PDA

View Full Version : 1999 point games



TheWarSmith
07-04-2007, 05:18
I've been thinking about trying to have an event where lists were 1999 points. It'd be hard for some players who only have about 2000-2500 points total to play, as they couldn't bring a lord and would have to drop a rare slot.

This would lead to perhaps more "realistic"(yes, i know it's fantasy) armies in the sense that most would have to bulk up on core choices to fill out that many points and couldn't be super reliant(most armies) on characters and rare slots.

Empire would probably ROCK these games, as they're not super character/rare slot reliant like other armies are.

gorenut
07-04-2007, 05:24
Empire would probably ROCK these games, as they're not super character/rare slot reliant like other armies are.

Not to mention undead wouldn't have as much fun because they're characters get substantially better with their lord choices.

spikedog
07-04-2007, 05:36
Yea my VC would suffer quite a lot at that point level however my Skaven would have a field day!

The game really is designed for 2k points with all the options at that level but it could be interesting I guess.

dominic_carrillo
07-04-2007, 06:07
i think im going to try this out, warsmith. it sounds like alot of fun

devolutionary
07-04-2007, 06:13
It would make my Bretonnian army all the more devastating, since it'd drop my need for anti-magic down considerably.

Voltaire
07-04-2007, 09:50
It would favour Chaos massively as HoC hero choices beat all other Hero choices into a cocked hat at ower levels - even Blood Dragons.

Avian
07-04-2007, 10:34
I play a lot of 1950 point battles and even run a 1950 tournie each autumn for the last five years.

With a little alteration of the rules for both types of Undead, there really is not much of an change from 2k+.



It would favour Chaos massively as HoC hero choices beat all other Hero choices into a cocked hat at ower levels - even Blood Dragons.
Nah, there is much more to this game than the combat power of the generals. Chaos armies in particular suffer a bit because their Leadership goes down.
(And it is not as if Chaos is a very good army to begin with, at any level)

Voltaire
07-04-2007, 11:11
I agree with you about Chaos not being good at most levels, it really is an uphill struggle playing with them at times. At 2k level you find yourself not taking a Lord simply because of how expensive everything is so 1999 points isn't too much of a variation for me. This inturn means that adjusting for lower level games is easier...

Bloodknight
07-04-2007, 11:45
Personally I find 1999 point games more interesting than 2K games with my Dwarfs and DoW. Tomb Kings suffer on that level as "more units - less mages" doesnīt work well for them, as somebody has to push the units into doing something.
In games outside of my home I canīt play my TK on that level, because although I own over 3K of TK, I just lack core units for that small level (as Chariots arenīt core there).

As for Chaos: most players I know donīt play a general under 2500 points, as heīs actually too expensive for what he can do (not the Tzeenchlord on dragon, mind you), especially when itīs factored in that exalted champions can beat the crap out of even most lord choices from other armies or are at least as good.

Hideous Loon
07-04-2007, 14:48
Avian: You mentioned a rules change for Undead types, mind spilling the beans?

1999 points games would sound fun, at least for Skaven, Orcs and Empire. My VC would suffer though...

Avian
07-04-2007, 15:01
We use the following simple alterations below 2k:
- Vampire Counts do not need a wizard (i.e. a Necromancer) as the general. Instead the general with the highest Ld is the general, as with any other army.

- Tomb Kings select Chariots as Core units.

Onisuzume
07-04-2007, 15:35
I think that the Lizardmen are the least affected by the loss of a lord&rare choice.

Saurus warriors always have the same leadership. So no loss of general bonus there. Combat prowess of the hero is only slightly below that of the lord. And most people have a JSOD anyways. (we lose only 1WS, 1T, 1W, and 1A at it)

Loss of a rare choice; afaik; most people whined whenever someone puts down 2 units of salamanders anyways. And not everyone has 2 of those units anyways. (Stegadon is usually a fire magnet, while Dogs of War are rarely used at all)

So imo; not much differance at all. (Lizardmen can get away with fielding only hero-level characters in 2000+ points)

Atrahasis
07-04-2007, 19:00
Empire would probably ROCK these games, as they're not super character/rare slot reliant like other armies are.They're quite heavily Special-slot dependant though and 3 specials is very different from 4.

We've played around with the 1999 point idea for our club tournaments but finally settled on 2000 with no lords, both to make life easier for those with small collections (losing a Lord and a rare is a stretch for some, as you yourself noted) and also because some armies are hit a lot harder by the loss of specials and rares than others.

Mangosta
07-04-2007, 19:06
I would love to play in a 1999pts battle...but people in my local group don't want it

Steel_Legion
07-04-2007, 20:38
My armies (Bretonnians and Dwarfs) are fine at lower levels, Bretonnians especially. My dwarfs might suffer from a lack of Special slots, but Lords are not essential to a Dwarf army IMHO

Wickerman71
07-04-2007, 22:41
Always liked the Lord choice but I'm always up for games at 2500-2900pt does the same thing forces more core choices into the armies.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
08-04-2007, 19:03
Sounds like a good idea from time to time. I would probably struggle with my special choices but oh well, I'll just have to put my 2 units of COKs together, what a shame :evilgrin:
I do find it quite anoying how on the big pic of the army in the books usually only has one of each regiment. It's ridiculous. This would help straighten that out.

Franco
08-04-2007, 19:12
I play against DE alot, so im wondering, how would you line up in a 1999pt battle.

kaimarion
08-04-2007, 19:19
I like the sound of this in ma chaos a would use:
2 socerers
some marauders on horses
and chaos warriors

sorcerer to do ranged attacks
marauders on horses to take care of any archers
and the warriors to kill any thing else
simple isnt it!!!!!!!!

Franc
08-04-2007, 19:59
It's clear that are more fighting oriented would have advantage in 1999 pt battles.
Those more magic oriented (TK, some VC lists, HE, etc...) would suffer without
Mage lvl4 - and usually those armies have sucky combat heroes.
My vote goes for Dwarfs; I've played a lot against them. In smaller games they positively rock coz tzhey still can be artillery heavy (ballistae & organ gun -cheap and powerful combination). They also have awesome core choices (Longbeards FTW!), and their Thanes are among best combat hero choices in the game (thoughness 5, 75 pts of magic items).

MLP
08-04-2007, 20:34
Dwarves definatly excell at low point battles. I used to play 500-1k pt battles wood elves proved extremely tough with the firepower as well and i think in the new rules they would be even better in small battles

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
09-04-2007, 11:29
I play against DE alot, so im wondering, how would you line up in a 1999pt battle.

was that directed at me?

Varath- Lord Impaler
09-04-2007, 12:08
I think it's rather unfair to say "I dont like lords so we are playing 1999 points" Some people may like taking their lord maybe? Some armies dont perform well at all without a lord!

Franco
09-04-2007, 13:04
was that directed at me?

If you want it to be!!!
I would like anyone to answer it!!!

TheWarSmith
09-04-2007, 13:25
I think it's rather unfair to say "I dont like lords so we are playing 1999 points" Some people may like taking their lord maybe? Some armies dont perform well at all without a lord!

It's not inspired from a "I dont' like lords". I play tzeentch beasts, so believe me, I like my lords.

I simply think it would be interesting to see what games looked like where the armies were composed of more masses of troops, because many armies would have to fill in 500ish points that would normally be rare/special/lord with core troops.

Avian
09-04-2007, 13:30
Yep. In my experience the armies people come with at 1950 points and at 2500 points tend to be pretty much equally large, with 2000 point armies often being considerably smaller. :)

Tutore
09-04-2007, 13:35
Interesting. I often play 1000...1999 would have the same rules, but with more troops!

TheWarSmith
09-04-2007, 13:37
Exactly! Tutore. It might become a bit much for horde armies, as goblin armies already fill the table, but I think it'd be fun.

oop
09-04-2007, 13:47
As a VC player i would play a 1999 pts game for the sake of diversity, but other than that, it is extremely unfair as we desperately need some hard hitting guy. Not even the most skilled thralls can fulfill that role.
It reminds me when i used to play against a guy who only wanted to play 1500 pst battle cos he said that small battles were funniest as the units to choose are not so much over the top. Then he fielded 12 Grail Knights with 3 characters. Not much you can do when he doesnt move them for 3-4 turns either.
aw...the funny odd days. You have to smile, what else can you do?

Varath- Lord Impaler
09-04-2007, 14:52
but see the lords are allowed at 2000 because some players like it that way. Hell, i do with my Dwarfs. 300 points of Dwarf lordishness in 2000 points.

im sure hordes of troops is a good battle but some people like playing with elites.

Fred_Scuttle
09-04-2007, 14:57
I play VC and Chaos in Fantasy. Would DEF play my Chaos in that game and leave the Blood Suckers home......

jullevi
09-04-2007, 15:13
I haven't played 1999 in ages, but we play 2999pts every now and then, usually as a part of an multiplayer battle (5x2999pts on each side). We also add a couple of another restricitions, such as compulsory battle standard bearers, up to two slots can be used on wizards and no US5+ flying monsters are allowed. We try to encourage people to bring "armies that look like armies".

By the way, having 600+ empire models on the table at the same time is quite an impressive sight.

TheWarSmith
09-04-2007, 15:33
but see the lords are allowed at 2000 because some players like it that way. Hell, i do with my Dwarfs. 300 points of Dwarf lordishness in 2000 points.

im sure hordes of troops is a good battle but some people like playing with elites.

That's fine. Let them play 2,000 point battles. My point isn't to make 1999 the standard. It's to point out that playing 1,999 games could be fun for a change of pace every now and then.

I'm actually going to proposition the Chicago Battlebunker for a tournament based around this.

ZeroTwentythree
09-04-2007, 16:05
I think 1999 point games would be great. But as a Skaven & aspiring Empire general, I'd have no problem dropping the lords and having fewer rare & special. Save me the trouble feeling like I have to take a lord. Heh.

I do see where it could be rough for some -- mostly the VC, as others have already mentioned.

TheWarSmith
09-04-2007, 16:39
Well, personally I think that some armies are better/worse at certain point values, and that's just part of the game. But, to make it fair to potential undead players, how would you propose changing it to balance out undead teams?

oop
09-04-2007, 18:42
Well, personally I think that some armies are better/worse at certain point values, and that's just part of the game. But, to make it fair to potential undead players, how would you propose changing it to balance out undead teams?

Give the Thralls the chance to upgrade to level 1 wizards for 50 pts.

What do everyone thinks about it?

zak
09-04-2007, 18:54
Not a bad idea. The TK's and VC's need a boost so that they can compete at this level. I played 1999 battles with both and TK's suffer the most.

TheWarSmith
09-04-2007, 18:59
I agree that TK suffer.

Perhaps allow these armies 4 hero slots, just not lords?

Tutore
10-04-2007, 13:47
TK suffer at 1000, so they'll suffer at 1999. Anyway I will try a 1999 point game later this month with High Elves! That's another challenge heh