Age Of Sigmar Points Pdf

[Pinkie Pappalardo]

Im curious what points level most people prefer. I know that 2,000 is the "tournament" standard, and I notice a lot of the people I play with will build say 2,000 points and then only want to play at that points level and hate going any lower, because it means they can't field their entire list (usually with a battalion) that they've built up. For me, I tend to prefer lower points, 1000-1250 so it's easier to theme a force and so it can be done faster (and as I'm pretty sure I've said before, my GW only has one 8x4 AOS table so smaller points can use a 4x4 section, and as a result someone else doesn't have to wait to get a game or, worse, always play team games). However, the more I think about it and think of lists, the more limiting I find the lower points and I'm thinking of just saying ****** it, I'll do 2k also, it's not my fault if the store only has one table.

I personally prefer 1200-1500 point games (and have really enjoyed 1000 point games) due to the shorter timeframe between setup and cleanup. That said, now that I'm trying to build a Seraphon force I'm finding the Behemoth count to be a limiting factor with smaller games.

Yeah. All those huge dinosaurs eat up a lot of points and the available slots. For 1000 points you can only have two. 1500 allows four.

But on the other side I hate to have to split my Skink units up to have enough battlelines.

Varies between 1k and 2k. 2k games are rare as less people I know have enough models painted (including myself) and the general consensus is we'd rather fit in more games at a smaller size than one or two massive games.

So at tournaments I love 2000 points for a good chunky game. The largest I have played 2500 points and as I have 3000+ painted order I would love to do a 5 hour mega battle with them but haven't had the chance yet. When I am at my local GW I like to play less than 2000 if the player seems new or isn't a tournament player as they can often play slowly and are unable to finish a game at 2000 points within 2.5 hours.

After that, I play with my mixed Order at 2000 points, but I never want to play with more than a 1000 points of my goblins because I just don't want to collect that many models. I believe every army has a sweet spot size of around 50-80 models and depending on how many points that equals with the army decides what point level I prefer to play with them.

I play mostly 2000, but a friend has been starting a new army and we have been playing 1k with him.

I've found 1k to be very exciting and fast with enough strategy and tactical ideas to stay interesting. It's very enjoyable and I would recommend pursuing a 1k army.

And if you start a 1k army and the list doesn't feel strong enough, you have not invested much cash into it and can try again and adjust.

every point value (adjusted to the table size) is good for different reasons per size. 500 for nice fast pace and thematic in Escalation league for example. Bit more options in 1000 and 1500 to 2000 for more tactics. Haven't played above 2000 yet, but I would like to play some epic sized games

We play around 1.000 to 1.300 points, its challenging getting stuff you need in this small amount of points and therefore really interesting for diverse listbuilding. And it works on 4x4 tables, which is easier to play in the living room and it doesnt take more the 3-4 hours ( we talk a lot...). Really like this game size.

2500 points is the sweet spot for me and my associates, 2k is a friendly if we are low on time. A good 3k is nice every now and again, I find any less than 2k is ok, but more points means more cool painted miniatures, and a bit more character to the games.

Once a king, always a king. But once a night's enough.

I developed an unhealthy obsession with creating heavily themed 1k armies. Skyre... Warherd... Nurgle Mortals... Stormcast... Sylvaneth. I'm nearly done painting them now. Most can go higher than 1k with most armies but anything past 1500 and I start to get antsy and stop paying attention to the game. Not for ADD or any other biological reason, but because I would rather do anything else. Talk hobby. Rack up and play another game, etc. I feel like I'm wasting time in a massive 6 round slog of horde vs horde.

I would rather do 2 short 1k games, get a sandwich and a pint, go in and do 2 more.

Was just reading through the thread on the recently announced GW price increase and had a bit of a random thought. With the overall cost of an army increasing when purchased from scratch, why as gamers do we seem to constantly end up with the scenario that 2000 points is the defacto size to play games at? Specifically thinking of organised events more than anything, but as a wider line of thinking when writing lists etc.

Is now a good time to rethink this almost self-imposed point level and try to encourage slightly smaller games to be played. It would not only lower the monetary cost, but also speed games up (less to move and think about), plus it would certainly shake the "meta" up - you'd not see a 4 mega-gargant army for example.

GW tried with 40k in 8th. They set the standard to 1750 and the community rioted. Some tournaments did capitulate out of a desire to toe the party line, but the norm returning to 2000pts in 9th suggests they listened to that brief outrage.

Personally I'd be over the moon to see the average point battle drop to 1500 points or so, largely because I hate seeing boards where things are awkwardly crammed up like somebody poured a bucket of Army Men out over it, but I don't see that changing unless GW themselves push for it.

I would be interested in a smaller point format that strives to keep larger armies still. Off the top of my head restrictions like no heroes over 500 points, no more than half the army spent on heroes, 3 battleline required still, only 2 reinforcements etc.

For me the game feels very balanced around 2k being the standard game type. I have played plenty of games at 1k and a few at 1.5k but 2k definitely feels like the point at which things fall into place most naturally. As the game is now I feel like it is really the lowest point at which the big center piece heroes and monsters don't just completely obliterate everything on the table.

During AoS 2.0 we had a time where my group played some more 1k games. Main motivation was the fact that 3 people were building new armies and wanted to play the new models already, before having enough to hit the 2k cap. We noticed following patterns:

For AoS 3.0 I see some reasons why it may work in a less optimal way. Mainly, 3.0 came with a major bump in points. Some factions like Hedonites, Beastclaws or Stormcast have some really really pricey units which limits list building in a rough manner. Getting used to not being able to put all units you want to play is anyway uncomfortable, being only able to build lists at either 920 or 1060 pts with the models you have makes it even worse. But despite the mentioned worries: We participated with some friends at a random-team-tournament with 2v2 games of 1k lists, and it was really a fun event. I've seen there some really interesting lists which also got spiced up by having 4 of them on the board at the same time.

Btw the same also affects 40k: With 40k armies beeing currently way pricier than AoS ones we started to play more smaller games. While 2k games tend to be exhausting and 3-4 hours long, smaller games tend to be a way nicer experience. Only downside is that you have to scale the terrain/playmatsize down. Playing 1k at 6x4 ft is neither fun nor fair.

Im not looking for a way to discourage/disparage Gitz/Skaven again. A horde army can barely play as one in this edition - why make their issue worse by giving them less points to work with. Keep in mind this is supposed to be army vs army. Lower point caps for games coupled with the higher point costs in 3rd edition is just eating away at models and starts turning this game into skirmish as opposed to what it should be, which is the fantasy equivalent of 40k.

1k games would be bad for the competitive scene. Games get too swingy, and the meta would be dominated by either someone that can throw in extremely efficient models at low points such as Morathi/Stonehorns/Garants/etc or just whomever is rolling hot that day. It wouldn't bode well for that part of the game at all. As someone said prior 40k tried doing this even marginally and it was hated enough that it got reverted an edition later.

3 battleline required would be awful for some armies. If I take 3 units of gluttons ive got 250 points left for heroes. I can afford a single ogor foot hero and the rest i have to spend on gnoblars or frost sabres. Can Giants even fit 3 battleline in at 1k without going exclusive mancrushers?

First off, lets talk wounds. At the moment, an average 2k list is somewhere between 80-100 wounds, with most of them being on the lower end of that scale. Exceptions do exist, but if you were to go through the majority of 2k lists that have been doing well, they all fall somewhere in that range. Go to a 1k game, and we cut that in half(ish) to 40-50 wounds.

I can go through a few other factions and build "power" lists as well, that can effectively hit hard before the opponent has a chance to react. Are these the armies that you normally see at 1k? No. Why? Because they aren't fun, and the game is over by turn 2, usually in a VERY lopsided manner. At the same time, there are a number of factions that just straight up cannot compete with the above lists, because they require synergy pieces to work together to create that.

Overall, the problem is that while 1k is technically a "viable" way to play, if it is played competitively it leads to some rather extreme skew lists, and an awful lot of non-games. For many armies, the board also feels extremely empty, but at the same time, you don't necessarily want to decrease the size of it because it leads to easier turn 1 charges, which then leads to even more skew lists. 1k is fine as a casual "I want to play a fast game" format, but once people try solving it competitively, it quickly leads to un-fun non-games that are easily seen as won or lost before deployment even happens.

3a8082e126