer, the only role they have is chaff. In 2000 point lists, the average army can have about 3 synergystic threats. At 1000 points, you probably only get 1 and a bunch of less impactful stuff.

At the same time, depending on how you handle battle plans, some units turn into extreme overperformers. Due to the smaller table size. some slow units can suddenly first turn charge if you don't keep the deployment distances from 2000 fixed. Like Black Knights: One of the worst units in the Soulblight book, but at an 18" deployment distance, they threaten to charge turn 1 guaranteed, which gives them a completely different role. Same for shooting: 18" range units might be able to fire on the opponent turn 1 when they usually can't at 2000. Big monsters usually get considerably better, since they are frequently self-reliant and don't scale with points at all.

How to adapt battle plans is a fairly difficult question in general. At 1000, most armies don't have the amount of units needed to be in three places on the board at the same time. But a lot of battleplans assume that armies are capable of doing that. Since the capture area on objectives does not scale with points, more of the game area will be objective area. The distance between objectives will probably be significantly decreased, too.

My personal way of dealing with these problems is to lean into the jank. 1000 points is not the game size where I expect balance. Rather, it is the size where I and my friends can play those weird battle plans from the battletomes and other asymmetric scenarios. It is the place where you don't expect to be able to play a game rules-as-written, but rather the one where you have to tinker around with mechanics so that everyone can have fun. Balance, here, is not "everyone can feel like they have an equal chance to win every game". It's more "over time, people will win and lose about the same number of games". You just have to be comfortable with the idea that some games will be ridiculous blowouts and have fun with seeing how wild everything gets. And then when the game is over, you have to be able to say "That was absurd, let's not do that again" without anyone getting their feelings hurt.

There are a bunch of aspects of the game that just don't scale with points. And the way these aspects interact is what makes me believe that the game is balanced around 2000 points. Not that the game is perfectly balanced at that level and unplayable anywhere else. Rather, movement and shooting ranges, unit sizes, unit interactions, damage vs. defensive power and a bunch of other aspects of the game seem to be directly informed by the idea that the battlefield is a certain size and that armies can fit in about 3 full-power threats into their lists.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Wordy9th]

Some great points from the post above. 

This hit me a fair bit when my son showed interest in the warhammer world 'battle initiates' tournament, where there are games of 750 points but with no subfaction allegiance abilities. This, like other aspects of smaller point games, really hits some armies and lists hard and makes others significantly stronger.

For example, Stormcast not having their 6+ ward on an objective isn't so much of a deal compared to say, petrifex elite's +1 save, or Vyrkos' reroll casts and +1 to wound. 

Armies like soulblight which was mentioned in the post above can rely on synergistic elements that require more than 1k points to achieve and still have an army capable of doing anything.

Armies like Slaanesh, which I've just started collecting, can use summoning to have a much greater effect on the board at lower points. 

This can of course be worked around with agreements and players gripping their beers and pretzels firmly, hell I've done this in D&D all the time when rules can get bent in order to produce a better experience, but the constant sensation of playing the game as an open play fun time can make the experiance a little less satisfying for those of us who like to feel that the game is a more solid, "balanced" experience. 

 

Edit: I realize the thread is mainly asking for experiences, and I'm planning to have my next 1k point game this weekend so I'll let you guys know how it goes!

Edited March 7, 2022 by Wordy9th

[novakai]

My experience has been mix it depends on who I play with and what kind of game we are playing. 
 

playing at 1000 pt is fine and quicker but stuff like Sons and even simpler stuff like max storm fiends and BCR are just terrible to play against unless you talior your list to counter them in someway. The best way to play at lower level is if both side agree to bring more balance army list and not to bring anything too agregious but sometime it hard when most people want to put models on the table that they want to see what they do. The Double turn and who get to choice turn order also more of decisive factor at lower level then it is in higher levels. I often find the first two turns order often decided who wins the game 

Edited March 7, 2022 by novakai

[readercolin]

I have played a number of games at lower points.  This ranges from path to glory games, open play games, and matched play games, and I've had different experiences with each of them.

First off, path to glory.  I have done a few path to glory leagues at this point, and at this point I have nothing but distaste for the path to glory battlepack.  Going through the battlepack, you can see that whoever wrote those "missions" was focused on having people get up and smash in melee and it was going to be a game of whoever is better in melee wins.  Like, seriously, half your army comes in at a board edge, but the only restriction is more than 3" away from enemy units?  Or deploying 9" away from each other at setup?  What's the mission?  Kill your opponents army?

Like, seriously, its terrible.  Armies are designed differently.  Some are better at killing, but slow.  Some are better at objective play.  Some are better at getting to where they want to be faster.  All these things can come out and be used in various ways in matched play, but when you start the game deploying in charge range, a lot of the nuance gets thrown out the window.  Its fine for "I just started a new army and want to test it out", but for actual gameplay I honestly never want to play a game from that battlepack again.  Note that this is applicable whether you are playing at 600 points or at 2k points, and at every level in between.

Open play is a lot better.  It still loses some of the nuance, as there are 6 victory conditions, and 5 of them have objectives on the battlefield.  The changes to deployment areas also means that some battles you can start in easy charge range, while others you can start rather far away.  This can make games much swingier, but at the same time you kind of know that you are signing up for this when you decide to play open play.  The random "effects" can also make a huge impact - after all, do you really want to build your army around longstrikes when you have a 1/6 chance of rolling the effect that your max range turn 1 is 12"?  Or a chance that every hero phase someone is potentially getting struck by lighting and taking mortal wounds?

I'm of the opinion that open play is best for smaller point games as leaning into the randomness there is going to make it easier to brush off the imbalances of small point games.  And yes, there are a lot of imbalances there... and if you get blown out it is really easy to just roll up another one and have a go at it again.

Finally, Matched Play.  I like matched play for 2k games.  However, some of those battle plans are just terrible at 1k.  Yes, we are playing with 6 objectives and I'm fielding... 4 units?  No way for this to go poorly, right?  Other battleplans are fine - Tectonic Interference is a fine battleplan for any number of points, and the vice is (almost) always fun every time I play it.  At the same time, as soon as 1 person decides to optimize, they inevitably end up with a skew list and the games become very not fun, as either someone can't answer the skew or hard counters the skew, and the game is usually over on turn 2 one way or another.  The fixed positioning of objectives for matched play also means that games play out rather differently every time you adjust the table size.

Overall, if I were to make any sort of recommendation, it would be to stick to open play when you are playing smaller games.  Its fun, its random, and it is easier (in my opinion) to shrug off the inevitable blow out games because, hey, it happens sometimes.

[Noserenda]

Yeah the narrative scenarios section is weirdly disconnected from the rest of the narrative section which is mostly PtG and then a bunch of scenarios that are super specific, often asymmetrical situations, and typically the sort of thing a narrative builds up to rather than rolling a dice to pick one at random, which was certainly the old assumed reason to play narrative in 40k, not sure about AoS. But now we have Crusade/Path to Glory and it could do with changing up a bit. When we arent doing a game day we usually pick a more "meeting engagement" scenario from elsewhere or improv one anyhow. 

+1 to Open play being good though, the keeners in the group played a few games of it before everyone else got their PtG sorted and it was a pleasant surprise, though some of the twists (I think it was twists anyhow?) were hilariously imbalanced

[Gitzdee]

I love Open play for my 750-1000p games. Just slap together an army and have a go. I hope GW will look to Warcry as an example for the variety of setup/battleplan options it has. I like the concept of Open play but it feels like it still is in the baby fase compared to matched play. I hope the new generals handbook will fix some of this. I dont own the last one but i dont think it has much content for Open play. 

I have a question for u all. What table size do u use for your smaller games and how do u scale these battleplans? 

I use a 44x30 mat as i dont have space for a bigger table at the moment. I kept everything as is shown in the battleplan. But reading some of the comments i am thinking about reducing the range for holding objectives a bit for my next game. 

Btw i love the support lower point games are getting on these forums lately. I have spent some time on other sites but it mostly got ignored there. I like seeing that i am not the only one having fun with this side of AoS and reading about others experiences.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Iksdee

[readercolin]

8 hours ago, Iksdee said:

I love Open play for my 750-1000p games. Just slap together an army and have a go. I hope GW will look to Warcry as an example for the variety of setup/battleplan options it has. I like the concept of Open play but it feels like it still is in the baby fase compared to matched play. I hope the new generals handbook will fix some of this. I dont own the last one but i dont think it has much content for Open play. 

I have a question for u all. What table size do u use for your smaller games and how do u scale these battleplans? 

I use a 44x30 mat as i dont have space for a bigger table at the moment. I kept everything as is shown in the battleplan. But reading some of the comments i am thinking about reducing the range for holding objectives a bit for my next game. 

Btw i love the support lower point games are getting on these forums lately. I have spent some time on other sites but it mostly got ignored there. I like seeing that i am not the only one having fun with this side of AoS and reading about others experiences.

I think that open play and path to glory don't really need any changes on smaller table sizes (my complaints about the path to glory missions notwithstanding), mostly because any objectives aren't fixed, and instead has rules for how far away from other things it needs to be placed.  I would argue that for the "best" game you should ensure that your armies are deploying at least 18" away, as that is the minimum distance possible specified in the GHB.  But every mission in the GHB (assuming you are playing on the "minimum" table size of 60"x44") has deployment such that if you start your armies as close to each other as possible, they will be between 18" and 24" away.

As for objectives, this isn't really a problem in open play, as there is no fixed objective positioning.  Similarly, it isn't really much of a problem in Path to Glory, as there is 1 mission that has multiple actual objectives to control.  But for matched play, shrinking the table size in a mission that runs with 3 objectives on the same horizontal line can mean that the objective zones overlap, and that can potentially be an issue.  Do keep in mind that there is a rule stating that a single unit cannot control more than 1 objective (so if you throw a unit of cavalry down in a blocking formation, they can theoretically sit on 2, or even 3 objectives at once, but they only count for control on 1 of those - but you get to choose which one), which means that overlapping objectives may not be the biggest issue.  Overall, I would only adjust that if you find yourself having issues with the game.

[Equinox]

I have only play 1k pitched battle, GHB 2021 games this edition, so here are my personal experiences:

• Pitched battle rules work well with the exception of needing the 50% limit.  
• 44" x 60" is a good size at 1k.  If you play smaller, don't complain when everything is in combat first turn.
• Large, LOS blocking terrain really helps to make for better games.  If you start a game where every model has LOS to every other model, don't be shocked if shooting dominates.
• Use the mysterious terrain rules and pay attention to them.  If you just roll and ignore them, it does have an impact.  As an example, I have won games because of deadly and sinister terrain coming into play at critical points. 
• Opponent's that bring >6 units and play to the objectives are more challenging than ones who bring very elite armies.  As an example, I have now played Marking Territory a few times and have won it each time as I could control all the objectives at a critical point without doing much fighting (7-9 units in my army each of those games).  I have also lost other games simply because my opponent had more units at his disposal and picked his match-ups well.  
• Competitive types will bring harder lists (I know, shocker...) and exploit "flaws", doesn't matter the size.  
• 1k tends to scare away the competitive types once they graduate to "real" AOS (Yes, I am mocking some of you).  The only exception I have noticed is with regards to tournaments with good prize support.  Suddenly those types are willing to play sub-par AOS (Again, mocking some of you).  Run a 1k with no prize support and those same folks wont show.  
• Yes, I have seen the infamous FEC Archregent list.  3 Arch-regents and 30 ghouls.
• 1.5 hours is a good time limit once players know the rules.  
• Seen a better assortment of units and battletomes.  Played, and lost, to a SoD player with both a Ogoroid and Fomoroid in his list.  

Personally excited to see the results of Iron Dice 1k on March 19 and the Honest Wargamer 1k weekend event in early April (9th-10th).  The ID1K is out of the GHB with no modifications, while the HW1k has comp if I heard correctly.  I am also attending a 1k event the weekend of March 19th, so I can share some of my experiences from it.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Equinox

[Kadeton]

The last two games I've played have been 1000 points on 4x4 tables. I honestly didn't notice that much difference compared to 2000-point games, except that the games were quicker, lists felt far more constrained (you can't just bring everything you need, but have to make tough choices), and summoning felt more powerful. However, that was with the players consciously and deliberately building armies to avoid skew and unbalancing units and synergies - honestly, at both 1k and 2k points, the game is much more fun when people aren't just trying to win in the list-building phase.

[Wordy9th]

Okay had a 1k game on Friday, Hedonites of Slaanesh vs Ossiarch Bonereapers.

In short, it was a very fun game but incredibly swingy.

OBR melted my army in the first couple of turns and by turn 3 I had only my Shardspeaker and 4 Seeker archers left. In return I’d killed his morghasts and one stalker.

I then summoned a keeper of secrets, who made their charge on a 9, and did a staggering 17 wounds from lucky 6s, melting the entire unit of Kavalos deathriders. It then went on to melt the unit of 20 mortek in combination with its horde killer spell and that was game.

a very unexpected turnaround, one which showed how amplified all aspects of AoS are in smaller conditions.

1- swingy rolls end the game faster

2- mechanics such as summoning (among others) have an engorged impact on the game.

3- less variables can mean one flank is one unit vs one unit with dice determining who wins one third of the board, and less synergistic elements make dice rolls more pronounced over the impact of positioning and buffs etc.

Overall it was a fun experience, but one which showed that what ifs decide games on the knife edge of a single combat. I’d keep such games to necessity of time rather than a rounded total experience.

It left many questions, such as should house rules be made to limit summoning? What about the fact there’s less units to get depravity from? Is summoning a 420 point unit too much for a 1k point game?

such questions never have easy answers, but it shows the limitations of a format that is not fully supported and is left at the hands of the players.

if you’re playing new players, need the game to last shorter, or don’t much care for how the game goes win or lose, 1k games seem to be a good shout. 

otherwise there are a lot of questions about how legit a game can feel under such conditions, and I can see why players prefer to play at 2k where so many game balance factors are taken into account by the developers.

 

[Kadeton]

Four 1000-point games today, at an 18-player local event. I played Nighthaunt, and went up against Tzeentch, Nurgle, Beast of Chaos, and Tzeentch again.

So right off the bat, I can say that there was a way higher representation of Chaos lists at this event than what I'm used to seeing! (There were other factions as well, I just happened to match with Chaos all day.)

Pretty similar feelings overall to what I posted earlier, especially in regards to summoning (since everything I played against was able to summon). Obviously I was playing a super old and non-competitive army, but they felt quite well-matched against my opponents at 1000 points... until the late game, when they just weren't able to cope with the reinforcements. The games all ended up fairly close losses (<5 VP) except the last one where all the Nighthaunt jank actually worked for a change and my opponent was tabled by turn 3. I think that says more about how ridiculously swingy Nighthaunt can be with multiple Waves of Terror than it does about 1000-point games.

I guess my big conclusion for the day was that I enjoy 1000- and 2000-point games in different ways and they provide excellent alternatives to each other. 1000 points is fun, dramatic, but ultimately not too serious; stuff happens very quickly and there's no coming back from a run of even fairly minor bad luck. After six games of that recently, I'm actually keen to play a few 2000-point games to see how my army behaves when there's some real meat on its bones. I suspect I'll just be switching back and forth in future - as soon as one format starts to feel a bit stale, the other one will be a welcome change of pace.

[Equinox]

So this last weekend, I attend a 1k tournament at Hidden Lair in Decatur, Illinois.  There were 6 players in total (5 order, 1 chaos).  For the tournament, I used the following list:

Spoiler

Allegiance: Stormcast Eternals
- Stormhost: Celestial Warbringers (Scions of the Storm)
- Grand Strategy: Sever the Head
- Triumphs: Inspired

Leaders
Knight-Judicator with Gryph-Hounds (205)*
- General
- Command Trait: Shock and Awe
- Artefact: Arcane Tome (Universal Artefact)
- Spell: Lightning Blast

Battleline
5 x Judicators with Skybolt Bows (200)*
5 x Liberators (115)*
- Heavens-wrought Weapon and Shield

Units
3 x Annihilators (200)*
3 x Vanguard-Raptors with Longstrike Crossbows (240)*

Core Battalions
*Battle Regiment

Additional Enhancements
Holy Command: Thunderbolt Volley

Total: 960 / 1000
Reinforced Units: 0 / 2
Allies: 0 / 200
Wounds: 41
Drops: 1

Game 1

My first game was against a great guy named Doug who was playing Stormcast.  He was playing a stormkeep army with a Lord Celestant on a Dracoth, Lord-Relictor, 2 units of Liberators, 1 unit of Prosecutors w/ hammers, 1 unit of Protectors, and 1 unit of birds.  The battleplan for the game was Apex Predators.  

We started the game with me being the defender, so I set-up the terrain which was mostly GW ayzrite ruins.  I tried to set-up the board so that is was symmetrical and had plenty of places that were LOS blocking.  When it came to deployment, Doug spread out his force across the border of his territory.  The LC w/ Dracoth was accompanied by the Prosecutors, while the Lord-R was surrounded by the Protectors and Judicators.  For my one drop, I grouped my Lord-J, Judicators, and Raptors in the center of my territory while the Liberators and Annihilators when into the heavens.  

Since I am short on time, I will just summarize the overall game from this point.  I started the game burning my volley to remove the Lord-R.  I dropped the Annihilators  with the intention of going after his Lord-C, which they failed to do in the first turn.  My shooting phase removed some of the protectors and liberators.  In his first turn, he claimed one objective and proceeded to wipeout the annihilators with his Lord-C.  

In the second turn, I moved the hounds forward and placed the liberators to act as roadblocks.  My shooting phase continued to remove liberators and protectors as the his Lord-C and Prosecutors were out of range of everything.  During Doug's 2nd turn, he continued to advance and charged his remaining liberators into mine.  The proceeding battle sounded like a street band banging on hollow copper pots.  Elsewhere, he failed a charge with the protectors into the hounds.  He also gambled by moving the Lord-C and Prosecutors towards my army.

The third and fourth turn were pretty straight forward as I proceeded to shoot off the Lord-C, Prosecutors and Protectors. The game ended with me chasing an objective and watching his last liberator making a mad dash away from my army before being dropped by an arrow from my judicators.  At the end of 4 turns, we were tied for victory points as Doug was collecting off the single objective and I was achieving my battle tactics each turn.  In the end, the final scores were 11 - 8.  

Looking back on the game, I was surprised that Doug didn't just march his Lord-C along the border and collect objectives.  Having a single leader with pretty crappy mobility meant I was at a disadvantage at the start of the game.  Dropping the annihilators was actually a good decision as it distracted him long enough to allow me to focus on other units in his army.  Shooting was a clear strength for me this game, but inability to play to the objectives kept the game very close.  
 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Equinox
Correction

[Equinox]

Game 2

My second game of the tournament was against a Slaves to Darkness player named Zack.  He was the only non-order player at the tournament.  I was excited to play against Zack and his list because he is a great guy and his army seemed like it would be a tough challenge to play against.  The battleplan for the game was Feral Foray.

Spoiler

Allegiance: Slaves to Darkness
- Damned Legion: Ravagers
- Grand Strategy: Hold the Line
- Triumphs:

Leaders
Chaos Lord (120)
- Reaperblade & Daemonbound Steel
- Mark of Chaos: Undivided
Chaos Sorcerer Lord (135)
- Mark of Chaos: Tzeentch

Battleline
20 x Chaos Warriors (400)
- Hand Weapon & Shield
- Mark of Chaos: Undivided
- Reinforced x 1
5 x Chaos Knights (170)
- Ensorcelled Weapons
- Mark of Chaos: Undivided

Units
Untamed Beasts (Summonable Unit) (0)
9 x Untamed Beasts
1 x Chaos Spawn (55)
10 x Chaos Warhounds (80)

Total: 960 / 1000
Reinforced Units: 1 / 2
Allies: 0 / 200
Wounds: 91
Drops: 6

The intimidating part of his army was the massive block of chaos warriors he deployed in the center of his territory.  To their left he deployed the warhounds and to the right of them he deployed the spawn and knights.  His lord was behind the warriors, while his sorcerer was between the warriors and hounds.

When it came to my deployment, I placed the knight-judicator, raptors and judicators in a row towards the back of my territory while still being in range of some of his units.  Again, the annihilators and liberators were parked in the heavens.  My general strategy for the game was to stall the warriors and eliminate everything else before they could reach combat.  

The first turn of the game started with me shooting at the knights as they were the most immediate threat given their speed.  I dropped the liberators and annihilators into his territory to collect a battle tactic.  I also shifted my gunline to claim the objective closest to it.  In the charge phase, the annihilators failed to charge anything, while the liberators reached the hounds on a good roll.  By the end of the first turn, I had wiped out the knights and dropped the hounds down to 4 models.

In Zach’s first turn, he pushed everything forward and ignored the annihilators.  He summoned the Untamed Beasts to the far right of my gunline.  In close combat, the last of the hounds were killed.

In my second turn, I began focusing on the warriors as I knew trying to deal with them was going to be a problem.  Given the bonuses and ward saves on the warriors, I was only able to remove 4 of them with all my shooting. I moved my gryph hounds forward to screen the warriors and ran liberators and annihilators to claim two of my opponent’s objectives. 

During Zach’s second turn, he moved his cultists onto one of my objectives and charged the hounds with his warriors.   The warriors made quick work of the hounds.  Zach also had a bit of bad luck this turn as he failed to achieve his battle tactic for a second time. 

In the 3^rd turn, Zach charged the judicators as they were the closest target for his warriors.  Things were looking bad as the warriors began pounding on my judicators.  To my surprise, with all the hits and wounds, I was still able to make enough saves to only lose 2 models in the combat.  I was also able to remove a few more of his models, thus bringing them down to 12 models remaining.

In my 3^rd turn, I ran the liberators to claim the last of his objectives and pushed the annihilators towards the spawn.  I also moved the raptors and knight away from the warriors and each other to avoid both units getting wrapped up in a charge.  During the shooting phase, I took aim at his general and was able to score enough mortal wounds and hits to remove him.  In close combat, I lost another 2 judicators, but was able to bring his unit below 50%. 

The final two turns moved fast as I was able to shoot off everything remaining in his army except for the warriors.  At the same time, the last judicator was eliminated after making it through one more combat.  The game ended with me controlling 5 objectives and Zach having 6 warriors remaining on the board.  I do not remember the final victory point tally, but I recall earning all my battle tactics and grand strategy.  As a result, I had a second major victory for the day and a decent VP total. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Equinox
Wrong unit correction

[Equinox]

The Bugeater GT has released their rules packet for the 1K event they are hosting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vZZBYZ4v7vLLCXh5QakZD1M2_ZbwyGYbf_B1MSn-qQQ/edit

I will be attending the event, so I will be curious to see how the composition rules will impact the game at 1k.  In particular, the battleline restrictions are interesting as I am not clear what they intend the impact of them to be.  

[Gitzdee]

I played a 1k game against DoK last week and it went great. Still learning 3.0 as i didnt get many chances to play.

We played Burn and Pillage.

Rolled 3 targets on the Emerald Curse and picked both leaders and a unit of ranged snakes. Spells didnt really do much this game so i'll leave them out.

My opponent had the first turn and didnt manage to get through Lady O ward saves with shooting. He managed to charge the small unit of Spirit Hosts with melee snakes using some kind of combo i dont remember, but only managed to kill 1 model after i boosted the ward save to 5 and saved a bunch. Spirit Torment did some healing to get them back up to 3 models.

My turn Lady O rolled a 3 on Lifting the Veil, healing all the damage on her and killing 2 on a second unit of melee snakes.

I managed to get a bunch of high roll charges in and debuffed some enemy units. Lady 0 failed all attacks and got 4 wounds back. The Spirit Hosts managed to kill a few snake and both units lost 2 models in return. Spirit Torment healed 1 model back on the small unit. I managed to get my battle tactic of terrifying 3 units. Rolled 3 mortal wounds on all 3 emerald curse targets and he only saved 1 damage. 

We Tied on Victory Points and i decided to destroy 1 objective to get a 1 VP lead.

Starting turn 2 i had minimal losses that i could easily heal back up en he had lost about 50% of his army. 

I was surprised by this list to be honest. It turned out to be a hard damage check for my opponent. I did find myself a bit lacking in damage but it wasnt that bad. This army was a breath of fresh air after having lost 3 times in a row when playing Gitz.

Next time i would like to swap a unit of Spirit Hosts and the Executioner for Bladegheists or Awlrach the Drowner and see what happens.

I played this list:

Spoiler

 Army Faction: Nighthaunt
     - Subfaction: The Emerald Host

LEADERS
Lady Olynder (340)*
     - General
     - Spells: Shademist
Spirit Torment (115)*
     - Artefacts of Power: Arcane Tome
     - Spells: Lifestealer
Lord Executioner (140)*
     - Artefacts of Power: Lightshard of the Harvest Moon
BATTLELINE
Spirit Hosts (250)*
Spirit Hosts (125)*
ENDLESS SPELLS & INVOCATIONS
1 x The Burning Head (20)
CORE BATTALIONS
*Warlord
TOTAL POINTS: 990/1000

Thanks for reading to the end XD. Never wrote something like this.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Gitzdee

[Arzalyn]

Aethercast released last week a free battlepack extension for games up to 1.5k points. I didn't get to play with it yet, but I liked what I saw. Maybe it can help fix some of the issues people pointed before about games smaller than 2k (table size, number of objectives). For those interested here is the link to get it:

https://ko-fi.com/s/f120b6f232

(The pdf is free, it is pay what you want).

[Equinox]

1 hour ago, Arzalyn said:

Aethercast released last week a free battlepack extension for games up to 1.5k points. I didn't get to play with it yet, but I liked what I saw. Maybe it can help fix some of the issues people pointed before about games smaller than 2k (table size, number of objectives). For those interested here is the link to get it:

https://ko-fi.com/s/f120b6f232

(The pdf is free, it is pay what you want).

Thank you for sharing the pack.  I don't see anything in the first page that would help with any of the problems expressed with 1k games.  I also find it weird that the number of terrain features declines as the game size gets larger.  I also think the recommended battlefield size is a horrible idea as it basically makes the game a matter of who goes first with the fastest units.