PDA

View Full Version : Will you scale up to 3k?



willowdark
11-06-2010, 06:05
Before the revelation that the character percentage would essentially be 50%, I was very much inclined to believe that the scale for 8th would work better at base3K. Now, in spite of the new generous salary cap, there are still a lot of reasons to believe that 8th will work better at 3K.

By and large, units will be better the bigger they are. Attacking in more ranks makes a larger frontage better, while the Horde rule make an even bigger frontage even better. Stubborn with more ranks encourages, well, more ranks, and if protracted combats become the norm than the side with more models will always have the advantage.

Furthermore, if you need at least one rank to break ranks, you'll need more knights to maintain your current effectiveness.

Now, I know a lot of us will scrap our lists completely and start over from scratch. But assuming that many of us will take our regular lists and try to adapt them to 8th, where will the points for these bigger units come from? Will you really be willing to sacrifice some parts of you list, often whole units, to build the bigger points sinks of the future?

Scaling to 3k in 7th usually means adding more units, because units in general suffer diminishing returns quickly. But 3k Games won't mean more units in 8th, just bigger, which is largely the point, apparently, of most of the big changes.

Conversely, I think most of us agree that having two units of infantry and just combining them is a dead end philosophy. If one of something is good than two is almost always better. So armies like Skaven or O&G who already utilize several blocks of infantry would rather have, I'd think, the extra points to make them bigger rather than having to combine them.

Most of the reaction to the idea of a 3k standard has been that GW can't force it on us, and that tourneys will be free to set the point limit however they want. But for me, If adapting to and getting the most out of the changes in 8th means building bigger units, I'd much rather have 3k, or 3250, to do it instead of forcing myself to give up the things I like to have an effective list.

So What do you think? Will you scale your games up to 3k? Personally, I don't see 3k games being longer in 8th than 2k, I just think the points will be needed to get the most out of 8th.

Orktavius
11-06-2010, 06:34
Once people have learned the rules for 8th I think games will fly by much quicker. My Ogres are more then ready to scale up to 3k games and I look forward to it.

WLBjork
11-06-2010, 06:40
We used to play at 2750 for those reasons anyway, so I doubt we will go bigger.

We'll be sure once the new rules and armybooks are available.

Dungeon_Lawyer
11-06-2010, 06:47
no, but Im sure ill play the odd 3000+ point game every now and then, but regular games, no...

willowdark
11-06-2010, 06:48
Is there a reason, Dungeon Lawyer?

Eta
11-06-2010, 07:50
No and why should I? What has worked before will work in the new edition.

Greetings
Eta

Peregijn
11-06-2010, 07:57
no i wont scale up... i am already WAY over 3000p, just like most of the people i play against.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-06-2010, 08:00
Well, we are already playing games with the rules that we think are in, and we haven't scaled up yet. Perhaps in the future but I see no real reason to do that. Of course people will want to include that extra knight or extra rank or another WM but that is already the case now.

dragonet111
11-06-2010, 08:02
I think we are going to stick to 2000points. In 5ed we used to play with 3000 points but everything was way more expensive.

I like the 2000 points size because it's enough to field funny things but not enough to go crazy.

Kayosiv
11-06-2010, 08:05
If I had infinite money, I still probably wouldn't want to play 3000 point games regularly.

That's just a lot of stuff to cart around, and would likely add an hour to a given game between set up, play time, and putting things away.

3 hour games are about average and borderline too long as is. Nothing in the new edition promises of faster gameplay. It seems like more dice rolling and rolling dice takes time.

enygma7
11-06-2010, 12:09
No, I doubt our group will be upping the standard game size. Firstly, you only need to play 3000 if you have to have everything. Playing at 2000 will just mean you have to make choices - do you go for numerous smaller, less effective units, or a few mega units (individually more powerful but risks being badly outmanoeuvred?) Or try and find a balance?

Besides, there are more important influences on game size than just the mechanics - such as the wallets of the players and the time needed to paint an army. 3000pts would set too high a barrier for people starting new armies to get into the game and people will be reluctant to expand their already finished forces.

Idle Scholar
11-06-2010, 13:09
Yes, time constraints depending. I have the models, and I'd be playing 3k regularly already if it didn't take so long.

The SkaerKrow
11-06-2010, 13:16
Not a chance. I already have around 4k of painted Dark Elves, but I have no interest at all in playing to larger points values in Warhammer. If anything, rising miniature prices compel me to play games to lower points values just so we can continue to get new players into the hobby without having them get chased away by the ridiculous investment of money in time that the game requires before you can even play it "properly."

Malorian
11-06-2010, 14:03
If tournaments become 3000 I will start playing 3000.

Personally I always liked bigger games anyway.

Llew
11-06-2010, 14:04
*If* I decide to give 8th Ed a shot, I may very well up my army size. Its pretty clear that they're intending you to need more models to play. (Increased casualty counts, benefits for getting really large units, etc. all lean towards that.) I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing on it's own, as seeing huge blocks of troops on the field is what makes it feel like a battle, IMO. I've never liked seeing someone whip out an army of 45 models, unless it was me! (Honestly, even then I don't like it, but sometimes you do what you must to field an army.) So, yeah, an increase in army size is likely for me.

I do feel completely confident in saying that I won't do it with new GW models. It might be the excuse to build an army based off the Perry's War of the Roses stuff.



No and why should I? What has worked before will work in the new edition.

Greetings
Eta

I couldn't tell if your sarcasm flag was on or off for this one.

jullevi
11-06-2010, 14:20
I am not sure how my armies will work in 8th edition. While my armies can be easily scaled up by adding more units, making the units bigger is not really an option for me. For example, my Empire army that was built during 6th edition has its infantry in units of 25 models (2 units of Swordsmen, one unit of Spearmen and Halberdiers). I don't have many excess models that could be used to make the units bigger while maintaining the coherent look, and I am not interested at all in hunting for OOP models to add to units, not to mention paint them in several years old colour scheme.

Eta
11-06-2010, 14:26
I couldn't tell if your sarcasm flag was on or off for this one.

Perhaps I should have added "at least for my army (WoC)" ;)
Nevertheless, I am quite sure that you can play with your current 2000 / 2250 list under the 8th edition just fine.

Greetings
Eta

unheilig
11-06-2010, 14:29
I will absolutely play 3k.

It was great in 7th, it seems it will be even better in 8th.

Assertions that it removes the skill in creating an army list are bizarre to me. I didn't invovle myself in warhammer to test my ability to restrain myself.

Ill play even bigger when opponents can.

Llew
11-06-2010, 14:40
Perhaps I should have added "at least for my army (WoC)" ;)
Nevertheless, I am quite sure that you can play with your current 2000 / 2250 list under the 8th edition just fine.

Greetings
Eta

Fair enough. :)

I'm sure armies will continue to be playable at lower points, just as my friends and I could throw 750 point games together for a quick conflict under the current rules.

I think most of the changes in the rules probably will only "feel" right when you have more points throw into bigger infantry blocks, so it's a subtle encouragement to change. My suspicion is that people are only likely to really buy big blocks of infantry at larger points (at least initially) because they have years of playing that have shaped their idea of how lists should be built.

Another consequence of the random charge ranges is that you may need to have a reserve...units held back to rescue a unit if you blow a roll, or to pile on and help with the combat.

I really think the playstyle is going to change far more than people realize. I can only hope it speeds up the game too, but that remains to be seen.

enygma7
11-06-2010, 15:03
Assertions that it removes the skill in creating an army list are bizarre to me. I didn't invovle myself in warhammer to test my ability to restrain myself.


I assume you're referring to my post here? I never actually said playing 3k games "removes skill" or is a negative thing to do, I was just pointing out that it isn't a requirement to play 3k simply because there are now more advantages to fielding bigger units. You don't actually have to be able to take every unit you could possibly want in every game at its most optimal size - playing with smaller points caps just forces you to make some choices about what it is you actually need. Your opponent after all will be forced to make the exact same types of decisions as you.

Enkiel
11-06-2010, 15:09
we're most likely be moving to 2500 around here, for the simple reason that 2250 doesnt really work well with %.

Malorian
11-06-2010, 15:35
we're most likely be moving to 2500 around here, for the simple reason that 2250 doesnt really work well with %.

Because of the half point? :eyebrows:


Something tells me the real reason why you are going to 2500 is to allow more points in characters rather than making the math easier.

GuyLeCheval
11-06-2010, 15:42
Yes, definately. Maybe even 3500 pts..

Urgat
11-06-2010, 16:57
No, I'm the only one with a large enough army, and the people I play certainly don't have the drive to build 3000pts armies.

Pacorko
11-06-2010, 17:03
What? You mean you guys didn't have 3K for any of your Fantasy armies already? None of them?

:p

I know, I know. I own just about every army with the exception of orcs (I just don't like the bow-legged atrocities, and there are too many in an army to do sandbending for all of them in order to get them into less silly stances), and through patience, Warseer's trading forum and focusing on what I wanted an "army" to look like, I designed my armies to be 3k at least as that's the kind of game I like and I regularly play with my brother and a few friends.

Personally, I just don't se why 8th will make anyone grow their armies to 3k more than 6th or 7th ever did, as many of the rumours are being misinterpreted/wildly speculated on. Even with the ranks ruling and character % cap, there really no need to do it. Unless you want more characters as cleverly pointed by Malorian.

It's a matter of choice, although I believe there is an intent on GW's side to push every one to buy more models, but the game doesn't force you to do sou. especially since most tournaments have always a 1.75-2.5K range in their points' limits.

So, really, having a bigger army is more a personal choice than a forced move brought in by a new iteration of the rules.

Malorian
11-06-2010, 17:07
Personally, I just don't se why 8th will make anyone grow their armies to 3k more than 6th or 7th, as many of the rumours are being misinterpreted/wildly speculated on.

With big infantry units getting better (both for ranks to be stubborn and get horde) this will mean... bigger infantry untis.

More points going into making infantry bigger means less points on other things.

Less other things means less room taken up on the baord.

Less room taken up on the board makes players say, "Hey, wanna up the points?"

Urgat
11-06-2010, 17:18
With big infantry units getting better (both for ranks to be stubborn and get horde) this will mean... bigger infantry untis.

More points going into making infantry bigger means less points on other things.

Or it means bigger infantry units, but fewer of them.

Malorian
11-06-2010, 17:28
Or it means bigger infantry units, but fewer of them.

But again, assuming these are being extended to the back for more ranks to be stubborn, that means more room on the board, which means you can add more units.

TheMav80
11-06-2010, 17:47
I've got the models to do it with my LM...but probably we won't.

Pacorko
11-06-2010, 17:55
With big infantry units getting better (both for ranks to be stubborn and get horde) this will mean... bigger infantry untis.

More points going into making infantry bigger means less points on other things.

Less other things means less room taken up on the baord.

Less room taken up on the board makes players say, "Hey, wanna up the points?"

See? That's why I didn't see the "problem". With my games being with "big armies" worth 3k points at least, I did not have to worry about having lots of 10-man units or 5 Knights cav squads trying to flank or move or charge all around the board.

Nice, "chunky" blocks on the table results in all those things you pointed out, Mal.

Sure it easier to grow the game, but even with the need for "bigger units" to keep their bonuses, there's no need to use all your existing 4 infantry units and consolidate them into, say, two and then go on and buy more figures to "make up fo the two spaces you lost"... unless anyone is deadset on playing such a config and just won't change the tactics/strategy.

It'll be interesting watching how players who used lots of small units will do now they can no longer swamp bigger units with but a handful of models and some pesky special rules.

And how glorious will be it be watching the Slayers go out how they are supposed to instead of having their general trying to keep them safe from harm.

It's a lonely club the one with warriors who've met their doom... I should know. Everyone gives the :wtf: look everytime I crash my slayers into the enemy, and smile with satisfaction as they die while dealing the pain.

enyoss
11-06-2010, 18:56
If 3000pt games turn out to be more fun than 2000pt games under 8th edition, then I'm sure my group will scale up. We've got all the models we need already, so it's just a case of finding the extra time and space. If it's more fun, then why not?

Faeslayer
11-06-2010, 18:59
I'm building a 2.5k list; I'll play 3k when I'm able, but it may be a while. :D

Three hydras! Wheee!

Agnar the Howler
11-06-2010, 19:01
Everyone else I know is, so i'm going to have to as well. So yes, I will be scaling up to 3k.

yabbadabba
11-06-2010, 19:09
I will carry on playing from 500pts up to as large as I have time for (10k-ish last count).

minionboy
11-06-2010, 19:21
So far, the most argument I've seen in favor of 3k are the daemon players who are upset that they are unable to take their tooled out greater daemons. There is no reason to scale up for most of the armies out there, 500-562 is plenty of points to spend on a lord, and is also plenty of points to spend on heroes for most armies. I would really doubt that 3k becomes the norm.


we're most likely be moving to 2500 around here, for the simple reason that 2250 doesnt really work well with %.

How doesn't it? 562 < 25%, 563 > 25%.


See? That's why I didn't see the "problem". With my games being with "big armies" worth 3k points at least, I did not have to worry about having lots of 10-man units or 5 Knights cav squads trying to flank or move or charge all around the board.

This honestly just sounds like you have a hard time facing fast armies. Bigger games are not the solution, strategy is. If you play a game so big that flanking isn't an issue anymore, then you've just removed a large strategic element of the game.

lordmetroid
11-06-2010, 19:28
I am looking at my Night Goblin armylist and I am saying to myself, I want more units, I want bigger units and I want more gizmos. I think I could go for 3000 points of pure Night Goblins. However I probabaly shouldn't the Night Goblin horde is already a lot of models in 2250 points.

King_Pash
11-06-2010, 20:07
To be honest, at my local gaming club it'll likely be a case of time, not points. A typical 2250pt game lasts about 2.5hrs with set up etc. If 8th Ed. speeds up a game so that I can play 3k in 2.5hrs easy, then I suspect we will scale up.

At home, on the other hand, where we already play 3-4k, we may do as we have time for and as we see fit. It all depends on what level everyone feels happy with and are able to field.

Orktavius
11-06-2010, 20:08
I'm an ogre player....I very much want larger games, not for character allowance or anything...but just so I can run more big blocks of bulls and ironguts to mash my poor thinling opponents flat :P

GrogsnotPowwabomba
11-06-2010, 20:14
revelation that the character percentage would essentially be 50%

What do you mean by this? I still see 25% listed in the rumor roundup thread.

Agnar the Howler
11-06-2010, 20:16
What do you mean by this? I still see 25% listed in the rumor roundup thread.

25% Lords + 25% Heroes = 50% Total Characters

yabbadabba
11-06-2010, 20:20
I am looking at my Night Goblin armylist and I am saying to myself, I want more units, I want bigger units and I want more gizmos. I think I could go for 3000 points of pure Night Goblins. However I probabaly shouldn't the Night Goblin horde is already a lot of models in 2250 points.

Dont forget they might sell off old copies of Battle for Skull Pass :eek:. Am I not helping :evilgrin: lol!

willowdark
11-06-2010, 20:25
Or it means bigger infantry units, but fewer of them.

This is exactly my point. If you want a 50-man unit to make the most of the new rules, assuming spreading the frontage and trying to ensure Stubborn, or at least deny it, and you currently have 2 units of 25, you might start out just smashing them together, but I think you'll quickly start to miss the flexibility you've lost by having less units on the board.

Again, 3k in 7th meant more units, while 3k in 8th will just mean bigger. That's a fundamental difference between the two editions and I think it will make 3k not only more accessible but more comfortable too.

And though I empathise with people's frustrations about GW racketeering and that they don't want to buy more models on principle, I was sort of under the impression that building and painting models was part of the fun.

For me, I need 10 more Warriors and 6 more Knights right off the bat to make my current list playable under 8th. I'd much rather just up the points to get it than drop things like Shades or RxBs. If my group rejects 3k as a standard than I'll probably just drop the Warriors all together in favor of more Shades and RxBs.

It seems to me that forcing people to make unwanted sacrifices will only encourage min/maxing. Though I certainly agree that a 50% (25/25) character allowance is grossly open to abuse at 3k.

SPSchnepp2
11-06-2010, 20:27
Heck, we already play at 4k or higher. I shudder to think what my group will scale up to with the new rules.

Pacorko
11-06-2010, 21:05
This honestly just sounds like you have a hard time facing fast armies. Bigger games are not the solution, strategy is. If you play a game so big that flanking isn't an issue anymore, then you've just removed a large strategic element of the game.

This honestly sounds as shooting from the hip. You really went quite overboard with your assumptions: I can play smaller games and love facing dark elves or wood elves with cav-heavy armies, and manage to do so quiet well. Then, I like 1.75K-2k games because they are quick and allow for us to have a couple of bouts each every time we gather for an evening of play.

My liking bigger games (which are as tactical and strategic as smaller ones, if not more so) is just that: A personal (and group) preference. Mind you, there's poetential for quite more flanking in a game with bigger units that one with lots of smaller ones--thus my comment of smal units swamping bigger ones and not allowing them to move to make important flanking actions. THAT was my point. Don't know where you got that idea you misconstrued from, really. :shifty: Maybe it's the difference in native languages and the way I phrased my post?:eyebrows:

Now, your post could be interpreted as a rather pedantic stance: "We small-game players have a penchant and a knack for startegy big-army owner could just dream about."

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you: We old farts with big armies do flank, double-charge, fire-for-effect, overrun, break and generally do the same things you do in your smaller games... and a big-ish table, f course. ;)

minionboy
11-06-2010, 21:45
This honestly sounds as shooting from the hip. You really went quite overboard with your assumptions: I can play smaller games and love facing dark elves or wood elves with cav-heavy armies, and manage to do so quiet well. Then, I like 1.75K-2k games because they are quick and allow for us to have a couple of bouts each every time we gather for an evening of play.

My liking bigger games (which are as tactical and strategic as smaller ones, if not more so) is just that: A personal (and group) preference. Mind you, there's poetential for quite more flanking in a game with bigger units that one with lots of smaller ones--thus my comment of smal units swamping bigger ones and not allowing them to move to make important flanking actions. THAT was my point. Don't know where you got that idea you misconstrued from, really. :shifty: Maybe it's the difference in native languages and the way I phrased my post?:eyebrows:

Now, your post could be interpreted as a rather pedantic stance: "We small-game players have a penchant and a knack for startegy big-army owner could just dream about."

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you: We old farts with big armies do flank, double-charge, fire-for-effect, overrun, break and generally do the same things you do in your smaller games... and a big-ish table, f course. ;)

I'm one of those old farts mind you. :P

Maybe it was a misunderstanding, typically when I see people play 3k points, it's still crammed on a 6x4, making it very difficult to have room to maneuver and flank most armies.

StrawberryMcFairyShoes
11-06-2010, 21:45
I'll keep playing 1K games. I like 1K games, lots of tactics involved.
Am I really the olny one who prefers 1K games?

enygma7
11-06-2010, 22:14
I like 1k games to, but its a little easier to play them with a horde army as you can still field a balanced list. Elf and undead generals tend to whinge if you want to play anything less than 2k (I think this has rather more to do with them than their army books though :) )

If this thread has revealed anything it's that game size is a matter of personal preference and I doubt the new edition will do much to change people's minds - I think preference for large or small games stem from things other than game mechanics (maybe whether you are a macro or micro manager?) I tend to find I get as many benefits out of a small game without the increased time/logistics/stress of a larger game.

King_Pash
11-06-2010, 22:50
Ok, to mix it up a little: Do you think that small games will be easier to play?

Personally, I think so. You can have a 1k HE force that isn't going to get magicked to death due to DD and PD balance. I think you'll hear a lot less whinging from players at smaller games due to not having to field "mandatory" units like scroll caddies etc.

DeeKay
12-06-2010, 02:19
I don't see any real point in upping the force size just because GW says so (beyond blatant wallet rape!). If you are comfortable with larger games, go for it. Smaller games more your thing? No problem. Personally, I'll probably stay at a maximum of 2k. The game seems best at that point.

With regards,
Dan.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
12-06-2010, 02:28
I will, if only because I like the idea of choking up a good portion of my deployment zone wiv green.

Rogue
12-06-2010, 03:46
The only games that I play now-a-days are 3K so I am already at that level. I am not going out to tournaments any more and the only group gaming that I am interested in playing is campaigns, so I will still be doing 3K for one off games in the 8th. Personal choice, and time will still be a factor reguardless of which edition you are playing.

For those who claim that tactics are king in the 2250 games and in general more challenging; please explain to me how a nasty Lord level Character along with his drinking buddies sprinkled with two scroll caddys and token core troops is tactical and challenging? This is one of the many reasons why I dont play in that level any more because playing against someones deathstar is booring even if I bring out my deathstar. At 3K deathstars have a diminishing return going agains them, which is what I like about that level.

lordmetroid
12-06-2010, 18:03
I don't think 3000 points, that is a little bit too much and will allow for more special and rare choices. 2500 points seems more reasonable.

Badbones777
13-06-2010, 00:17
I think most of the guys in my gaming group can field 3k (and those who can't can probably use allies/other guys minis) so I reckon we will at least give it a go and see.

My personal preference is for medium and small games, so I don't tend to stray too far above 2.5k if at all possible. Just a personal preference I suppose, but I find larger games take an inordinate amount of time and if anything limit choice. We are not graced witht he biggest of gaming tables, and in fact the 2.5 game we played today was something of a cluttered mess with zero room to move about, so 2k tends to be the sweet spot.

I'll definitley at least try 3k and above in the new rules though, and
tbh, the only thing that would finally and truly turn me off the system (and I can't see it happening) is if WFB went the path of 40k apocalypse-the two games of that I played rank as easily the worst wargaming experiences of my life (shudder)

burad
13-06-2010, 01:38
I don;t like playing at less than 3k.

sulla
13-06-2010, 02:12
I don't think 3000 points, that is a little bit too much and will allow for more special and rare choices. 2500 points seems more reasonable.

Agreed. 2500pts seems a good level for the game in 8th. Not so big that it stops horde players fielding big armies, but not so small that you will only be facing 3-4 decent sized units.

artisturn
13-06-2010, 05:47
Not a single GW store in the State I live in and the local game store went out of business over a year ago so all games are arranged and played at private homes.

So it will all depend on who I play for game size, most of the players in the group can easily field 3K but we also have two new Dwarf players and I am not sure if they have 3k worth of troops.

As for myself self bigger the better, I have played two 10K games and they were a lot of fun so I am looking forward to playing some more big games with the 8th edition rules.

Voss
13-06-2010, 06:52
Nope. I've never enjoyed games of fantasy at that point level- the game just bogs down too much and the focus on herohammer increases exponentially.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
13-06-2010, 06:58
After an amazing doubles game at effectively 3k... Yes, I will most definitely scale up. Earlier, it was probably.

Chicago Slim
14-06-2010, 12:23
Some of us think of 3000 points as "scaling down"... :)

Hannimar
14-06-2010, 12:26
My gaming group will probably scale up from 2250 games to 4000.

Avian
14-06-2010, 12:37
Thinking about it, playing at the same size as now, but having games go quicker seems more tempting than having larger battles play the same time as now.

yabbadabba
14-06-2010, 13:42
Thinking about it, playing at the same size as now, but having games go quicker seems more tempting than having larger battles play the same time as now. Surely this means that there are more ways to enjoy playing a proper game of fantasy now within that old 2-2.5 hour time limit?

logan054
14-06-2010, 13:54
I would certainly like to scale up for larger games but i think it will depend on everyone else, distance people have to travel and method, i mean i dont really think i would want to take a 3k VC army on the bus or anything.

ChaosVC
14-06-2010, 17:01
Love to, but not all my friends have the time to do up a fully painted 3k army with variants options to make the game more interesting. Which means, fat chance for us baby.

TheRaven
14-06-2010, 17:54
I would go to 3K if I had to, but wouldn't like it. Personally I thought 2.5K would have been a nice sweet number to scale up to but whatever.

I think we need to remember though, it doesn't matter what GW wants it only matters what the specific tournament organizers want. Ard' Boyz is already 3K isn't it? And most of the tournaments I go to aren't officiatl GW GTs or anything. All it takes is for one tournament to run a 3K event and have it's attendance cut in half becuase people don't have the right models for a 3K army in the new environment for that experiment to end.

Skyros
14-06-2010, 19:47
I'm not against scaling up to 3k and it won't be hard at all, compared to my existing 2.5k list.

I'll add another lord and hero, some more magic items and upgrades, and that's about it. I won't even need to add a single additional unit (though I could if I wanted).

mdauben
14-06-2010, 21:05
I would prefer to stick with the current 2000 or 2250 point games, but a lot will depend on the direction the local gaming community wants to go. I'll argue for maintaining our current game size, but in the end if everyone else goes to 3K, I suppose I will too.

Venkh
14-06-2010, 21:48
Personally I like the idea of bigger games. I might be inclined that way because I play armies with either expensive troops or expensive models.

I am not sure I would so keen if I was playing a horde army like Skaven or O&G

yabbadabba
14-06-2010, 21:52
I think we need to remember though, it doesn't matter what GW wants it only matters what the gamers want. Edited for reality.

Avian
14-06-2010, 22:22
Surely this means that there are more ways to enjoy playing a proper game of fantasy now within that old 2-2.5 hour time limit?
Given that we can typically only start playing once the kids have been put to bed, that means games tend to run rather late and it would be great to get them done quicker (which would probably also mean I got to play more often).

If I actually had enough time to play games to start with, I'd probably be more interested in bigger games.