PDA

View Full Version : How many points?



Boss Zagstruk
05-05-2010, 10:00
I just got battlehosts yesterday :D and ive started writing a few lists for both lothlorien and angmar. I know the rules of the game but have yet to actually play WOTR. Id like to know what is the ideal size for a standard game. for etc 1000, 2000 or 3000. Thanks :)

Sedge
05-05-2010, 10:16
Wel my club normally plays 1k games. They are easily played in a night and a good size to get the hang of the rules.

Gilfred The Iron Knight
05-05-2010, 10:18
1000pts for gaming nights, 1500pts for gaming afternoons at my local club.
Personally i like 5000pts and doing historic refights.

Hellfury
05-05-2010, 13:11
Sweet spot is about 2k as that allows enough neat stuff to be included but not be overly powerful due to tough choices regarding what to include.

1500 seems to be popular while 1K is a good quick game that offers a lot of tough choices for list building and discourages use of lots of epic heroes.

Some armies have troubles making it to those levels though

2K for goblins is not as easy as including balrogs and dragons as you needs a solid foundation of goblins. Likewise, 1K is kind of tough for elves due to low model count compared to other armies at those points. So its a bit relative.

Avatar of the Eldar
05-05-2010, 14:36
From my experience:

* 1000 - 1500 for practice games to get the hang of the rules. <1000 feels just kinda lame to me.
* 2000 - 2500 for regular weeknight games (it's amazing how quickly you can fill up that extra 500 points with Epic Heroes (Fell Beast anyone?) and Legendary Formations without taking up more room on the table. I usually opt to bulk up formations before adding units.
* 3000+ for a Saturday game. In all honesty, I haven't had a chance to play this many points, yet. It probably requires a 6' x 8' table to play comfortably.

Reinholt
05-05-2010, 15:05
Think about table size as well. We've had major problems with 2k points on a 4x6; it turns into run straight ahead and punch with some of the more numerous armies that we have seen.

There was one game where a player couldn't fit his army in his deployment zone at that level.

So I'd say 1k-1.5k on a 4x6, but if you are using larger tables, 2k should work fine.

Xelee
05-05-2010, 20:13
Yes, definitely 1K - 1.5k max on a 6'x4'. Even at 1500, you start to really want 8'x4' just to have some flexibility about deployment and gameplan with a troop heavy army.

A 1500 pt game is already very big, for example my 1500 pt list has 144 infantry models and 34 Cav models, with four Epic heroes. I am not playing Goblins, those armies are far larger. On a 6x4', a local goblin player is deploying part of his army in reserve in some deployments.

I sometimes wonder, though I accept it's difficult to make these assumptions, that there is an element of the Warhammer mentality colouring the push to 2000+? Their tournament standard around here is 2250 and around that seems not uncommon. In WOTR, that is a massive amount of troops unless all you want to do is blow it all on certain hero combos.

ForgottenLore
05-05-2010, 20:31
That's not it with me. I have never played Warhammer fantasy and I haven't played 40K since 5th edition came out.

I want to play 2000-3000 point games because I WANT massive, huge numbers of troops.

My 1500 point goblin army is 155 figures and I am sad that it is so small.

Xelee
05-05-2010, 21:30
That's not it with me. I have never played Warhammer fantasy and I haven't played 40K since 5th edition came out.

I want to play 2000-3000 point games because I WANT massive, huge numbers of troops.

My 1500 point goblin army is 155 figures and I am sad that it is so small.
Fair enough. I have to say though, that 144 infantry and another 34 Cav plus the generals is about the limit I really want to be buying and painting for a single army. It's not like I've chosen a horde/low quality list either, that's good quality Gondor troops, with allied Rohan Lancers, there. It's comparable in size to my armies for FOG and at least 15mm is much faster to paint and vastly cheaper to buy new. Though 'second-hand' is what makes WOTR doable. Now I look at it, the structure of my WOTR Gondor force is oddly like my FOG Late-Romans.

Your model count seems small for a Goblin force. I'd expect one, even assuming it also has Cave trolls etc, to be another 50% of a higher quality WOTR force like Gondor, Isengard or the two evil 'training wheels' lists.

ForgottenLore
05-05-2010, 22:23
I am somewhat limited in my selection of models at the moment, but it is 9 companies of Blackshields, 6 companies of Prowlers (120 figs) 9 companies of Wargs (18 figs), both heroes (2 figs) and a cave troll (1 fig) that is 141 figs in my 1000 point army.

For 1500 I add Shelob and 7 companies of giant spiders (another 15 figs) for 156 figs (I forgot to count the troll before).

That pretty much uses up all of my goblins. I have a few Wargs and spider broods I could throw in but if I want to hit 2000 I have to add a dragon.

My next addition is probably going to be more goblins. Another formation of Blackshields would be nice since I would rather not use a dragon until I am over 2000 points, but that will have to wait a bit.


What do you mean by "training wheel lists"?

Xelee
06-05-2010, 02:47
Mordor and Fallen Realms.

The way WOTR does the Goblins is a good feature of the system and I quite like the look of them all on the table.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 03:08
What do you mean "The way WOTR does goblins..."?

I guessed you meant those 2 armies, what I meant was how so "training wheels"?

I can kinda see Mordor as a beginners army, but Fallen Realms struck me as more of an advanced player's choice, as many of its troops and heroes have odd special abilities and there are a multitude of troop choices with subtly differing costs and abilities.

Xelee
06-05-2010, 21:41
WOTR Goblins are perfectly viable as a mass of basic troops (that is, you don't even have to take the Gundabads etc) and the rules support this well: +2 supporting dice is huge on large formations; you get flanking bonuses which turn games vs gobs into nail biters where you try to hold back the goblin tide in all places while the gob player uses a small amount of specials like cave-trolls etc to try and make a hole somewhere; then you have mobility - move 8 + master pathfinders so that you don't get stuck on terrain with the big units. While Durburz is cheap for what he does, he is perfect as the cowardly overlord of a mass of goblins and could easily bring a hero low if they ever backed him into a corner.

'Training wheels' :) This might be a dad thing, but training wheels are something that make the same bike everyone is using much simpler and easier to use and it is obvious how they do so. They are just a couple of things that you 'clip on' and the bike as a whole becomes so much easier to ride. Now that's ok for a little boy starting out and it is never quite clear at what point they should come off exactly. However, at some point there will be a boy racing around with their training wheels while all his mates have long dropped them. They have learned to ride properly without them, using the same bikes. All I can say is, that as a dad, I'd be a bit embarrassed if my boy was boasting of how much better balanced he was on his bike when he still had they trainers on and his mates didn't.

Clear as mud? I'm trying to convey the sense of it.

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 22:43
Definitely disagree with the training wheels characterization being a necessity, but it's definitely possible. There are a few lists where you can make simple to run lists (Gondor, Dwarves, Mordor, Isengard, Fallen Realms), but you don't have to. I've seen some very interesting Gondor and Isengard lists, for instance, that are very much not the typical bread and butter you see.

Good example of what I would see as training wheels would be the Gondor list we started a friend with. Faramir, Boromir, two large blocks of infantry, two large blocks of cavalry, 2 avenger bolt throwers. Simple to understand and use.

I have a friend working on Fallen Realms right now that is not your typical Easterling Bash, however...

Most lists can be made simple (other than perhaps Angmar and Elves).

Xelee
06-05-2010, 22:59
Reinholt, I think you aren't quite getting the sense I am trying to convey, since I'm probably not putting it right.

The Germans probably have a specific word for it.

Have a think about the metaphor again and then think of say the point at which players are crowing of their success because they have figured out that the Betrayer plus Arbalesters (or whatever) is giving them a consistent edge.

I mean, if it ever got to that point and it was my boy on the bike with trainer wheels, I would not be comforted at all if some of his mates were actually doing better than he and were better balanced on their bikes. All that would worry me is that my boy seemed a bit oblivious to the fact his trainer wheels were what was holding him up. :)

Nothing wrong with good simple lists from any faction based around their common troops and whatever heroes are fitting for the background. I'd hope most lists were this way.

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 23:15
I believe the term you are looking for is either optimizing or power-gaming. Or, in more colloquial terms, being a cheese-monger.

I do agree taking the most broken stuff in large numbers is pretty lame; maybe it is appropriate when the name of the game is winning a tournament (which, sadly, is often an exercise in list writing without any composition data), but lame when just playing with your friends.

In that case, I'd say the lists most likely to do this are Gondor, Dwarves, Mordor, and Fallen Realms. To a lesser extent, Isengard, but that is also heavily ally dependent (combining the resilience and abilities of the Uruk-hai with the best of the heroes from other armies, usually), not internally driven.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 23:15
OK, let's back up a bit here.

By training wheel armies, do you mean armies that are good for a beginning player?

If so, what are the qualities you feel are needed to make a good beginner army?

If not, then I don't know what you mean with the metaphor.

I think we have different definitions of what goes into a beginner army.

The point I have apparently been failing to make for my last 3 posts is that Fallen Realms very much does NOT seem like a good army for a beginner to me, yet you guys seem to think it is almost the default starter army for new players.

I am trying to figure out where the disconnect is here because I am probably wrong in my assessment but I don't know why.

whoa, I don't know where that came from Reinholt, how did power gaming get into this.
now I am very confused

Reinholt
06-05-2010, 23:21
I think Fallen Realms is a great beginner army when it's largely an Easterling army. They are very forgiving, with some strong heroes (Khamul, Amdur) that fit the theme, and some nice options to branch out in the list.

In a way, they are very similar to Gondor in this regard (strong basic troops, decent cavalry, some archers, good dueling hero or two, interesting allies).

However, Harad heavy lists are much less forgiving... I think Fallen Realms can be fine to start with, though. In reality, the only army I would definitely steer new players away from is Angmar, and to a lesser extent, maybe the Elves.

ForgottenLore
06-05-2010, 23:35
This is why I think FR is not so good for beginners. Yeah, you can make an effective army out of it, but you have to know what you are doing. I wouldn't expect a beginner to be able to weigh the different options effectively. I would be worried that a beginner is likely to create a decidedly ineffective list, probably get swamped by the many special rules that aren't typical of the game and then get frustrated.

Conversely, I think elves are a pretty decent starter army. They may not win any games at first but the advantages of elves are obvious and they kinda can't help but do OK right out of the gate because Elves kick butt.

For what it's worth, my ranking of the 9 armies, from most beginner friendly to least would probably be

1 Moria
2 Dwarves
3 Elves
4 Mordor
5 Gondor
6 Isengard
7 Fallen Realms
8 Rohan
9 Angmar

I am guessing that that list differs A LOT from yours.

I am alsostartign to wonder if we shouldn't make a new thread for this discussion, since we seem to be veering away from the original topic.

Xelee
06-05-2010, 23:52
[color="Orange"]I believe the term you are looking for is either optimizing or power-gaming. Or, in more colloquial terms, being a cheese-monger.


Heh, perhaps. I think Germans would better convey it with the specific emotional sense though :)

I'm not trying to add a new word to the lexicon here. I meant some specific lists players where often boast of doing very well with but when you look, sure enough they brought one or both of the same two mis-pointed crutches, in the specific sense of it being a little cringe-worthy rather than some major burning issue. You can see the pair of them tacked onto the lists like training wheels on a bike.

I mean, Durburz is a great ES capable hero with plenty of might for a low cost, so he's clearly good. But he isn't any kind of training wheel, he's just the Goblin King.

Forgottenlore, it has nothing to do with being a beginners army and I'm sorry if I conveyed that impression. As Reinholt points out, Gondor is an excellent beginner's army. Simple, straightforward, few special rules. I don't really see it is a list with trainer wheels in there though.

To derail the derailment - I personally find the bolt-throwers a bit of a challenge to use as well as their points in other troops across the full spread of deployments. Either they are forward to be in range and so their arc is easy to avoid (which can be good, but see next) or they are too far back. You can use them to deny part of the front in a Shieldwalls, but, being stationary, they are a victim to heroic moving xbow and longer ranged siege. That's just for sheildwalls, Maelstrom and Battle for the pass can be a real PITA range wise. However, you seem to know what you are doing with this game, so what's the secret? (asked genuinely, I have four converted bolt-throwers and they are just the sort of thing a Roman/Gondor army should have).

ForgottenLore
07-05-2010, 00:04
OK, got it.

You meant the training wheels metaphor to be armies that have some noticeable, really good... something - formation, hero, monster, whatever, that new players tend to always take and then think they are clever for figuring it out. Right?

I took it as - training wheels are things that you use when first learning something so that, even though you have no idea what you are doing, you can't screw up too badly. They are a tool to help you learn a new skill. Therefor a "training wheel army" would be an army a beginner could learn the game on without making too many mistakes or becoming frustrated.

Xelee, have you noticed that you and I seem to do this a lot? We seem to frequently agree on subjects but phrase things so differently from the other that it takes us like 10 posts before we both know what the other meant. It seems to keep happening to us, like our thoughts are out of phase with each other or something.

Xelee
07-05-2010, 00:32
We do, and whatever the usual reason, in this case you can read one of the responses I got above as "Xelee, why don't you just stick to English, like the rest of us?"

Enfid
07-05-2010, 00:36
I believe the point Xelee have been getting across is that some armies have "no-brainer" combinations that detract players from making more creative/interesting/unique lists and instead rely on the same things over and over again that it becomes a hindrance to them in the long run instead of actually helping them in the game; they don't know how to play the game any other way. It's almost like cheese, but not intentional.

Say a player started out with that Arbalesters and Betrayer as the main of his army with Easterling as the core to hold back the enemy for example. He got used to that gunline army and he sticks with that. Give him a pure Khandish/Haradrim/Easterling army, and he won't know what to do with it. Maneuvering and taking tactical opportunities are lost to him. He's over-reliant on his training wheels. Without the wheels, he's doomed to fail even before he starts pedaling.

I think it's a very valid analogy that takes a while to understand because of how we often associate "training wheels" as something we start with and eventually get away from (from embarrassment or whatever reason), not something that you become over-reliant on.

I would say while Fallen Realms have several training wheel set up, a themed Fallen Realms army are all quite difficult to play.