PDA

View Full Version : Army Balance at Various Point levels



Mazdug
02-02-2007, 23:01
I am just curious if people feel that certain armies are dramatically underpowered/overpowered at different point levels? And if so, which armies suffer/benefit the most, and why. For example, I know that Tomb Kings at games under a 2000 pts seem to be at a big disadvantage, since they are so reliant on magic and characters to function, and are very limited in these areas at low level games. Also, I feel that chaos armies are much more powerful in large scale games, since they can use an even greater number of their many, many different troop types, and can afford to field some of the scariest elites in the game in large blocks and still bring some other pieces to the board.

I started thinking about this when our gaming group started playing 2500 pt games instead of 2000, and suddenly one of the players dwarf armies became almost unbeatable, but the other armies didn't seem to get any more powerful. Now, I'm not sure if this is because at these mid point level jumps the dwarves (and probably most elves), who are not very reliant on heroes, can field a lot more troops, and have such good core choices that its a real advantage, or if its just that no one else has figured out how to maximize their armies with the extra 500 pts to make the best use of them. I would think that armies like greenskins, skaven, and the undead, would suffer at mid range points games (2500, 3500, rather then 2000, 3000, 4000), since it throws off the hero to troop ratio, and deprives you of either the leadership boost, or the casting ability that those armies rely on to function on the battlefield.

Anyway, Its something I've been wondering about and would like to discuss, so please, discuss away.

Sasquatch
02-02-2007, 23:14
I don't think it's so much a case of the importance of characters but one of average troop cost.

Horde armies, IMO, have a distinct advantage in small games because of the obscene amout of troops they can field. For example, I once fielded 108 skaven in a 500pt skirmish game. Chaos has trouble fielding that at 2K.

But at higher points, elite troop armies can afford to put more points into either larger blocks or go big time on MSU tactics. Horde armies, it's often just a whole pile of mediocre troops which will get in each others way if not managed very carefully.

NakedFisherman
02-02-2007, 23:23
I fielded 15 Jezzails at 500 points.

Point values of 2000-2500 are the most balanced, I think.

Makaber
02-02-2007, 23:26
I belive Tomb Kings are notoriously harsh to play with under 2000 points, because you're forced to take expensive characters, leaving you with few, poor, and expensive troops for the rest of the army. I've also had some struggles with Beasts of Chaos, because they have so horrible leadership. If you're not allowed to take a lord, your general ends up with Ld 7 at max, meaning the army is really fragile if things don't go your way.

zak
02-02-2007, 23:37
When the armies are designed they usually aimed at 2000-2500 point range and often some armies struggle if the points limit is lower or higher than this. I must admit that I have never noticed the horde armies getting weaker. Especially if the table is larger to reflect the higher points as the horde army then retains it most potent weapon. If you play more points with the same size table then the more elite armies are going to do better as they will be able to field large blocks of troops and go head-head with the horde and simply outclass them.
Tomb Kings do suffer at 1500 and less, and it appears the nearer the 1000 mark the worse they get.

dominic_carrillo
03-02-2007, 00:15
tomb kings nearly always lose at 500 points.

snurl
03-02-2007, 09:05
1000 point Dwarf armies suffer at the hands of well-led skirmishers.

kyussinchains
03-02-2007, 10:03
I dunno about this edition, but I remember they used to put a sort of disclaimer in the army list sections, saying the lists were balanced for games of 2-3000 points, and were roughly blanced up to about 6000 points, but after that, certain aspects of them started to dominate (war machines for example)

we used to play 8000 point games, and the number of war machines dwarfs could field was obscene!

In our group I dont think any list dominates at higher point levels, although my chaos tend to do a bit better.

ashc
03-02-2007, 10:18
I would say that Warhammer is balanced at 2000pts whilst 40k is balanced at 1500pts; it means you have to make careful decisions on what you field and play those units tactically.

Ash

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
03-02-2007, 12:01
I would say that Warhammer is balanced at 2000pts whilst 40k is balanced at 1500pts; it means you have to make careful decisions on what you field and play those units tactically.

Ash

Well except for skaven and goboes

ashc
03-02-2007, 13:11
Well except for skaven and goboes

If you really think so... :eyebrows:

Ash

DeathlessDraich
03-02-2007, 16:58
I would say that Warhammer is balanced at 2000pts whilst 40k is balanced at 1500pts; it means you have to make careful decisions on what you field and play those units tactically.

Ash

I'm not sure about 2000pts - 2150 and 2250 seem to be gaining popularity.