PDA

View Full Version : back to 1,999pt games... your opinions



Gabacho Mk.II
14-09-2006, 16:16
Once again, the spectre of Lords in an armylist have come up again. Let me briefly explain:

A small group of gaming enthusiasts have decided to take another whack at Warhammer with the release of 7th ed. There are 5 of us in total, and I must admit that all of us (me included!) are very competitive and somewhat fit the label of a 'gaming whore.'

Now that we are somewhat read up on 7th ed rules, we decided to have a mini round-robin tournament that will pit each player against everyone else for a total of 4 games played.... However, we are toying with using less and less characters, in order to evaluate the shift in focus to RnF in 7th ed.

I submitted to the group the idea of fielding 1,999pt armies in order to force players to use a greater amount of troops, while capping the number of characters to 3 total for each army.


Now then, is this experiment (tournament) doomed to fail?
Will it be easier to field 1,500pts and yet gain the same outcome?
etc...


Thanks :)

IcedCrow
14-09-2006, 17:55
1999 point games are awesome. They feature more troops obviously, with the size of a 2000 point army.

Your alternative is to play 2000 points but put a lower point battle character limit.

Mephistofeles
14-09-2006, 18:03
Cool idea, but will hurt some armies more then others. Some armies really rely on their characters halp to win, like VC, TK and Lizardmen with Slann. Of course, this will force those players to try something new, which might be equally effective, and most certainly more fun!

Nice idea, I like it! This is not hero-hammer after all, nice to see someone trying to further emphasize that!

Bingo the Fun Monkey
14-09-2006, 18:21
Well, the great thing about this game is that people can play however they want. I like my lords and daemonslayers as much as my thanes and dragonslayers, however. I would not join a group that imposed restrictions on play style. I'd never field a gunline, but I wouldn't refuse to play against SAD or RAF.

Scythe
14-09-2006, 19:20
Personally I feel that a lord adds a lot to an army, and you lose quite some character without one. It opens up a lot of options, and some armies only make real sense when a lord is present (VC or TK for example). This doesn't mean that I prefer 2000 pts tough, we usually try to field 2500 pts to get some extra troops in the mix.

But, like Bingo said, it is your game. If you prefer to play 1999 pts, I am not going to say you shouldn't. ;)

Fredmans
14-09-2006, 19:51
I often say that the only difference between 1500 and 2000 points' armies is a lord. If you prefer armies over heroes, there are two ways to go. One is what you've done, keep your forces below 2000 points. The other is to just ban lords, play it at 2000+ but with four heroes instead of 3. Or, what the heck, your gaming group seems to agree on this one. Play it 2000+ and stick to three heroes.

The important thing is to have fun.

Gekiganger
14-09-2006, 20:07
Personally I feel that a lord adds a lot to an army, and you lose quite some character without one. It opens up a lot of options, and some armies only make real sense when a lord is present (VC or TK for example). This doesn't mean that I prefer 2000 pts tough, we usually try to field 2500 pts to get some extra troops in the mix.

But, like Bingo said, it is your game. If you prefer to play 1999 pts, I am not going to say you shouldn't. ;)

Indeed, I like the idea, shifting to a more troop orientated battle is never bad. However, nothing beats 2 Lord levels bashing away in the center of the battlefield and, as Scythe said, Lords add quite a bit to the army (depending on the army that is).

Neknoh
14-09-2006, 22:13
And let us not forget that you are limiting the Special and Rare choices, some which are vital for certain armies.

I would simply add a rule such as "No more than a total of 3 characters may be taken, and these characters may not exceed a total of 600 pts", this still allows Vampire Counts and Liche High Priests but will lock out Chaoslords on Dragons and Second Generation Slann Mages from the game.

Cherrystone
14-09-2006, 22:35
I find 2500 pts allows the character and choice flexibility but with 500 pts more troops. It is the most common sized game i play.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-09-2006, 22:38
I know from bitter experience that Tomb Kings get creamed below the 2000 point level unless you limit everbody else's magical capabilites. TK generals will find their games very boring and the losses disheartening. Moving 4" a turn is no fun at all.:cries:

I can't think of any other armies that are massively hurt by this limitation so if you have no TK players you'll probably be fine. Be prepared to see lots of armies scattering to the winds, that 1 point of leadership afforded by a lord character impacts the game massively.

Rioghan Murchadha
14-09-2006, 23:10
Nice idea, I like it! This is not hero-hammer after all, nice to see someone trying to further emphasize that!

You're right, it's not hero-hammer.. Nor is it troop-hammer, gun-hammer, magic-hammer, close-combat-hammer, or any other single faceted thing you could care to mention. It is, in fact, Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Some of us are of the opinion that having heroic characters in our armies that do more than run away due to static CR helps the whole 'Fantasy' aspect of the game. Some like massed ranks of foot sloggers crashing into each other, inflicting minimal casualties, then running due to psychology.

Either way, the game is supposed to be built to facilitate any of those army styles so that many diverse people can enjoy the game. Stop projecting your opinion of the 'correct' way to play the game on everyone else.

If there is a balance isssue, it's the fault of the game designers, who didn't do enough playtesting, or think things through. It's not the fault of the guy who wants to field a cool character because he just finished reading a great fantasy novel, and he wants to try to have that guy in his army.

Those people who only like to see massed blocks of rank and file crash into each other, should honestly go check out Warhammer Ancient Battles. It's WFB without the fantasy. But please, leave us fantasy fans our game. It's not like we have any other place to go for larger scale battles with a fantasy element.

druchii
14-09-2006, 23:24
And let us not forget that you are limiting the Special and Rare choices, some which are vital for certain armies.

I would simply add a rule such as "No more than a total of 3 characters may be taken, and these characters may not exceed a total of 600 pts", this still allows Vampire Counts and Liche High Priests but will lock out Chaoslords on Dragons and Second Generation Slann Mages from the game.

But why exclude them? That seems rather arbitrary to me. I like playing against 2ng generation slaan and dragon mounted lords. It adds another layer of the game I don't often get to experience.


Personally I feel that a lord adds a lot to an army, and you lose quite some character without one. It opens up a lot of options, and some armies only make real sense when a lord is present (VC or TK for example). This doesn't mean that I prefer 2000 pts tough, we usually try to field 2500 pts to get some extra troops in the mix.

But, like Bingo said, it is your game. If you prefer to play 1999 pts, I am not going to say you shouldn't. ;)


I agree 100%. I've always suspected that GW "intends" for the majority of games to be played with the 2000-2500 pt goals in mind. Both from space taken up by the units (sometimes 13 units of fully ranked units is just too cluttered!) and the rare/special/hero/lord allowances.

I honestly don't think you'll see that much of a difference in a 1999 game, and a 2000 game. If you're worried about heroes what's to stop the same person that would take a single tooled-up lord and some cronies from taking a tooled-up hero and some cronies? Or spending more points on the cronies to make multiple super-heroes?

I think people forget that players actually pay POINTS for characters, and all their fancy equipment.

It's a rare day that a hero makes his own points back on his own. Rarely have I seen super expensive heroes because the majority of players prefer to spend them on something more worthwhile.
Troops.

d

kd7svh
14-09-2006, 23:32
It's a rare day that a hero makes his own points back on his own. Rarely have I seen super expensive heroes because the majority of players prefer to spend them on something more worthwhile.
Troops.

Exactly. My group plays 2250. Lets us take a lord if we want but with extra points for more foot-sloggers! 6th and 7th edition are nothing like 5th was. Back then, it really was Herohammer. Units were just buses to get your uber-lord into battle. Now days, as Druchii pointed out, individual characters are rarely capable of much on there own unless they are super uber (the afore-mentioned Chaos Lord on a Dragon, etc). But then they cost a sick amount of points and become targets for every badass unit your opponent has.

I would say that you should at least try a few games at the 2000-2500 point level to really see if having Lords in your group is as big of a problem as you think.

Scythe
15-09-2006, 07:55
I think people forget that players actually pay POINTS for characters, and all their fancy equipment.


Yeah, I agree. Some people also tend to forget that you CAN take up to 4 characters, not that you SHOULD fill all your character slots. My 2500 pts of dark elves usually only have 2 characters; the general and a sorceress.

zak
15-09-2006, 08:20
In our gaming group we did a 1500 point tournament and it didn't hurt any of the players including the VC player, who did very well (although I will concede the point about TK). It limits the characters to a minimum and enhances the need for a tactically flexible army with a lot of units.
It really is all down to personal choice. Increasing the limit to 1999 would gain those extra units, but may limit the amount of special or rare units that some players wish to take. I would go for 2000 points and no lord.

Gabacho Mk.II
15-09-2006, 19:09
hmmmm, forgot about the TK...


Anyways, there will be two Chaos players (Khorne and Tzeentch), an Empire player, a Dark Elf player and I will be running 'vanilla' Lizardmen. I dont see how the no Lord restriction hurting any of us, and certainly not the Chaos players as they are the most experienced out of the group.

I do see myself fielding a "mandatory" Scar-Vet and 2 Shamans every game though, due to the abundance of points in the list. Will see how that goes.



Thanks for all of your replies gents. Very good to hear from others around the world.:)

Gekiganger
15-09-2006, 19:33
Lizardmen can do fine with 1 priest in small games (although I'm saying this cos I used a saurus with te mirror shield in my only big block of saurus :p)

Crazy Harborc
15-09-2006, 20:30
I "prefer" low on magic games with or without lords. Done games from 1000 up to 3000 (2500 feels better for the max). With/without a magic phase. Those games didn't involve undead, Chaos was Khorne and company and or the beastie boys.

IMHO, whatever the opponents want to do, to try, it's a game/for fun after all.

I do recommend WAB, the two systems are close but different. It's possible to use GW minies as standins for armies. That does work better when both armies are on the same size bases.....20mm square for foot and 25 by 50mm for cav.

By the by, don't forget just because someone has a thread/post saying try this, what do you think, etc., nobody is saying you MUST DO IT;) ;)

Rioghan Murchadha
15-09-2006, 21:25
By the by, don't forget just because someone has a thread/post saying try this, what do you think, etc., nobody is saying you MUST DO IT;) ;)

Of course not.. But I must admit that I'm a bit sensitive about the devolution of fantasy in WFB. I got into the game for the magic, fantastical creatures/races, and the legendary heroes and their armies battling for supremacy.

I own WAB if I want to do a no magic / no monster game. I also own a whole lot of other games that fulfill different needs/desires. There seems to be a proportion of people on these forums who would like to see WFB turn into something totally devoid of fantasy. People who dislike magic, who dislike when their opponents use it, who dislike large terror causing monsters etc...

Play your own way, but don't impose your made up rules and restrictions on other people. As long as your opponents aren't cheating, you should be having fun, and if there ARE any glaring balance issues they certainly aren't in the magic phase anymore.. and they're the fault of GW, not the player running the army.

Get annoyed at the right people.