PDA

View Full Version : Points limits



Crube
20-12-2005, 16:59
I've noticed recently a load of posts of army lists etc that relate to what I consider non standard points limits...

ie I generally play 2000 points, or maybe 1500, or 3000, and these seem to be what the army composition rules are based on (1 lord in a 2K army etc)

However there is an increased preponderance toward 2250, 1850, and 2150 point games

Why? to my mind (and I realise i may be missing something here) but that takes away some of the selection problems. I can get most of what i want in an army if i'm allowed 2250 points, whereas in 2K, sacrifices have to be made. i cant take every cool unit in I want to at 2K, I can at 2250

Is it just me...?

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-12-2005, 17:02
It gives you a bit of extra room as you say, and it tends to produce something that looks a bit more like armies(in most cases). Since many people have already used there characters and special and rare slots in the 2k army, your left with more core troops.

SuperBeast
20-12-2005, 17:11
I fully agree...
Although, I have just finished taking part in an 1800pt league.
It started with the general's compendium map campaign, but we use it because

No Lords.
Less special and rare slots (and so greater emphasis on core units).
The missing 200 pts is usually the value of a (mundanely) tooled up Lord anyway, so it's not that bad.

So there is a method to our madness; makes for larger games without any particular characters or units ruling the battlefield.

I've seen kids playing some WEIRD games, with points values like "1,132" because that's the most the smallest army could muster.

Certainly, I have to question why people use increments of less than 100 (ie. 1850, 2075). Especially when they say things like "tournament use" and the like.
Perhaps, as you say, it was the smallest pointage that fitted Daddy and chips into their army list, which kinda renders the original idea behind points values a little redundant. If the size of a game is set by whatever you need/want to take, then you reduce the tactical element of the army list considerably.

Selsaral
20-12-2005, 17:34
For those in my small gaming group, usually a person comes up with an idea for an army, and then proposes that points total to another as a suggestion for a battle. For instance my high elf adversary had a fluffy themed army he had created, it ended up at 3400 points, and that's what I am matching.

But when neither of us having any particular ideas, we often do settle on round numbers like 2k, 3k, etc.

1900-1999 has it's own charm however. Reduces the number of characters that are available per troop. Just a different type of battle that forces you to make a different type of army.

NakedFisherman
20-12-2005, 17:35
GTs in the US used to be 2150 and now they're 2250 IIRC.

But yeah, gives you a little more troops after the Lord comes in.

Keller
20-12-2005, 19:45
I tend to prefer 2k over 2250 or whatnot. Not having the extra room for more troops makes you have to make desicions on what to include, since you can't have it all. You can get a tooled-up Lord, but you cannot get as many men then. You might not be able to field 2 or 3 elite troop regiments, so you have to pick what to take. I find it makes army design much more fun, and makes you think a lot more as to what could come up in the game that you would want to be able to handle with what types of troops.

From time to time, we make up rules for designing armies for a game. Sometimes we make it so that we all have special characters, perhaps only a single character, or no Lords. A 3K game with no lords is rather fun, as you can get a ton of units without the expensive characters.

Crazy Harborc
20-12-2005, 21:00
Because the tables at the local GW store are small (4 by 6), most games there are 2K or less. A couple of other/indie stores still have locals coming in and playing an occassional GW game (plenty of other systems weekly;) )). Store hours are the biggest decider there.

A heck of a lot/most of the local wargamers with tables have the standard size tables.......4 by 8 feet. They play larger games 3000pts (GW systems). For other rules systems such as WAB its around 3000(or more) points.

Mad Makz
20-12-2005, 23:01
2250 seems to be an increasing tournament standard, as it does add troops to the table.

Some of the reasons I think this may have been introduced to GT's

Provide people more options of fielding big centrepieces and proper armies. Centrepiece models are often expensive, and can significantly reduced the size of your force, but they are also helpful in making your army look fantastic so the extra points in this regard for GT's are beneficial.

Reserve scenarios - I am unsure, but some GT's may have had sideboard or reserve rules, and upped the basic points limit so that a part of the force could be left in reserve. I know this is what happened in 40K, whether the upping of points limits was a spill over into Fantasy or initially occurred at some GT's for the same reason, I don't know.

Sell more miniatures. If the standard size game is 2000 points, then some people will only buy 2000 points worth of miniatures, increase the size that armies are playable at and people will spend more money.

NOTE about selling more miniatures:
You'll find that this also matches some of the more recent army books (Tomb Kings and Ogres spring to mind) to scale better to the bigger point sized games. In previous editions a 3000 point game simply took too long due to the rules being cumbersome (especially the Magic phases), in this edition apart from set up and pack down of the armies they probably don't take that much longer than a 2000 point game and are easily achievable in an afternoon. (In 4th edition a 3000 point game would have lasted all day, and possibly had LESS troops on the table, due to the casting of spells by both players in each magic phase.).

I don't see this as a bad thing, having the game scale better to fit larger games is good for the experienced hobbyists, and introducing skirmish/warband rules to support smaller game styles is also good for the starting hobbyists, GW just probably saw an opportunity to support this hobbyists and the financial imperative to provide it.

One thing GW embracing the various sized points allowance in their tournaments DOES mean is that there is less and less a standard point sized game. I am currently planning a 2250 point Tomb King list for the next NZ GT. This force is very unlikely to actually scale down to 2000 points because of it's make up (Tomb King led, lots of chariots, not much infantry). If anything I am more likely to up it to a 3000 point list to use as my large scale game then try and cram it into 2000 points (where I will use my Skaven.)

Trunks
21-12-2005, 00:56
With my Dark Elves I haven't even used a Lord level character (other than Shadowblade for the hell of it a couple times). I like having more troops. I don't even max out the character slots.

I'm not hugely affected by the "2000 means you get that badass Lord, but not the guys you wanted, but that is fixed at 2250" thing. It gives me more troops, which is nice though.

Crazy Harborc
21-12-2005, 03:38
I never have understood "why" games can't be set at a points value that provides "room" for players to have all the bells and whestles they want in an army. For myself part of the fun of gaming "non-historical" games is being able to have a "perfect army". For me that translates to about 3000 points. When we use magic phase toys and wizards it's 3500 points(or more);)

If opponents aren't willing to "max out" then we don't. My regular opponents and I are of like minds about having all the points/goodies we want.

Ganymede
21-12-2005, 04:17
I prefer 2250. 2250 produces more aesthetically pleasing forces. The chance to remove holes in your army design with an extra 250 points also makes your army a more well rounded challenge for opponents.

Flypaper
21-12-2005, 06:10
1800-point fanatics drive me nuts. Mainly because the restriction does the opposite of what they want to my army: I'm forced to field fewer core troops!

...stupid Temple Guard Sacred Duty...

Instead, I have to use the whole box of Saurus Cavalry and give everything full command to make up the points - heck, I had to do some serious revision just to allow for 1500 setups...

Wickerman71
21-12-2005, 07:04
1800-point fanatics drive me nuts. Mainly because the restriction does the opposite of what they want to my army: I'm forced to field fewer core troops!

Though higher point games can be equally frustrating. When you are no longer restricted in points armies tend to look all the same. There would be little difference in your Lizard army too the next guys.


Because the tables at the local GW store are small (4 by 6), most games there are 2K or less.

Since when is 4 by 6 ft small:eyebrows: Thats a standard size table. All the campaigns are based on this size of area. Making it deeper obviously increases the power of shooting units & Artillary becomes a must have. Going wider greatly increases the ease to pull off flanking maneuvers increasing the power of cavalry. It also makes it easier for Horde armies not to bunch up.

Not saying that the 4 by 8 ft table has no place but it tends too fall in after 4000pt barrier. The game itself IMHO atleast loses allot of it's balance at this point any way. Not saying that games this big can't be fun, but as a standard way of playing to me it would get old fast.

Crazy Harborc
21-12-2005, 22:37
I've been in indie stores in several states (in the USA). I've seen 4 by 8s and (two or more) 4 by 4s (to use together). I've been wargaming for over 40 years. In this area and in areas I've traveled to, 4 by 8 was and still is the "normal size" the tables are made.

4 by 6, way too small to play a 3000 points (per side) game on. At least a game without "points expensive" characters and toys on. We may be out of it, but, it works well for us.;)

Crube
23-12-2005, 20:07
I remember when I first started, 8 x 4 was the norm... mind you, so was 3000 points.....

Anyway, I like the idea of 2250 point games...means i can fit another unit in...

Now to petition Lavfluris for the Carnage tourney in 2006....

Simon23
29-12-2005, 18:55
I like to play 2150pts.

That way you have a few more choices than in 2k and more of a "battle" feel is achieved rather than a skirmish.

Lavfluris
17-01-2006, 00:19
Now to petition Lavfluris for the Carnage tourney in 2006....I'm still waiting for this petition. ;)

Avian
18-01-2006, 10:00
Lately I've mostly been playing campaign battles which start at 1750 pts, but can increase or decrease during the season (we managed 2000 pts at the best last season), but other than that I prefer 2500 pts, as it gives you a decent army to play around with.

Crube
18-01-2006, 10:09
I'm still waiting for this petition. ;)

On second thoughts, as this will mean painting and extra 150 - 250 point sof Elves i dont think I'll bother...

I mean, I'm sure Jedi would love to paint some more Zombies, and Magnus would love some more Gors to paint...and all at such short notice...


Maybe next time...a bit more notice an' all that...