What size points do you prefer?

[someone2040]

Personally I really prefer the smaller point games, only because I prefer building armies around the 1000-1200 point mark. I find it hits the sweet spot of where I start to get bored and want to move onto models for another army.

I think as long as people are playing nice as well, that there's still plenty of tactics that can be used in those smaller games. This relies on people not smashing out with deathstars and 300+point units, but actually trying to build a force which would be representative of that scale.

 

I don't mind 2k, but as a size, I find it really hard to build and complete armies up to that point these days.

 

I'm also really keen to try out smaller sized skirmish games likes Hinterlands. I was really tempted to run the first AoS tournament here as a Regiments of Renown level game, but decided to do more standard in the end at 1200 points.

[TheWilddog]

I really love 1500 point games.  They are big enough that you get to bring most of each faction's cool toys but not so big that the games start to drag on.     

[Jamopower]

1000 to 1500 for me as well. Haven't actually tested anything above that yet, so can't really say, but I feel that 1500 gives already everything I would ever want with the somewhat limited time I have, but on the other hand as I like the hobby aspect more, 1000 points is nice and easy to build new projects.

[Kzar2011]

I have only played almost exclusively 2k points. When it comes to more laid back games or narrative tough I like to keep it at 1000-1500 or finales with 3000. 

[Chris Tomlin]

My preference is for 2,000 points. That said I don't mind a bit of 1,000 point action now and again!

I like that the game scales well and plays perfectly at any points level. Definitely one of it's big strengths IMO as I find many other games fall down in this regard.

[Squirrelmaster]

Keen on 2K, but rarely find the time/opponents for it. 1500 is also good, but then you get the debates over whether it's vanguard or battlehost (my preference is to treat it as battlehost).

I actually think there's some good potential for games around 1800pts, but in the end I tend to just play "whatever you've got". Tends to be in the 1200 - 1600pt region in my local store for some reason.

1K is a bit small for my tastes, I think 3K could be really cool to try out but so far I've never had the time or opponent for it (plus with my current army I don't have the models for it — I'd have to dig out one of my old fantasy armies for that).

[Galas]

Well, to masive battles I play Fantasy, KoW, or other games.

What I'm loving from AoS is the narrative aspect. In my club we are non stop playing narrative scenarios, campaings, etc... with Hinterlands (I love them. We mixed them with the Mordheim merchant-sistem to between battles!) and other skirmish/narrative adaptations to the Age of Sigmar ruleset.

Thats exactly what push me from Warhammer40k, when the battles go from 20-30 infantery models, 2-3 bigs boys and 1-2 tanks to literally doubling these numbers. I love Skirmish games with a strong narrative feeling. I like  my force to be very diferent from battle to battle. Whats the point of using all my collection with minor changes in every battle? Maybe is that I had a smaller collection that other people, barebones I had only 5.800 points (Per 8º edition rules) of greenskins, so I love 1k-1,2k games where I run things like a full boar-mounted warband, or only gobbos and Trols, just black orcs, etc... but  I feel that my army is very similar playing high points game every time.

And, as someone says earlier, I prefer to play 2-3 games in a game-sesion than just a 4-5 hour long game. I have no problem playing those too, but as I said, we are all on the campaing-narrative style of play, not barebones competitive (I have other games for that), so we prefer to do various games and avance the story in one day!

But, yes. The 6.000 points game 3vs3 (1k for player) as the final battle of a narrative campaing is the cherry on top of a sweet cake baked for like 2-3 months.

PD: Sorry for my english.

 

[SuperHappyTime]

1000, unless somebody brings something over 500 points, then its 2000.

[Centuryslayer]

I honestly love playing 500-1260 pts games.  I think I need to play a lot more to feel comfortable with 2k games. I tried one (though I had to borrow a lot of Slave to Darkness units) and it just wasn't as fun. Could have something to do with Ironjawz slamming into my lines almost turn 1 and it just became a huge line of close combat for 4 turns.

[RuneBrush]

On 17/02/2017 at 8:00 PM, SuperHappyTime said:

1000, unless somebody brings something over 500 points, then its 2000.

Glad it's not just me that thinks like this.  My local group tends to play with an unwritten maximum of roughly 25% on any single unit.  It means we're not rocking hugely powerful units so get a slightly more even game.

[Chris Tomlin]

8 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Glad it's not just me that thinks like this.  My local group tends to play with an unwritten maximum of roughly 25% on any single unit.  It means we're not rocking hugely powerful units so get a slightly more even game.

I find that playing the matched played battleplans, which work well at 1,000 points on a 4x4 table (moving objectives as appropriate), goes some way to alleviate this issue as the 500+ point unit often cannot do enough by itself. I appreciate this is not always the case however and sometimes a super powerful unit is even more powerful in smaller games due to the lack of tools you'll have to deal with it.

[RuneBrush]

56 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

I find that playing the matched played battleplans, which work well at 1,000 points on a 4x4 table (moving objectives as appropriate), goes some way to alleviate this issue as the 500+ point unit often cannot do enough by itself. I appreciate this is not always the case however and sometimes a super powerful unit is even more powerful in smaller games due to the lack of tools you'll have to deal with it.

Completely agree, battleplans do a great job of balancing out some of those potential issues.  I think we've done it as a hang over from other systems (HH has a 25% limit on LoW options for example).

[Kramer]

In response to @Chris Tomlin and @RuneBrush we do the same.

Although I agree that you can (often) easily win against a 1k army with a 500pt model because he cant be everywhere, the tactical challenges are different. Which for us was the biggest reason it became the unspoken rule.  

[KevenM]

1500 to 2000 points here - with my vote definitely on the 2000 side.

[DrDemento]

We are enjoying around 1,000 +\- 250 for an evening because we are newly back to the game after a very long time and slow.  We do seem to creep up points though so maybe we'll get to 2k at some point, but the big games have been a drag for us so far. We really wanted 2k to work so we can get more stuff on the table and it looks awesome but we're just too slow for it.

We also find great subfaction themed lists built around batallions are doable at 1,000 points.  

Giant horde units of 30+ models do seem extra intimidating at that scale but we haven't played enough with those to really judge yet.

Big monsters have been fine though, even 500'pointish glottkin but the mawcrusher isn't ready yet.

i agree that AoS seems to scale nicely in terms of balance.  I think it's really cool that people can enjoy it at both the skirmish and massed battle ends of the continuum.

[Wraith01]

I like smaller games. Up to 1000 points, if we have to use points... 

 

I find Big games take too long and sometimes don't really reach their conclusion, someone has to leave or the store closes.

[karch]

19 hours ago, Wraith01 said:

I like smaller games. Up to 1000 points, if we have to use points... 

 

I find Big games take too long and sometimes don't really reach their conclusion, someone has to leave or the store closes.

Exactly like us. We don't use points, but it would be hovering around the 1K mark if we did.

Fast games you can wrap at the same time as the X-wing guys on the table next to you.