PDA

View Full Version : Ideal Point-Size for a Tournament?



Quinn
16-06-2011, 17:00
I'm part of a team that is putting on a 3 day tournament in November. The 40K side is set at running 2K point games. On the Fantasy side (the one I'm directly connected with), we're having a bit of a debate as to what Point total to run. The tournament will consist of 5 games over 2 days. Since, this is the first year that the Fantasy side is going to be included in this event, we want to get it right.

My partner has a great deal of experience running local tournaments and believes that we should go for 2200 points. His main concerns are:

1. Locally, we have a lot of stores running escalation leagues this summer and consequently a lot of new players will be potentially attending our event. He believes that it would be better to cater to these players and set the point total required relatively low.

2. The #1 complaint he's had for the last 3 local tournaments he's run was lack of time to complete games. He believes that it will be easier for players to complete games at 2200 points, 2.5 hour long rounds.

I am of the opinion that 2400 points would be better. My reasons are:

1. Although catering to first-time tournament players is fine, most of the experienced guys want to play higher point limit games. We want to grow this tournament and I don't want to alienate guys who expect to play at point levels that are more ideal for 8th edition.

2. I don't think the point totals are the real problem as far as completing games in a timely manner. I think that 2.5 hours is more than enough time to complete a 2400 point game. Set-up seems to be the biggest waster of time, and I think that scenarios that encourage rapid set-up is the answer, as opposed to limiting points.

There are other arguments for both sides, but these are the biggest discussion points right now. I know there are a lot of experienced players on this site, so what is your opinion on ideal point-size? What are your reasons? Would you attend or decide to pass on a tournament based on the Points?

Thanks for reading this and replying.

Malorian
16-06-2011, 17:04
This was brought up as soon as 8th came out and no one knew if it would be 3000 or 2500.

Now I find 2500 to be a bit too limiting once you get a few hordes in there, but then again at 3000 you are allowing more duplicates for special and rare that you might not want.

Personally I think 2999 is the best, but it's more common around here to see fantasy at 2500.

Quinn
16-06-2011, 17:10
Yeah, 3000 is definitely out at this tourney. I personally enjoyed playing 3000 at Ardboyz this year, but it's hard to expect the majority of players to have painted armies at that level and we don't have enough time to run 3 hour games.

Aluinn
16-06-2011, 17:54
I know I'm going to be a complete outlier on this, but I'd suggest 2,000. I am definitely biased by liking smaller games, so I'll admit that up front, but there's also the fact that it's the level which GW themselves primarily balance around (and playtest most thoroughly), and which Jervis suggested for tournaments in a WD article.

A lot of players feel that it doesn't allow them to take enough, and I do understand that, but IMO there is just no need to have anything that you can only take in a game larger than 2,000--at least not in a competitive environment. In practice, the things that people are wanting to take, but can't at 2,000 points, tend to be stuff like an Arch Lector on War Altar plus a Wizard Lord. Arguably, the reason why this is considered "too good" is that the game is in fact balanced around 2,000 points.

In other words, the fact that 2,000 is restrictive enough that people find it to "chafe" a bit can be seen as a good sign. If you can't take everything you want to have in your army, that means that points restrictions are meaningful and are reining in more of the overpowered builds.

EDIT: Having said that, I think 2,200 points is fine too, and I'd back your partner up on that one. It's small enough to retain the benefits of 2,000, even if it does go a little over, IMO. You also have the benefits there of, as you said, sufficient time to finish games, as well as opening up the tournament to more participants (a lot of players do not have ~3,000 point armies, even if most on Warseer do :)), and a higher likelihood of seeing fully-painted armies.

Double Bonus Edit!: If 2.5 hours is more than enough time to finish the games (and I agree it probably ought to be), then going for a lower points limit could allow you to drop the rounds to 2 hours, and add an additional round. Getting to play a wider variety of opponents always makes these things more fun, I think. Also there's the matter of allowing a bit of downtime between rounds for those who need a break.

Yrrdead
16-06-2011, 18:11
For 7th points had a much more concrete effect on game length. Now I can finish a 2k game in the same time as a 3k game. The biggest factor on game length though is still the same....the opponent.

Honestly I don't think that there is much of a difference between 2200 and 2400. That is a 50pt slot difference which really won't mean much either way in terms of army composition or game time.

Again the #1 problem that your partner mentioned is only slightly related to points value and has much more to do with the experience of the player both in terms of game, their army , and tourney style playing.

Mercules
16-06-2011, 18:17
I'd say 1k-2.5k.

Most people I play seem to prefer 2.4-2.5k with a few that think there are less troublesome combos in 2k. There isn't much difference between 2.4k and 2.5k. 2k plays a bit different than 2.5 and people have to figure out how to fit all their "toys" in. 1k really forces your hand in making an army.

So you want to decide what you want the games to be like and go from there.

Borgnine
16-06-2011, 18:44
I vote for 2500 for no other reason than it just seems right.

Makaber
16-06-2011, 19:39
In my book, it would depend on the tournament. If you want to be all elitist and bad ass about it, I'd go 2500, as it allows you to fit pretty much everything you want into the army, while still keeping it at a manageable size.

However, personally I advocate 2000 points. There are several reasons:


The games go faster, so you get to play more games, or have better time per game, depending on your priorities as tournament organiser.
A lower points limit means a lower bar for new players to enter. Both with regards to how much they actually own, and how much they've got painted up.
Playing a smaller points size puts a natural limit on the amount of "un-fun" tricks you can cram into the list, simply because you can't include everything (like in 2500 points). For example, most lists with two Lords are out. Of course there are still things that can be exploited, but then again there always are.

Jind_Singh
16-06-2011, 20:04
I do 2500 points when I run 3 games in a day - it's large enough to field good armies but small enough to allow for a smooth running day.

My 1st tournament was at 2000pts but it was a bit small - the one I'm doing in July is 2250

AM1640
16-06-2011, 20:32
I have been to many tournaments and I find that the points size isn't as big a factor as other game related issues such as:
1: Having enough room to move from table to table between games. A recent tourny had tables jammed next to the wall and people were tripping over each other carrying armies back and forth to get to their next table.
2: Having everyone's attention when calling out who plays where and against whom. Try to keep the players quiet when making the 2 minute announcement.
3: Easily understood scenarios. New scenarios are great but make sure people can understand what they are playing for. If 1 person from every table has to come and ask a question there will be unfinished games.
4: Preset scenery. You didn't mention if the scenery would be random for every game (bad) or set for every game (good).
5: Rules queries. If a player is calling his opponent on every thing they do and then having to refer to the book, the next table of players or a judge then this wastes time. I have seen players deliberately cheat but it is un common. All players should be familiar with the rules. If your opponent isn't and you are refer them to specific rulebook pages when they aren't busy playing and try to keep the game moving. Or you can let some things slide that aren't crucial to the game and maybe pick up some sportsmanship points and then point out errors to the opponent after the game.
6: Perhaps a small prize for finishing a game or all games first.

Quinn
16-06-2011, 21:48
1-4 we have covered, both of us are very experienced at playing tournaments and have run into these issues before. We've both also ran quite a number of tournaments and have worked out these issues already.

#5 we really can't control, but will have a dedicated team of judges who are all experienced with the rules to hopefully handle any of these problems.

#6. We already planned to have massive prize support, luckily we have really good connections with GW, all the local Game Stores and the U.S. Forge World rep is one of the two of us (:evilgrin: not me) which really helps. This is however a GREAT idea and one I'm going to definitely implement.

I'm going to advertise this event on here as soon as we get this point thing straight. Honestly, I'm starting to be swayed by the lower-point advocates, mainly because we don't want an Elite tournament yet. The 40K side of this has an invitation only side (The Feast of Blades) where you have to qualify and an open side. Since this is the first year we're adding Fantasy, we are only going to have an open. So maybe the 2200 level is more appropriate and when we add an Invitational side next year we can raise the points for that side of the room. We just want to make sure that the players feel they are getting their money's worth and have a great Tournament experience.

Woodsman
16-06-2011, 22:33
I don't play tourneys... so make of this what you will - I do help out at a few.

I think 2K maybe 2.2 is great. It makes building a list a bit more of a challenge and should give everyone some options - I mean there may be people who have 2.5K but only if they max out items etc.

On rules - just make sure everyone knows the judges decision is final, have ALL the FAQ's on hand and if it's gone on longer than a few mins; dice it off. The worst thing to my mind is judges not doing anything - yes they can make the wrong call but they have to make one and quickly IMO.

T10
16-06-2011, 23:02
A lower points limit means a lower bar for new players to enter. Both with regards to how much they actually own, and how much they've got painted up.


Agreed. A tournament should be an invitation for all players to step up and be counted! A points limit within the range of new players is an incentive for them to pick up a few new models and complete a basic paint-job. A high limit will serve a a deterrent.

Naeni
16-06-2011, 23:02
2.2, plenty of time, nothing TOO filthy but can still get some cool stuff in.

tmarichards
17-06-2011, 02:55
Personally I like 2400 because it allows me to take a decent sized army, 2600 with very harsh comp is my favourite so far though.

However, 2200 can act as comp itself- for example, I wouldn't be able to take both the stubborn unkillable dreadlord on dark peg AND the stabby dagger Shadow level 4.

Lord Inquisitor
17-06-2011, 04:48
Really, I'm starting to think smaller sizes are better for competitive play. I think the game gets a bit wonky for some armies below about 1500, but smaller armies mean less able to have your cake and eat it with regard to fitting everything in, meaning even veteran generals need to think about things a bit (can you get a Level 4 and a fighty Lord?) and the 25% restrictions on heroes and rares start to really limit things a bit. It's more attainable for new players to meet and forces unit sizes down. People will finish rounds faster, it keeps round length down and gives you more leeway with finishing rounds.

Downside? People just like their toys and want to play big point games. You might explain to people just how much better low-point games are, how they're more tactical blah blah blah and people will still just not want to come. Some people are genuinely turned off if the tournament is more or less than what other tournaments are running or they're used to.

Bodysnatcher
17-06-2011, 06:20
2K is really the minimum - it means no army gets shafted in terms of Lord choices - and it also makes for a perfectly entertaining game.

Balerion
17-06-2011, 06:36
Really, I'm starting to think smaller sizes are better for competitive play. I think the game gets a bit wonky for some armies below about 1500, but smaller armies mean less able to have your cake and eat it with regard to fitting everything in, meaning even veteran generals need to think about things a bit (can you get a Level 4 and a fighty Lord?) and the 25% restrictions on heroes and rares start to really limit things a bit. It's more attainable for new players to meet and forces unit sizes down. People will finish rounds faster, it keeps round length down and gives you more leeway with finishing rounds.

Downside? People just like their toys and want to play big point games. You might explain to people just how much better low-point games are, how they're more tactical blah blah blah and people will still just not want to come. Some people are genuinely turned off if the tournament is more or less than what other tournaments are running or they're used to.
I don't necessarily agree with this. A small game just forces a player to stick to the cream of the crop, no-brainer units that are a stale offering for most opponents. I might love Jezzails, but there's no way I can expend 10% of my entire army's 1000 point total on a nice, plump unit of them in a competitive setting.

A bigger game lets you cover your bases with the strong, reliable performers but then also slip in your less dependable personal favourites.

Of course, the WAAC crowd could just use the bigger game to cram in more of the good stuff, so there's no guarantee of more diverse army builds... but I'm confident that if you were to record a large sample size of 1000 point lists and 2500 point lists over a period of time the smaller lists would be more guilty of the cookie-cutterness that everybody hates.

Aluinn
17-06-2011, 11:37
I don't necessarily agree with this. A small game just forces a player to stick to the cream of the crop, no-brainer units that are a stale offering for most opponents. I might love Jezzails, but there's no way I can expend 10% of my entire army's 1000 point total on a nice, plump unit of them in a competitive setting.

A bigger game lets you cover your bases with the strong, reliable performers but then also slip in your less dependable personal favourites.

Of course, the WAAC crowd could just use the bigger game to cram in more of the good stuff, so there's no guarantee of more diverse army builds... but I'm confident that if you were to record a large sample size of 1000 point lists and 2500 point lists over a period of time the smaller lists would be more guilty of the cookie-cutterness that everybody hates.

You may be right, but ...

To use Empire as an example again, the most horrible cookie-cutter thing you see in most tourney lists is Arch Lector on War Altar plus Steam Tank(s), plus a battery of mortars and cannons. However, in 2,000 points this starts to really seriously cut into your ability to have effective combat blocks and/or strong offensive magic as well, such that I think a lot of players would conclude that it's better to leave the 300-point monstrosity (or perhaps the popemobile) at home and just take more of the fundamentals, however good a 300-point monstrosity (or sanctified sacerdotal conveyance) it may be.

But, well, I'll go ahead and say that you are right as well. The lower points limits sometimes do discourage underpowered choices which might appear in larger games just because people like them and can fit them in relatively freely. It's just that they simultaneously discourage some of the most powerful combos that everyone otherwise is likely to take. I'd guess the net effect on variety is roughly a wash, but I may be wrong, and that is indeed only a guess.

ramongoroth
17-06-2011, 12:02
However, personally I advocate 2000 points. There are several reasons:


The games go faster, so you get to play more games, or have better time per game, depending on your priorities as tournament organiser.
A lower points limit means a lower bar for new players to enter. Both with regards to how much they actually own, and how much they've got painted up.
Playing a smaller points size puts a natural limit on the amount of "un-fun" tricks you can cram into the list, simply because you can't include everything (like in 2500 points). For example, most lists with two Lords are out. Of course there are still things that can be exploited, but then again there always are.



I agree with these points so I would side with the OP's friend and shoot for the lower value (2200). I like 2k games myself. You can take lords but if you reaaaaaly kit them out that's a very large chunk of points so it serves as a good trade off / army list decision choice.

bert n ernie
17-06-2011, 12:37
@Balerion
I've never seen a 1000pt list that is more broken than a 2500 list by the same player.
Usually the people who want broken things need points to include all of those broken things.

Leaving the 'competitive list building' aspect aside, I'd recommend either 2000 or 2200.
The reason is that while there may be a few veterans who do not want to go to a game where they can't include all of their toys, are they really the veterans you want to have coming up against a large majority of new players that you are hoping will come?

I would much prefer that the veterans who came to my tournament were flexible, and willing to play in a tournament that was at a lower points value, because this allows more diversity in the number of new opponents who are likely to turn up.

I have played tournaments at a few points levels, and I much prefer the smaller ones, as it takes less time to deploy and put away my models (even if the game doesn't take less time).
I don't find myself worrying that I can't fit everything into a smaller points game, just like I don't worry about having a Lord level wizard in a 1000pts game.

Malorian
17-06-2011, 12:47
Another reason to go bigger is that people tend to only have so much of the best unit.

In theory going to 3000 would allow several units of the typicaly hordestars, but lets face it, the vast majority of people only have 1 of such horde. So once you get past a certain point players ar forced to buy another expensive elite unit (not likely) or start throwing in their other units they have.

The lists I see at 3K are a lot more varried and interesting than the lists I see at 2K.

Dante blackfur
18-06-2011, 18:11
@Balerion
I've never seen a 1000pt list that is more broken than a 2500 list by the same player.
Usually the people who want broken things need points to include all of those broken things.

Not 100% true, I actually have a more broken list @ 1k then I do at 2500 pts. the reasoning behind it is that in 1k lists players have so much less then in 2.5-3k lists that if they get hit by something hard they're whole army can crumble. example. my evil 1k list I like to run he following

x1 Grayseer
x1 chieftain W/bsb
x50 slaves
x50 slaves
x30 Clan Rats W/ shield Standard, Musician

then depending on what i feel like, either an HPA, 2 WLC or maybe an assassin with Warpstone stars.

basically because I have a lvl 4 with ruin (Evil lore BTW) I can decimate small units with spells like scorch and stuff, if they did have a massive horde, I could always swap for the D13, since most armies are only going to have a few units maybe 3-4 decent sized units in this pts game my slaves tie them up for the game. clan rats/HPA/WLC then proceed to murder them. I had 3 players say they would quite the game if I brought that list again. however if you jump the pys to 25-3k this list is still competitive but since the opponents have so many extra pts to sink into counters/larger units, they have a much easier chance to do the same back to me, and honestly not many armies can field a lvl 4 in 1k games.

but, OT, I think that 2200 pts games are ideal, this gives most armies the abilite to take one good lord and give him some protection, and still be able to afford a decent amount of troops/specials/rares. also it prevents a lot of SC, (not all but some) and if the player did decide to take a SC it would use his entire Lord %. and likely 25% of his army. also at 2200 pts, you can still field a horde of almost anything, (I think a chosen horde comes right around 1k of pts) so players can still "put all they're eggs in one basket" if they wanted to.

russellmoo
18-06-2011, 18:30
I think 2200 might be good for what you are trying to do, 2k is just too low- I also would say to add in something like "no duplicates" but with a lot of new players this might leave them with not enough models to fill the points, but personally I am really enjoying applying the "no duplicates" rule to lists and finding it a lot of fun-

bert n ernie
19-06-2011, 08:49
@Dante Blackfur.
That's certainly a tough list, but I don't think it is potentially more broken than one that someone using Skaven could make at 2000 or 2400.
Saying that your friends didn't want to play it anymore says more about your group's preferences (which I agree with) than about power levels at different points values.
Then again playing at a 1000pts level is very different, and different strategies and tactics, along with different 'best units' are found. And some armies do have their power levels affected when the difference in points values is drastic(i.e. Vampire counts at 1000pts or below).

I probably should have stuck with the example of the difference between 2000 and 2400. Partially because that's what we're actually discussing and partially because the difference between the two points levels isn't as vast a difference as 2400 and 1000.
Anything that you can bring in a 2400 game (in terms of things you need to counter powerful enemies) can also be brought in a 2000pt game. Yes, you might not be able to bring some of your own toys, but you can easily fit in a counter for anything you think the opponent might want to bring.
As an example- I might not see my Doomwheel as viable in 2000pt games due to needing points for better units, but if I want to take it in a 2400 list then I'm not that worried about coming first anyway. So why not stick it in the 2000pt list, if that is my attitude?

I'm either going to take a 2000pt WAAC/cookie cutter list, or I'm not. Similarly I'm either going to take a 2400pt WAAC/cookie cutter list, or not. Why should the points limit make any difference?
Well written comp can help encourage more diverse armies.

I completely agree that when you go well above or below a certain points level it does start making a difference to the way you play, but I don't see that difference in 400pts (nevermind 200pts) up or down from a 2400pt game.

Like I said before, less points means it's more inclusive. I have seen a 1250 tounrney work really well in the UK, because the tournament was different than the norm. If you want to attract experienced players build an experience that they can't find anywhere else through scenarios, special rules, comp or whatever. Any guy off the street can make a tournament with large points values that excludes beginner players.

Chainaxe07
19-06-2011, 09:41
I think it depnds on how experienced the players and the organizers really are.
We usually go for 3k points (that, compared to our usual "non tournament" games, is rather small sized). At that level a reasonably good player should be able to deploy and play 5-6 turns in less than 2 hours total. That sounds about right for tournament pay.
At less than 3k points you'll have some problems with magic heavy armies, or some particular (unpopular) compositions. At 3k points (or above, actually) that's less of a problem, as a rule of thumb.

Quinn
20-06-2011, 16:27
We met this weekend and came to the consensus that 2200 points would accomplish what we want to do. It'll be easier for the new players to meet that point total as far as collecting, assembling and painting goes. It will give the more experienced players that are used to playing 2500 points around here (seems to be the 'norm' in our store) something to think about.

I appreciate all the great input and would love some more based on the following soft comp rules that we are planning on using:

1. No special Characters over 200 points: I have mixed thoughts about this. I really don't like comp but am not a fan of Teclis-builds either. Banning SCs altogether is something that I've been dealing with in tournaments for years and don't have a problem with, but I can see how this impacts a lot of theme builds.

2. No power scroll: I do think this is an over-powered item for some armies, and seems to be a major point of complaint.

3. A limit of 20-figure units in buildings: Solves some of the list abuse as regards to buildings.

WarmbloodedLizard
20-06-2011, 17:14
3. A limit of 20-figure units in buildings: Solves some of the list abuse as regards to buildings.

problem: 20 Chaos Warriors vs. 20 goblins (maybe 30 for models below 10 points and 20 for 10+pts models, or something like that. )

bert n ernie
20-06-2011, 17:39
We met this weekend and came to the consensus.
Congratulations. That isn't always easy to do.

A lot of people say the folding fortress should be banned in tournaments. I haven't had enough personal experience to comment, but i hear there are some problems with it.

My understanding is that the U.S. is fairly light on comp usually. Since this is a tourney with a lot of new players I think your approach of comp-lite is a very good idea. Otherwise it could confuse them. I still occasionally struggle with comp restrictions when they're very weighty, especially if I don't have loads of time to test the comped list.

Lord Solar Plexus
21-06-2011, 11:14
I'm leaning towards 2,200 as well. I don't think it is noticeably harder (or in fact harder at all) to make a solid list at this level. There's nothing wrong with big or small games but having less points to play with is a nice challenge in itself, and it constricts your opponent, too. I also second the notion that it lends itself more to a tournament with many beginners.

Those few comp rules all seem fine.

Dante blackfur
21-06-2011, 18:43
I really don;t see why people think the folding fortress is soo OP, all it gives you is a watch tower IN YOUR deployment zone, so at most it could give a single unit 360 degrees with LoS over your current units. the 360 degree sight is far less useful then if you could put the tower like anywhere on the board. could someone please explain why peopl think its so OP?

Mercules
21-06-2011, 18:58
I really don;t see why people think the folding fortress is soo OP, all it gives you is a watch tower IN YOUR deployment zone, so at most it could give a single unit 360 degrees with LoS over your current units. the 360 degree sight is far less useful then if you could put the tower like anywhere on the board. could someone please explain why peopl think its so OP?

You haven't heard about the guy who made a 10 story tower for his 49 Glade Guard and Level 4 wizard? Even deployed at 12" into the board he can still hit things 30" from there. If his points are tied up there and then hiding along side that you have to march through 50 shots each turn. You can't just remove the unit either since you have to assault which triggers a Stand and Shoot. If you win he sticks on Ld 9. Might have had a BSB too. In any case as long as your other units hang out in the shadow of that tower no one wants to come close to it.

Lord Inquisitor
21-06-2011, 19:00
The tower has caused some issues because of some extreme builds. For example, there was an Ard Boyz list or two last year that had Teclis, a hundred archers or so, BSB with the World Dragon all in the folding fortress and two great eagles. The tower is modelled 20 stories high so all the archers can shoot (this is up to the TOs, I've seen this be disallowed as the rules do say it has to be the same size as the watchtower model). Teclis and the archers rain death on the enemy, the eagles hide.

No enemy unit can actually kill that many elves in 6 turns, bearing in mind the building rules mean they can only assault on their turn and only one unit at a time. The building is immune to magic, and they're stubborn on Ld10 with a re-roll (0.7% chance of failure). Teclis and the archers only need to kill a unit or two to get VPs enough to win, because it is impossible to get victory points from the elf army (other than hunting the eagles down, which are only 100vps).

Yes, this would work with any building in their deployment zone but the folding fortress is the only way to guarantee it.

Mercules
21-06-2011, 19:02
Well, and most building are only 2-3 levels, 4-5 at most. So at most 25 shots which is still daunting but much less so than 50.

Jetty Smurf
21-06-2011, 19:11
Also, a slann + tetto'ekko raining down comets from within the tower, protected by 100 saurus (give or take). A single unit of terradons performing similar to the eagles mentioned above.

OT: I'm glad you guys agreed on the points limit. I'm just sad I missed this topic until after that point. As since you two were deciding between 2400 and 2200, I would have thought 2300 to be the perfect solution. :D

Dante blackfur
21-06-2011, 20:50
So I must have misread somthing, cuase I thought you could only place 20 models in a tower.

Lord Inquisitor
21-06-2011, 20:54
Well, and most building are only 2-3 levels, 4-5 at most. So at most 25 shots which is still daunting but much less so than 50.
Well, in this case the players with the folding fortress builds had scratchmade towers that were essentially skyscrapers. In at least one case made out of Lego.

I know one player made it through to the finals with this trick, but then the TO at the finals ruled it could only be 3 stories high (as it needs to be the same size and the official watchtower model) so they could only fire with 15 models and they got crack's called and eaten by rats anyway. :D


So I must have misread somthing, cuase I thought you could only place 20 models on a tower.
Only the building in the watchtower scenario. And even then only the unit deployed in it (if you move them out, you can put a unit of any size in there).

That said, it makes for an excellent house rules and I've seen tournaments implement a blanket cap of 20 or 30 models in buildings.

RichBlake
21-06-2011, 21:12
You may be right, but ...

To use Empire as an example again, the most horrible cookie-cutter thing you see in most tourney lists is Arch Lector on War Altar plus Steam Tank(s), plus a battery of mortars and cannons. However, in 2,000 points this starts to really seriously cut into your ability to have effective combat blocks and/or strong offensive magic as well, such that I think a lot of players would conclude that it's better to leave the 300-point monstrosity (or perhaps the popemobile) at home and just take more of the fundamentals, however good a 300-point monstrosity (or sanctified sacerdotal conveyance) it may be.


Ummm maybe in 7th. Would you really sink 600 points into two units that die instantaneously with no way of stopping it to a Purple Sun or Pit of Shades? And the War Altar isnt that great anymore.

I'd say you're more likely to see an Arch Lector, a BSB, a Warrior Priest and a Level 4 wizard plus blocks of state troops. Then a couple of cannons, mortars etc. Point is taken though.

Personally I like 2-2.4K. 2000 is the minimum to fit anything cool in and 2.4 is just enough to fit cool stuff plus enough core to have a decent sized army. Any more then 2.5K and I think you start helping armies like Skaven and Dark Elves too much who basically go "OK so the extra 500 points buys my double hydra/HPA, what else do I get?".

Mercules
21-06-2011, 21:46
The War Alter can cast IF spells all day with no Miscast. Luckily Light is not the most abusive Lore.

Lord Inquisitor
21-06-2011, 22:31
Yeah, I see a war altar and a steam tank in every competitive Empire list. The war altar is a very useful unit and since it tests on the arch lector's stats, not that vulnerable to pit or psun.

Rosstifer
22-06-2011, 10:41
2400 points, lets you field a very respectable army.
2000 I find a bit too restrictive.

Also, 2400pt No-Comp lets me field a 1200pt unit of Tzeentch Chosen :p

One of these day's that unit's going to get gatewayed or something and I'll totally deserve it. Until then, no comp = wrecking peoples hobbies.