PDA

View Full Version : and the 'normal' army size will be...



Latro_
23-06-2010, 10:45
h'okie so a fair few warseerians have played a few games under the new rules now, the army list forum is buzzing with frantic re-worked lists. However one thing seems to be fairly up in the air, the army sizes most of you will now be playing at.

It does seem there appears to be a bit of a push towards 3000pts now with the new rules and the fact large blocks of troops seem to be king.

So what do you think you'll mainly be gaming at flgwise? Also do you think your local/national tournaments will change also?


edit: Added a Poll

Ultimate Life Form
23-06-2010, 10:54
The new Core requirments mean that I will have trouble fielding legal 2000 point armies as is, let alone pushing towards 3000.

dragonet111
23-06-2010, 10:54
At present without the book I think we will stick to 2000pts. After a few games we may upgrade to 3000pts but only if it is a real bonus if the game is fun in 2000pts I don't see why we should play in 3000pts.

Coldblood666
23-06-2010, 10:55
Im most positive that my local gaming store is switching to 3k tournaments.

Eternus
23-06-2010, 10:59
We normally play 2000-2500 at our club due to time restrictions, but if the new killier rules mean the game plays slightly faster, I'd like to play bigger games, with 3000 as the standard probably. The guys used to play 3000 anyway, until I waded in with my logic and said 'why play 3000 points if you never get past turn 3?' so we dropped the points limit!

RanaldLoec
23-06-2010, 11:15
I'm lucky in that I can play during the week on days off as well at the local club on mondays so I play 1500 3k 6k one day soon I hope to field my whole empire army.

Plus it depends on your army my wood elves play very quickley, empire takes longer more to move and deploy.

Things are going to slow down as we all learn the ins and outs of the new rules.

Latro_
23-06-2010, 11:24
See i think 3k will be the standard, i'm fairly new at fantasy but have been into 40k for years. You can get a 1500pt game of 40k done in a couple of hours with both sides having 130 'individual' move models since its fast paced.

The count on the 3k beastman army i was thinking of is about 150 and thats 2 Big core units, 2 smaller ones and a crap load of special/rare filler. With all that in movement trays and a faster more brutal rules base... kinda seems to fit into 2h window imo.

plantagenet
23-06-2010, 11:34
I am hoping the game size is closer to 2500 than 3000 to start with.

This would allow players to build up there old 7th edition lists in a more gradual way. Finding an extra 1000 points just from a painting point of view especialyl with the move to bigger units is goign to take awhile I think.

Pawn of Decay
23-06-2010, 11:41
I think a lot of people will start playing 3,000pts Games. However I am inclined to think that major Tournaments and National Tournaments such as the GT for example will stay at 2,000pts.

It's a lot of games to get done during the day and although the new rules etc. make it quicker to play than it used to be, I feel it wont change the tournament scene too much.

Darwin Esq.
23-06-2010, 11:44
The new Core requirments mean that I will have trouble fielding legal 2000 point armies as is, let alone pushing towards 3000.

I agree. Minimum 25% core is actually more than I first thought, now that I've started working out lists. I think we'll go down from 2250 to 2000 to make it easier to calculate, and easier to field a legal army!

Also, with 3000pts being the step up to bigger games according to the army composition rules in the BRB, I don't think it will be the standard.

Shamutanti
23-06-2010, 11:52
3k.

10chars? :>

CrystalSphere
23-06-2010, 11:52
I will be playing 2999 with the percentage requirement based on 3k points (so 750 lord cap, 750 hero cap, 1500 special cap, and 750 rare cap) but with the restrictions of playing under 3k points (no more than 3 of the same special unit, no more than 2 of the same rare unit). This is because i think it is the best of both worlds, and i do like big battles but i donīt like people spamming their elite/special units all over the place. Also this allows you to use dragons or other powerful lords, while at other point levels they just donīt fit in the cap. I think this is good because this way people can use their miniatures more often. Also i like this point level becaue you can have both powerful characters + a decent army, or either average characters + a very big army, one thing i didnīt like much about playing 2k is that most of the time you ended up playing a 1500 point battle with troops, 500 being spent on characters on average.

sulla
23-06-2010, 12:17
The new Core requirments mean that I will have trouble fielding legal 2000 point armies as is, let alone pushing towards 3000.:)A sad indictment on the usefulness of core troops in 7th...

I voted 2500pts because that lets you make 3-4 serious combat blocks plus support units/characters for most non horde armies. I think 3K is just too big for hordes (other than the most dedicated players).

GodlessM
23-06-2010, 12:23
Well GW seem to be pushing 3k, but I imagine with the lust for anti-SPAM clubs will instead play 2999pts, so that they can still play the size and glory of 3k but without having 6 of the same special or 4 of the same rare to face.

theorox
23-06-2010, 12:25
I agree. Minimum 25% core is actually more than I first thought.

Really? Less than i thought! What army are you playing if you can't manage to use 25% in Core? I already put 50% there... Then again, i'm an Orc! :D

I voted 2500, i like that size. Easy to calculate the %, you can fit in the characters you want easily enough, and you get much troops as well!

Theo

madden
23-06-2010, 12:36
I read on another thead that the units which don't count towards mn core choices also don't count towards the 25% core either so corpse carts,swarms of all types, giant rats etc don't get included in the min core, but I can't confirm this as not seen the book for more than 5 mins a week ago.

Flash Felix
23-06-2010, 12:43
I'm not sure what it'll turn out to be, but I think 2,400 will be what my group starts with as standard. Two reasons;

1. It's a short jump from 2,250. A few magic items, a character, or maybe another rank of troops is all you might need to make that extra 150 points. Though this doesn't apply if you have to redesign your whole army....

2. Easy to break down into 25% chunks of 600 points. Yeah you can do it with 2,500 or 2,250, but it's a little easier with round numbers.

What it'll be after a year of playing, I don't know. But 2,400 seems a good place to start.

The SkaerKrow
23-06-2010, 13:09
I'm sure people will foolishly push towards 3K standard for games, further upping the buy-in (and reducing player recruitment) for a game that's already a fringe pursuit at best.

Latro_
23-06-2010, 13:13
Tell what will be interesting, the amount of models you get in the start box.

Aluinn
23-06-2010, 13:33
I can't really see why people think the new rules are pushing anyone towards playing larger games. Large blocks of infantry simply means slightly fewer blocks than before. Since you're not paying for command on your extra models, it really doesn't require as many more points as it might seem at first glance. I mean, what, did the average block go from 25 to 30? I think that's likely. 7+ ranks might still be overkill in some situations, as it gives you rather pronounced diminishing returns on your attacks even if you no longer lose them due to casualties. That isn't a lot more points to spend.

I think the Horde rule is a good way to get more attacks, sometimes, but to try to go for Horde and Stubborn is not necessary. If you're a Horde (and if you actually get to use the bonus to its full potential) then you should rarely be losing combats anyway, so you don't need Stubborn. Skaven might want to go for both with ~50 Slaves, but they always took huge blocks of Slaves. It's still going to be suicidal to waltz something like Boyz in a 10x6 into your opponent's lines and expect them to be invincible, because they will get flanked by something with ranks every time.

Honestly, blocks of 25-30 still seem quite alright to me. 2 of them will be almost as hard to break as a single block of 50, assuming a character and/or BSB in the foremost, never even mind General's Ld, and will be able to actually make use of tactics. People may scream that flanking doesn't matter anymore, but in the same breath they make a huge deal out of Steadfast. Am I missing something? Sure units of 5 can't flank (or 10 if they lose any to shooting/magic) but how often do people run units without ranks to do anything but march block anway? Multiple small units may indeed be dead for anyone that isn't shooty, but medium units are another animal entirely.

So, I hardly think everyone's going to be running blocks of 50 or more. Weak infantry that are cheap enough to do it don't gain as much from being a Horde as is made out, and you're only going to be using 7 of your frontage against a standard block to boot. It's not as though you can really expect to maneuver such a monstrosity onto someone's flank barring a miracle.

So, if your average size goes from 25 to 30, that's negligible. You may see more of the extreme large sizes than before, but I don't think anyone's obliged to take them to be viable. What about characters? Well, in 2k you have 500 points to spend on Lords, whereas before you were limited to one, and that is enough for most armies to pack in 2 if they like. On the Heroes front, unless they're all tooled up to the absolute maximum, you're looking at probably up to 6, more for lists like Gobbos or LM, from a max of 3 after your Lord in 7th. What about this requires you to bump up the game size? There is always going to be that one extra hero choice or that one magic item you can't take because you can't squeeze it in, even if you play 10,000 point games: "OMG I can take every special character in my army if we go up to 10,250! I refuse to play anything less!" I can hear it now. That line of thinking leads to nowhere but madness, and anyway rejects the fundamental balancing tool of the game system; you cannot take everything you want, ever. There are always tradeoffs. One must learn to deal with this, and maybe even like it ;).

So, now, with all of the above, and no increase in points cost for anything, I see no reason at all to play larger games than before, thus I voted 2,000.

MechGumbi
23-06-2010, 13:34
I think my play group will want to play 3k games, but we play so slowly that the 1k-2k standard will probably remain, except for special all-day gaming events.

zeebie
23-06-2010, 13:40
I hope it's not to high, as The SkaerKrow has already mention the buy in for new player is rather high already. I like modelling and money isn't exactly short, but most people arount my area where already only using 2000-2250 list, which isn't easy for a new player. 3000 would just mean new players wouldn't bother, as the task would just seem to big

Galatan
23-06-2010, 14:19
Seriously, both in friendly games and tournaments 3k is extremely undesirable. Mainly just because of the amount of time it takes. One of the biggest tournies hier is Battle of the Clubs in which you play 3 games in one day. If we switch the whole thing to 3k we will need a whole extra day!
Besides, who in their right mind would want to play a horde army at that level? I can fit 180 soldiers in a 2200 empire empire and they ain't even a 'true' horde army, imagine a 3k army...

So I good old 2250 or maybe up to 2500, but 3k? no. It's just not practical for many people. Maybe for local or the skull of thrones (what the hell was wrong with simple GT?). Some people make a different army each year for a tournament. I don't think that is still doable with 3k.

bluemage
23-06-2010, 14:27
Our games will probably cover quite a large range from 1000 up to 3000 if it runs faster. There are only 6 of us and two players really only have a little more than a battalion so 1,000 will be common for quite a while.

indytims
23-06-2010, 16:37
I HOPE it will sit around 2000-2250. Even if the rules somehow play 'faster', I would much prefer quicker, tidier games, than 4-5 hour slugfests.

GW of course WANTS the 'average' game to go up in points, which would mean higher buy-in as others here have mentioned. It's no surprise that they would want to speed up the game, in an effort to encourage the playerbase to play bigger games - and hence, buy more stuff.

I'm definitely not a tournament player, and the folks I play with will usually stick to the 2k range. Frankly, my friends and I don't really care what GW wants us to do. ;)

-Tim

Anvilbrow
23-06-2010, 20:53
2400 sure seems a nice, simple point value to play. Divides easily for composition purposes, gives plenty of points to play with.

Not that I think it will be a standard, just an easy size to work with.

2000 is also good.

2250 is horrible. That will have to go the way of the Dodo...

Lazarian
24-06-2010, 06:16
There are several factors that will make 3k points worthwhile to go to.

1) there will be very few more units than what your fielding now, your probably going to beef up what you already have. The majority of people ive ever seen play fantasy have many extra models already and until they get exactly what they want will use them.

2) This version plays very quick, an old 2k game in 7ed is longer than a 8e game at 3k points. Your constantly taking numerous casualties in this edition and several of the phases are trimmed down, especially magic.

3) some armies are hampered unless you reach 3k, as of now in 2k many of the character options several elite armies took are not able to be taken unless the points shade a few inches north.

4) Larger armies are more fun. I play night goblins and ogres, my first 8ed game featured 3 blocks of 50+ night goblins and featured a swarm of night goblin characters hopping around in a zany fashion. It was a complete blast to see that many figures displayed. Even pouring over the book learning rules we got in a 2750 game in under an hour and a half.

The edition is gearing up to be all about excess and more stuff. I like the feel of the rules and am very happy with just about everything ive seen/played with so far.

HeroFox
24-06-2010, 06:33
I got word from a reliable source that the new point range will be 2500 for Skull of Thrones.

Vsurma
24-06-2010, 07:48
As lizardman player there are two driving forces.

1. I want to run 2 lords, whether it is 2 slanns or a slann and carnosaur oldblood etc. This pushes the points up, taking 2 slanns needs the game to be 2200pts and up.

If I want to take a carnosaur oldblood then the game has to be much larger.

In 7th we played 2250 which I can still live with though 2300 makes my life a lot easier as far as the lords go.

Now as for the troop requirement, lizardmen have 2 troop choices, skinks and saurus (skink krox as 3rd I Suppose they count too)

Now taking too many skink units tends to be frowned upon (and the number of ranged troop choices is often comped and capped at 3) so taking more skinks is out, skrox are so cheap they won't really fill the requirement so your stuck taking more saurus.

Which is fine if you actually want them but annoying if you don't.

I think a slight increase from the 2250 we used to play to 2500 is likely.
Most armies will want a fighty and magic lord and having 625 to play with should do the trick, also having to spend this much on troops isn't too bad.

Crovax20
24-06-2010, 07:53
Most likely 1500 points simply because most people won't be able to field enough stuff in larger games. Club is already mostly playing 1k-1500 points, due to most peeps not having enough stuff to go higher.

Desert Rain
24-06-2010, 09:13
I think that 2000 and 2250 will still be the 'normal' size of the game. If the major tournaments change the size of their games there is a possibility that 'normal' gamers change their size to that which the tournaments use.

Kerill
24-06-2010, 09:23
2250 still, because half a point makes little difference to me. Anything up to 2500 is fine since it still forces you to choose between X and Y. The fact that there is a horde rule in 8th doesn't mean you need to have enough points for every unit to be a horde. Instead you should have to choose between hordes/large units or many units. On a 6*4 table 3000 points IMO leaves too little room to manouever and it will become a pure slugfest in the centre with limited manouevering/flanking. Some people seem to be arguing that because you can have a horde you must have the points for hordes, don't really agree there at all.

3000 points is (in a somewhat unbalanced game, don't get me wrong) more unbalanced than <3000 points. 3 Hydras, 18 flamers and everyone can field a dragon rider. At 2250 armies are forced to make harder choices- many armies can't afford a dragon rider or a maxed out Greater Daemon. High elves have to decide whether the want a star dragon with a rider with few trinkets or a lesser dragon with a fully kitted lord.

My lizards have to choose between a fully kitted slann or an oldblood (easy choice though) or a semi kitted slaan and an oldblood with simple equipment.

More elite armies should be forced to choose between a fighty lord and a casty lord so there is a noticeable difference in armies. If every army has a level 4 mage and a fighty lord it just seems less interesting to me personally.

Gonzoyola
24-06-2010, 09:44
The new rules are pushing people towards larger games because fielding Minotaurs in units fo 3 is going to be obsolete, In my beasts army I find two units of minos mandatory, and now I have to run them 6 strong at least, have fun fitting two of those units in a 2500 point list, I also intend to run Gors and Ungors 30 strong. Bigger unit sizes are generally going to equal bigger games.

Of course none of this is mandatory, if players want to play smaller games they will, just the way the mechanics have kind of stream lined the game will make 3k games not so intimidating and time consuming, atleast once things get in proper order

fluffstalker
24-06-2010, 09:47
Moar cash :(. WFB was more expensive then its sci fi counterpart and now it looks like this is only gonna get worse if everyone is only gonna really play 3k games.

My 1.75k Ig army put me back about 500, cant even imagine how much a new army like Skaven is gonna cost at 3000 points with large amounts of infantry. Not to mention the painting lol.

Rosstifer
24-06-2010, 10:08
I like 3k, gives a bigger feel of the epic. Fantasy isn't for tiddly skirmishes.

cptcosmic
24-06-2010, 10:14
the best was always 2k and will remain 2k. why? because you have to make choices that mean something. in larger games you can bring everything your armybook has to offer which also means that less playerskill is involved.

beside that 2k games are reasonable fast to perform, thus you can play more mathces.

honorandglory
24-06-2010, 22:07
3000 points really only allows you to put more ranks on units,to be able to last a little longer in the grind of combat.

Aratus
24-06-2010, 22:45
3000 points will be stupid. I wont play it, theres too much to abuse. I dont wanna see 4 Doomwheels and 4 Abombs in 1 game from someone. 2500-2999 will be fine

Aluinn
24-06-2010, 23:26
The new rules are pushing people towards larger games because fielding Minotaurs in units fo 3 is going to be obsolete, In my beasts army I find two units of minos mandatory, and now I have to run them 6 strong at least, have fun fitting two of those units in a 2500 point list, I also intend to run Gors and Ungors 30 strong. Bigger unit sizes are generally going to equal bigger games.

Of course none of this is mandatory, if players want to play smaller games they will, just the way the mechanics have kind of stream lined the game will make 3k games not so intimidating and time consuming, atleast once things get in proper order

It's not obsolete when your opponent has less to throw at them. Basically, 3 Minos in 1,000 = 6 Minos in 2,000 = 9 in 3,000, because the shooting/attacks they have to weather will increase in proportion to any increase in your opponent's army size, roughly. You can say that you have to run 6, but there's equal impetus to go down to 1,000 then and be able to run units of 3 as there is to go up to 3,000 and be able to run 2 units of 6 or whatever. All you're doing by going up in points is treading water; they will have to be even tougher than the rules changes dictate in that case, since they're going to be subjected to vastly huge numbers of war machines (6 cannons is pretty easy to take in 3,000), multiple level 4 wizards, and such.

Now if you like the idea of handing GW more money to basically play the same game (with larger versions of the same units, which need to be larger because the game is larger, and will suffer similar amounts of damage), then yeah, go to 3,000. Just realize that for one thing very few 3,000-point armies will be fully-painted and it will ugly up the game, and that it makes such a daunting prospect for new players that it will likely discourage them from starting up. Oh, and you'll probably need to play on an 8' x 4' board.

It's also disputable that 2 units of, well, anything will be 'mandatory'. Beastmen chariots got a lot better, and Razorgors are a decent alternative, if you need fast, hard-hitting units. Every army has multiple options for any role a unit can perform, except maybe fast cav/skirmishers/scouts.

As a 40K player who has seen armies go up to huge points limits in 5th Edition, I can say it did nothing for the game. All I see as a result are huge piles of gray plastic, a lot more dice thrown, a lot more space taken up, and a lot more money spent for no improvement in the experience.

horror
24-06-2010, 23:44
2000 - 2400 will clearly the way to go.

Most of the people calling for 3000 point games seem to be Chaos Warrior (or other smaller elite army) players. I doubt many Skaven and O&G players are really looking forward to painting up another 1000 -750pts of stuff. And no, competitive Skaven players aren't just going to fill that void with a Vermin Lord and some plague censer bearers just so that CWs can get another couple blocks of 50 Khorne marauders.

I think the game loses something at bigger points levels. Weaker hordes become worse, regardless of how many you have when they are facing elite hordes. Army lists should require thought and sacrifice. You shouldn't be able to get everything. I love Screaming Bells but I've gotten use to the idea that I'm only going to be taking them in bigger games now. Other people should follow suit.

enygma7
24-06-2010, 23:46
I also voted for 2k and I think Aluinn made some good points about why 8th ed doesn't require an upping in game size in any way. Personally, I feel that factors other than game mechanics will conspire to keep the points around 2k - namely cost of starting an army from scratch, the time required to paint it (along with peoples attention spans - I tend to yearn for something new after collecting 2k) and the time needed to play a game, especially in competetive settings.



GW of course WANTS the 'average' game to go up in points, which would mean higher buy-in as others here have mentioned. It's no surprise that they would want to speed up the game, in an effort to encourage the playerbase to play bigger games - and hence, buy more stuff.


I've seen this sentament aired repeatedly on warseer and it never gets challenged. I know cynacism is in fashion but lets think about this for a second. Most wargamers are collecters - there is no such thing as "enough" models. If an army is finished they collect a new one. If an army isn't finished they collect a new one :) OK, so some people might be inspired by 8th ed to expand their existing armies and some people do just collect the one army and stop there, but most of the people I know will continue spending the same ammount for their plastic crack regardless of the game size.

So, sure, if the standard game size rises GW do stand to make a few more sales, but it isn't a license to print money. Lets not forget that core and horde infantry has long been seen as useless and underpowered in warhammer and these changes have real balance justifications besides a cynical money grab.

Anyway, whilst I don't think the standard game size will go up as such I do think 8th ed will expand the variety of game sizes. Those that have a hankering to play epic battles will play 3k and be glad of the more streamlined play, but it won't be a requirement.

honorandglory
25-06-2010, 05:46
It's not the shooting and magic that will force bigger games. It is the Grind of combat. That unit of 3 minotaurs never before had to worry about the the enemy hitting them every single model in the front rank when they charged,.Now they have to wait for the enemy to get done swinging to see how many models/wounds they have left ,even when they charged, and cheap units will always get those attacks until they are whittled down below 2 ranks,which will take a while.

Latro_
25-06-2010, 11:18
It's not the shooting and magic that will force bigger games. It is the Grind of combat. That unit of 3 minotaurs never before had to worry about the the enemy hitting them every single model in the front rank when they charged,.Now they have to wait for the enemy to get done swinging to see how many models/wounds they have left ,even when they charged, and cheap units will always get those attacks until they are whittled down below 2 ranks,which will take a while.

I guess thats the crux of it, easy to run away and say 'right now i need minotaurs in 2 ranks of 3' so pts limit in armies must go up.

What might be the case is that a more efficiencies approach comes into play where its 'ok there are all these new rules for stubborn and more than one rank fighting' i'm still limited in pts so how can i make the most of them' be that using cheaper units but bump them in regards to int or strength with the likes of spells or banners etc...

If pts do stay at 2kish mark then i think that will be the case. Like normal ungors for example in the beastemen book seemed rubbish in 7th, but now you horde them, add a load of ranks and cast some beast magic on them and you have a stubborn unit with a bucket load of spear attacks at a decent strength, making them very viable and comin in at about the same cost as a smaller more normal/elite unit you would of taken before.

Chiron
25-06-2010, 15:24
3k games requre less skill and more men, aspects I'm not fond of

I'm going to be trying to stick to 2000pts wherever possible

N810
25-06-2010, 15:40
Well my group of friends seems to be stuck a 1500 for some reason..?

shelfunit.
25-06-2010, 15:46
3000 points will be stupid. I wont play it, theres too much to abuse. I dont wanna see 4 Doomwheels and 4 Abombs in 1 game from someone. 2500-2999 will be fine

The usual "out-of-context" whine here I see. At 3k you have 750pts of rare. Yes 4 doom wheels are possible, as are 3 HPAs, but the worst combo possible is 3 doom wheels and 1 HPA. Not nice I know, but not the "4 Doomwheels and 4 Abombs" of the apocalypse that this pointless hysteria claims.

mdauben
25-06-2010, 15:59
I still feel that despite any changes in the game, 3000 points is in general too large for the standard 4x6 foot table. I feel crowding that many miniatures on the table just further limits your tactics in deployment and manuvering, turing the game into a more and more of a dice rolling contest, as you just push your shoulder-to-shoulder units forward.

As long as my opponent's agree I'll be sticking to 2000-2250 points for my games.

Tae
25-06-2010, 16:37
Well GW seem to be pushing 3k, but I imagine with the lust for anti-SPAM clubs will instead play 2999pts, so that they can still play the size and glory of 3k but without having 6 of the same special or 4 of the same rare to face.

I wouldn't say they are 'pushing 3k', given that their GT is still only 2k.

I believe they included the extra bits in 3k plus games because they know some people like to player bigger so wanted some kind of mechanism to allow for this.

Aluinn
25-06-2010, 23:21
It's not the shooting and magic that will force bigger games. It is the Grind of combat. That unit of 3 minotaurs never before had to worry about the the enemy hitting them every single model in the front rank when they charged,.Now they have to wait for the enemy to get done swinging to see how many models/wounds they have left ,even when they charged, and cheap units will always get those attacks until they are whittled down below 2 ranks,which will take a while.

My point wasn't that magic or shooting make you play bigger games, in fact quite the opposite. Let me put it this way:

People have a tendency, which is natural, to think of the larger unit (let's say 6 Minos instead of 4) as existing in the same environment as the smaller alternative. Therefore, it seems that it will be tougher and able to weather more damage. In a vacuum this is true.

However, if you are increasing the game size in order to take the larger unit, it is in fact not that much tougher, if at all. Stats wise that's so, yes, but you basically give people half again as many war machines, shooty units, and spells to throw at it by upping the points limit. The upshot of this is that your units of 6 Minos will probably be making it into combat with 4 models anyway. If you took them in 2k, they might be all that, but you ain't playin' the same game as before.

This means that while it seems like your army becomes vastly more powerful when you increase the game size, because, well, your list is much more impressive, the truth is that nothing will really last longer. Is playing with 6 Minotaurs that die on Turn X more fun than playing with 4 that die on the same turn? I can't really think why it would be, and that's really what is happening.

To take another example, WoC players might be thinking they need, say, 18 Chaos Warriors in a unit minimum, and thus that they need to play, say, 3k points, but if 18 cuts it in 3k then 12, by the same token, cuts it in 2k. There is no reason to bump the points up.

The only case I can see here is that it might be optimal to take fewer but larger units than before, and that people don't like the idea of playing with fewer units. I guess that is legitimate but I think, as I said in my first post in this thread, that there's a kneejerk tendency to go to extremes when rules changes happen, and that unit sizes will probably only grow by an average of 5-10 models unless those models are something extremely cheap like Skaven Slaves or Goblins. Obsessively trying to get and keep Steadfast is just going to result in an arms race that horde armies will always win, and we have to accept that we'll have to cede it from time to time. If a unit is mega-huge it is either suffering from major eggs-in-a-basket problems or is made up of wimpy models that you'll likely win combat against anyway. Yeah they'll stick around for two or three turns, but you still win if you have support to counter whatever extras they might throw in.

EDIT: And though I used shooting in my example again, the same goes for combat; the enemy units you're charging will be bigger and last longer in 3k than they would in 2k.

enygma7
25-06-2010, 23:41
there's a kneejerk tendency to go to extremes when rules changes happen, and that unit sizes will probably only grow by an average of 5-10 models unless those models are something extremely cheap like Skaven Slaves or Goblins. Obsessively trying to get and keep Steadfast is just going to result in an arms race that horde armies will always win, and we have to accept that we'll have to cede it from time to time.

This. Quoted for truth and emphasis. I've seen numerous posts from people advocating huge units of high elf spearmen, chaos warriors etc. on the grounds of making use of the steadfast rule and others advocating units 120 strong. Steadfast is nice, but it needs to be kept in perspective as a buff for horde units so they can hold up long enough for re-enforcements.

honorandglory
26-06-2010, 00:14
The problem with that is the horde armies are already set to outgrind the elites with their 7th ed builds. A typical Empire, Skaven, Ork & Goblin 7th ed army are already packing 25 to 30 man units, and around 3 to 4 units of such size. A typical Dark Elf, High Elf, Wood Elf, Deamon army is packing 10 to 15 man units for actual combat effective troops and only around 2 to 3 units of such size. The only elite army that may be able to keep up with the grind are Warriors of chaos due to their resilience, but even they will lose 2 to 3 models per combat, and each model killed is less immediate combat effectiveness for said elite unit.

Chiron
26-06-2010, 01:39
I think your underestimating the loss of HW&S to hordes, sure a 6+ ward is nice but against most elite troops its going to end up just being a 6+ ward while elite units will still have a 4+ save or so

Even Greatswords are slightly tempting as a choice now because of this, there 4+ plate will make a big difference against hordes and elite whereas before you were better off with Swordsmen, same save but cheaper and get more of em.

Aluinn
26-06-2010, 02:41
Except for the fact that you can't use it against attacks from the flank, the HW/S ward save is better than the previous rule for anything that doesn't already have a ward save. Here's a comparison for a unit with no armor:

Against S3 Attacks:

7th Ed. HW/S = 5+ or 33% to save
*th Ed. HW/S = 6+/6+ or 33% to save

Against S4 Attacks:

7th Ed. HW/S = 6+ or 17% to save
8th Ed. HW/S = 6+(w) or 17% to save

Against S5 Attacks

7th Ed. HW/S = No save
8th Ed. HW/S = 6+ (w) or 17% to save

So against lower strength it is equally as effective, and against anything that would ignore the armor completely in 7th it is better. (For units with light armor, it only becomes superior against S6, but is still equal against anything less.) I know there was a rumor that the parry ward couldn't be used in conjunction with an armor save but, as far as I can tell, all the rulebook says is that it can't be combined with another *ward* save.

As for horde units already being able to grind things down, it doesn't seem that way to me. Right now they're subject to losing combat horribly against elite units even if they outrank them and then just running away (without many, if any at all, attacks back). However, it still isn't a horrible problem for elites. 20 Spearmen vs. 40 Gobbos with spears and a bare-bones Boss for Ld, for example, will average around 6-7 kills for 2-3 losses--hitting on a 3+ with re-rolls is nice. They won't lose that combat barring bad luck and will eventually just kill all the Goblins (they'll probably break at 9, or in just about 2.5 game turns). They'll also start cutting into the Goblin attacks towards the end of that so they should only lose about 10. That's a lot more than they may have before, but 40 Goblins are worth more than 10 Spearmen, and the remaining 10 Spearmen aren't useless thereafter.

So against roughly equal points of horde types, in a vacuum, you will still win. Of course that combat was with the Gobbos in ranks rather than horde formation, however, static ranks are still valuable for wimpy models, and if they're in a horde they might break a lot sooner. It may turn out to be pretty much a wash for them--they kill more but lose more ranks in rough proportion.

Now more elite units with prices of 10-15 per model will have less than 25 models, probably (I'm thinking about 14-21 will wind up the norm, depending on cost), but they will also kill those Gobbos/Slaves/whatever a lot faster and/or be tougher. 14 (7x2, all models swinging) Greatswords will chew through 40 Goblins with ease, for example, given a combat without characters.

So you go from 15-20 Spearmen or equivalent "semi-elites" to 20-25, maybe 30 in large games, and from 10-14 elite infantry to 14-21, maybe 12-20 for 25mm basers. This is not a huge jump. Horde armies will be the only ones who benefit much from taking an extra 20 models in a unit. The others will have to win by inflicting casualties rather than static CR however you slice it.

honorandglory
26-06-2010, 03:05
So you go from 15-20 Spearmen or equivalent "semi-elites" to 20-25, maybe 30 in large games, and from 10-14 elite infantry to 14-21, maybe 12-20 for 25mm basers.

And this is the exact reason for the jump in Points per game.Which is what I have been saying the whole time ,thank you for making my point for me.