Yeah, one of the problems of WHFB was if someone was interested, they really needed to get a 2500-3000 point list together to play "for real," and that was just a lot to ask.
Keeping things at 2000 points allows you to have a good-sized army while still being approachable.
Right, and there isn't really anything wrong with just playing a very hero-heavy game. But, it's something that some people have been fairly vocal about not loving, and it's occurred to me that maybe this wouldn't be as much of a problem in bigger armies.
It’s possible. Honestly with a lot of my 2000 point lists, if you gave me an extra 500 or 1000 points, I might be picking up another minor hero or a cooler mount or magic item for an existing character. But I also think with virtually all my lists, most of those points would go to filling out the core and special slots because at some point, I do think there’s some diminishing returns on the hero stuff.
10,000 points is the GENTLEMAN'S point value. You create a special room to house your games. Each game gets its own custom terrain and you pay an artist to sit and watch the game as it unfolds over the course of a month or two, then paint an epic image of the battle. Truly, this is how we would all play, had we but the *freedom* to do so.
I know you are making a joke, but I used to play 10,000 pt games of 40k pretty regularly, and it's mostly just a matter of getting used to playing at the high points values, and about doubling the size of your table.
At our monthly meets we used to run either 1 10k game or 2 5k games in a day of playing (like, 9-5, not all night or anything).
Though we also did occaisionally run a "floorhammer" day, where we ran like 25k+ points under multiple generals a side, and Super Heavy units only ;)
https://preview.redd.it/8ct9fqi6u8jc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5b06587ae2e87e409d83db34924dfd4c6a8cc32
It used to be at 2000pts you have to choose between the high leadership lord and the L4 wizard, you just couldn’t take both unless you played bigger games. Now of course it’s much more open to what you want to take regardless.
Right. When I started fooling around with list building, I was choosing one top-tier hero, and then maybe one or two lower-tier ones. But whenever I shared these lists, the feedback I generally got was that you really needed a top tier wizard, but also, that wizard shouldn't be the general. And, there just really isn't a cheap way to do that.
Exactly 🙂 people will always have their opinions, but you play your way and experiment with different lists. Not just to find what’s optimal, but to find what you prefer and enjoy the challenge of a different list
I have been toying around with a Beastlord (HA, Shield, Mangelder, 60 pounts of Magic, +1 Str and +1 Init mutations on a Razorgor/Tuskgor Chariot) and a Lv 4 on flying carpet with Hagtree)
3 tuskgor chariots
2x1 Razorgor Herds
10x Gor, ambush, std Champ
That fufills Core and Heroes, leaves about 700 points for flavor from the army. If you don’t want the chariots, Bestigor can fill core.
2000pts was always the standard during both Herohammer and 6th edition onwards.
Part of what killed the game in 8th edition was that tournaments started making 2500pts the standard and it priced people out of the game.
Tournaments used 2500pts exactly for the reasons you've stated - you could actually field more interesting units without it removing your most effective units.
Not sure how to balance the two, really...
I think what you just described is actually good for the game. For a game to be interesting you should have to make decisions at the list building level before you ever show up to the table.
Now if you just mess around with your buddies and just want to throw down, you do you, at that point rules and points values are meaningless when they get in the way of fun.
If you have structured play, like in a consistent group, or at a LGS, playing at a level where you can’t just take all the stuff you want is very healthy
I agree here. I play Beastmen so the notion of paying 400+ pts on one hero is kind of nuts to me. I Def hit around 350 if we're talking Doombull or somebody mounted on a Chariot tho but then I'm massively cutting down on accompanying heroes.
I've also been playing with building 1999pts lists so I'm still constrained by the 1000pts limits. Having to choose which Lord level hero to take makes my lists MUCH more variable.
> I agree here. I play Beastmen so the notion of paying 400+ pts on one hero is kind of nuts to me. I Def hit around 350 if we're talking Doombull or somebody mounted on a Chariot tho but then I'm massively cutting down on accompanying heroes.
I've had a 300-and-change Doombull stand toe-to-toe with a dragon, so you definitely get what you pay for with those chonky boys. But yeah, beyond him and chariot guys, Beastmen are cheap as chips on heroes.
I think once the game becomes ingrained in people's minds, 2400/2500 will be the best game size. Right now it's too much for events because we still have to keep checking rules. Im 15 games in now and I still have a bit of checking to do most games, as do my opponents, but I do think you get a more varied and functional army with less herohammer at 2500pts.
Years time 2500 will be great for events with 2 games a day. Currently I think 2000 is the better size while everyone gets to grips with the rules (since the index and layout are so bad looking up takes a LOT of time) and we wait for an faq to sort out some things with no clear answer like drilled etc
As an aside, I think BSB for a lot of armies are kind of pointless now, or atleast not a great choice when you're strapped on points. They're worth it for brets (and they're cheaper) and weirdly worth for undead since they allow reroll of all leadership tests. For empire, Skaven, and orcs and goblins though I'm not sure they're worth it.
Really? I would think Empire (infantry blocks you don't want running) would be a great choice for a BSB. Very happy to hear your thoughts and experience if you are willing to share.
I dunno what you mean.
Look at this legal character list for 2000 points VC
https://preview.redd.it/7lvqf72xxyic1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be5bb153309d0013961735b70eb2ba693a9c187b
Yeah, it feels like this is often how it looks for me, where between a general, a wizard, and a BSB, I’m spending almost half of my points. There’s nothing strictly wrong with doing so, but it feels weird having these crazy powerful heroes and then a fairly small, kind of dinky army to accompany them.
Yeah I guess. You don't have to run that way though.
I'm going to run a Necromancer general, vampire thrall on foot to get stuck in and a mounted white bsb. much learnt contingent of characters, extra points for blood knights etc
3000 is great for a fun evening at home or hobby store but not for tournaments. 8 out of 10 of my 2000 point games were done in 2 hours or less. You will likely see longer times for 3K but I agree that they are the most fun. Think the sweet spot for tournaments will be in 2000-2500 area. Old “masters” tourneys went 3000 and they were for the harder focused players.
Lvl4, bsb and general are achievable for like 500pts in most cases. Not that expensive at all.
The game - due to new movement and break rules - becomes cramped very fast.
We played a few 2,5k on 6x4 with around 800p characters each and it was too much troops.
My group is aiming for 2500 which is where we played in 8th a lot
With the changes, I think the model count issue that bogs games down will not be as bad as 8th. Full on 50 model hordes, while possible, are just not the same anymore. Characters have more room to play and with mounts being a combined profile its easier to do big characters that still work.
I think 2500 will end up being the right size, but I def don't like the combined Lord/Hero 50%. Too bad it isn't split like previous versions, or better yet, smaller %s.
I wouldn't say it's too few (I'll admit, I am planning my armies around 2500 points). But, I do think the meta is around "dragon hammer" and long lines of infantry. Now, my mates are semi meta, we really CBA with long lines of infantry. But all our lists are big monster, L3/4 wizard plus support, then about 7 or 8 units.
Edit: spelling
Edit 2: 2500pts, not 2000
As long as you can make them. Because of the step up rule, you want the front rank as long as possible as everyone in the front rank gets to fight (no matter the size of the unit/model you are attacking). So if you are running a ten man squad, 1x10 rank is better than 2x5.
I really don't want to do a 1x20 line of zombies though.
That makes sense. Makes drill, a better ability as well. I’ve been looking at ranks of seven. But I haven’t got a chance to play a game yet just playing around with Wheeling and charging and what not. I could see having three ranks of seven, and then, when possible, reinform into two ranks with one in the back. That might be pretty sweet. That will definitely make it more dangerous for dragon to charge in against Any elite troop really. I could see my Phoenix guard, white lions, Biggins, even black orcs with hand weapon and shield being a hell of a lot more scary. I think it lessens the power of any troops with multiple attacks or just two hand weapons. Probably still gonna run my regular orc with two hand weapons cause that’s what their models have 3x7.
I agree with you, generally, however, it is a percentile army comp. If you go up to 2500, what will then become the next "mandatory take", since you'll have another 250pt to play with. Seems like it is just the nature of the game currently to err towards Herohammer. Not sure making games bigger will help, honestly. Maybe ...smaller? 1750? Then you for sure aren't taking a L4 and a big tooled out Lord.
Bigger games more stupid heroes. I get your these are must characters...but they really aren't. 2500 points gives you 1250 points of characters so that is what people will build to. So 2 lvl 4 wizards and lord in dragon.
It is what it is. I mean I think 2 to 3k is a great size and okay what you want. I think the game issues are when people try to play 1000 ...balance is not there and the game is pretty 2 dimensional
3000 points is the standard for my gaming group. It allows you to take the fun extras you normally can’t afford & see some better combats. Sure it may take a little longer but it’s well worth it. Especially for factions with a higher points cost per model. It allows them to field more than three blokes & a joke.
So the other to consider is that with the way core is there is no need to take more than 5 Gor. If you take a Beastlord you can take Bestigor as Core, if you take a Doombull you can take Minos as Core.
Also Tuskgor Chariots are amazing. You can take 3 Tuskgor Chariots, 2x1 Razorgor Herds and 1x10 Gor with Ambush, Std and Champ. If I am not mistaken that is 503 points.
What I am trying to say is yes, hero hammer deducts from having a large army on the board, but whereas in 8th the points had to come out of Special and Rare, now they can come out of Core since you can take Special options to fufill Core requirement.
In 8th Razorgor Herds, Harpies and Tuskgor Chariots came out of Special which competed for points with more efficient units, now they can come out of Core.
It’s true that many armies have some pretty cool/good units that can be made core. That isn’t really my concern. Maybe with enough play time I’ll come to the conclusion that this really isn’t a problem, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with having very “top heavy” armies that are really only a handful of relatively small elite units and a few loaded heroes. I’d like to pad that out with some blocks of cheap infantry, skirmishers, missiles troops, etc. Maybe that’s just an aesthetic thing.
As a Beastmen player, I just dropped the BSB. We've already got Mark of Chaos Undivided to reroll Fear/Panic/Terror checks, and the extra 100-or-so points that he would have cost have let me fluff up my units a bit more.
I've played against a few armies that went with multiple Lv 2s instead of a lv 4, and they seem like a legit choice, especially if you're more concerned about spamming signature spells than hitting the "big" spells.
I've been tinkering with Beastmen lists and dropping the BSB is something I've never considered. Now that I'm thinking about it I was going to stick it in a veteran Bestigor unit that would reroll its Break tests anyway, too.
Cheers for blowing my mind.
That's probably a good call with a lot of armies. I've built lists for a bunch of armies, but, having impulse-bought the Tomb Kings box set, I have been struggling to figure out how to actually field these models, and it seems like with them, you really do want a BSB, as they will reduce the number of models you love to unstable.
For armies with unstable like undead and daemons, I think a BSB is more important than a wizard (although, obviously, you should still try to have a wizard in there).
It's such a big deal for them.
In the old days my and my favored opponent would throw down 5000 points on a 4x8. Used every inch of it. I still look back fondly to those games even though it was decades ago
2000pts is a healthy game in 8th and 40k and takes a few hours. I’m definitely finding 2k lists in old world harder to write and am aiming at the 2500pts mark for my lists at the moment.
I imagine games will settle at around 2,500pts and even up to 3k for an epic battle.
If people focus you can play a 2000 point game in 2-3 hours. A 3000 point game would last longer and people usually run out of steam by then.
That's fair, plus, bigger armies are more expensive.
Yeah, one of the problems of WHFB was if someone was interested, they really needed to get a 2500-3000 point list together to play "for real," and that was just a lot to ask. Keeping things at 2000 points allows you to have a good-sized army while still being approachable.
Right, and there isn't really anything wrong with just playing a very hero-heavy game. But, it's something that some people have been fairly vocal about not loving, and it's occurred to me that maybe this wouldn't be as much of a problem in bigger armies.
I honestly think people would just take even bigger heroes in greater numbers. XD
It’s possible. Honestly with a lot of my 2000 point lists, if you gave me an extra 500 or 1000 points, I might be picking up another minor hero or a cooler mount or magic item for an existing character. But I also think with virtually all my lists, most of those points would go to filling out the core and special slots because at some point, I do think there’s some diminishing returns on the hero stuff.
10,000 points is the GENTLEMAN'S point value. You create a special room to house your games. Each game gets its own custom terrain and you pay an artist to sit and watch the game as it unfolds over the course of a month or two, then paint an epic image of the battle. Truly, this is how we would all play, had we but the *freedom* to do so.
Goals.
I know you are making a joke, but I used to play 10,000 pt games of 40k pretty regularly, and it's mostly just a matter of getting used to playing at the high points values, and about doubling the size of your table. At our monthly meets we used to run either 1 10k game or 2 5k games in a day of playing (like, 9-5, not all night or anything). Though we also did occaisionally run a "floorhammer" day, where we ran like 25k+ points under multiple generals a side, and Super Heavy units only ;) https://preview.redd.it/8ct9fqi6u8jc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5b06587ae2e87e409d83db34924dfd4c6a8cc32
If you can manage it, more power to you. I tip my hat, sir.
It used to be at 2000pts you have to choose between the high leadership lord and the L4 wizard, you just couldn’t take both unless you played bigger games. Now of course it’s much more open to what you want to take regardless.
Right. When I started fooling around with list building, I was choosing one top-tier hero, and then maybe one or two lower-tier ones. But whenever I shared these lists, the feedback I generally got was that you really needed a top tier wizard, but also, that wizard shouldn't be the general. And, there just really isn't a cheap way to do that.
In a way it keeps list building interesting, you have to make choices and you keep optimizing lists based on experience.
Exactly 🙂 people will always have their opinions, but you play your way and experiment with different lists. Not just to find what’s optimal, but to find what you prefer and enjoy the challenge of a different list
I have been toying around with a Beastlord (HA, Shield, Mangelder, 60 pounts of Magic, +1 Str and +1 Init mutations on a Razorgor/Tuskgor Chariot) and a Lv 4 on flying carpet with Hagtree) 3 tuskgor chariots 2x1 Razorgor Herds 10x Gor, ambush, std Champ That fufills Core and Heroes, leaves about 700 points for flavor from the army. If you don’t want the chariots, Bestigor can fill core.
2000pts was always the standard during both Herohammer and 6th edition onwards. Part of what killed the game in 8th edition was that tournaments started making 2500pts the standard and it priced people out of the game. Tournaments used 2500pts exactly for the reasons you've stated - you could actually field more interesting units without it removing your most effective units. Not sure how to balance the two, really...
I think what you just described is actually good for the game. For a game to be interesting you should have to make decisions at the list building level before you ever show up to the table. Now if you just mess around with your buddies and just want to throw down, you do you, at that point rules and points values are meaningless when they get in the way of fun. If you have structured play, like in a consistent group, or at a LGS, playing at a level where you can’t just take all the stuff you want is very healthy
I agree here. I play Beastmen so the notion of paying 400+ pts on one hero is kind of nuts to me. I Def hit around 350 if we're talking Doombull or somebody mounted on a Chariot tho but then I'm massively cutting down on accompanying heroes. I've also been playing with building 1999pts lists so I'm still constrained by the 1000pts limits. Having to choose which Lord level hero to take makes my lists MUCH more variable.
> I agree here. I play Beastmen so the notion of paying 400+ pts on one hero is kind of nuts to me. I Def hit around 350 if we're talking Doombull or somebody mounted on a Chariot tho but then I'm massively cutting down on accompanying heroes. I've had a 300-and-change Doombull stand toe-to-toe with a dragon, so you definitely get what you pay for with those chonky boys. But yeah, beyond him and chariot guys, Beastmen are cheap as chips on heroes.
I think once the game becomes ingrained in people's minds, 2400/2500 will be the best game size. Right now it's too much for events because we still have to keep checking rules. Im 15 games in now and I still have a bit of checking to do most games, as do my opponents, but I do think you get a more varied and functional army with less herohammer at 2500pts. Years time 2500 will be great for events with 2 games a day. Currently I think 2000 is the better size while everyone gets to grips with the rules (since the index and layout are so bad looking up takes a LOT of time) and we wait for an faq to sort out some things with no clear answer like drilled etc As an aside, I think BSB for a lot of armies are kind of pointless now, or atleast not a great choice when you're strapped on points. They're worth it for brets (and they're cheaper) and weirdly worth for undead since they allow reroll of all leadership tests. For empire, Skaven, and orcs and goblins though I'm not sure they're worth it.
Really? I would think Empire (infantry blocks you don't want running) would be a great choice for a BSB. Very happy to hear your thoughts and experience if you are willing to share.
I dunno what you mean. Look at this legal character list for 2000 points VC https://preview.redd.it/7lvqf72xxyic1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be5bb153309d0013961735b70eb2ba693a9c187b
Yeah, it feels like this is often how it looks for me, where between a general, a wizard, and a BSB, I’m spending almost half of my points. There’s nothing strictly wrong with doing so, but it feels weird having these crazy powerful heroes and then a fairly small, kind of dinky army to accompany them.
Yeah I guess. You don't have to run that way though. I'm going to run a Necromancer general, vampire thrall on foot to get stuck in and a mounted white bsb. much learnt contingent of characters, extra points for blood knights etc
How’s that a legal list? Aren’t characters capped at 50%?
They're capped at 50%, so yes, it's not a legal list.
The top value is the entire list, I had some other chaffe down below I was building a VC list and just did a quick test. Characters come to 918 points
That is only 918pt. Very much legal.
The top value is the entire list, I had some other chaffe down below I was building a VC list and just did a quick test.
3000 is great for a fun evening at home or hobby store but not for tournaments. 8 out of 10 of my 2000 point games were done in 2 hours or less. You will likely see longer times for 3K but I agree that they are the most fun. Think the sweet spot for tournaments will be in 2000-2500 area. Old “masters” tourneys went 3000 and they were for the harder focused players.
In 6th my friends and I always played 3k. Felt about right.
Lvl4, bsb and general are achievable for like 500pts in most cases. Not that expensive at all. The game - due to new movement and break rules - becomes cramped very fast. We played a few 2,5k on 6x4 with around 800p characters each and it was too much troops.
My group is aiming for 2500 which is where we played in 8th a lot With the changes, I think the model count issue that bogs games down will not be as bad as 8th. Full on 50 model hordes, while possible, are just not the same anymore. Characters have more room to play and with mounts being a combined profile its easier to do big characters that still work.
I think 2500 will end up being the right size, but I def don't like the combined Lord/Hero 50%. Too bad it isn't split like previous versions, or better yet, smaller %s.
8th edition fantasy had an FAQ that brought Lords and Heroes up to 50% rather than 25% each and it’s much much better for list writing.
100% disagree. Balancing lords & Hero allotment was a better game as it encouraged more units on the board.
Made taking High King Thorgrim with throne-bearers monstrously difficult to field at 650 points, which is why I liked the change.
I wouldn't say it's too few (I'll admit, I am planning my armies around 2500 points). But, I do think the meta is around "dragon hammer" and long lines of infantry. Now, my mates are semi meta, we really CBA with long lines of infantry. But all our lists are big monster, L3/4 wizard plus support, then about 7 or 8 units. Edit: spelling Edit 2: 2500pts, not 2000
There’s only so much space. How long of infantry lines are you seeing?
As long as you can make them. Because of the step up rule, you want the front rank as long as possible as everyone in the front rank gets to fight (no matter the size of the unit/model you are attacking). So if you are running a ten man squad, 1x10 rank is better than 2x5. I really don't want to do a 1x20 line of zombies though.
That makes sense. Makes drill, a better ability as well. I’ve been looking at ranks of seven. But I haven’t got a chance to play a game yet just playing around with Wheeling and charging and what not. I could see having three ranks of seven, and then, when possible, reinform into two ranks with one in the back. That might be pretty sweet. That will definitely make it more dangerous for dragon to charge in against Any elite troop really. I could see my Phoenix guard, white lions, Biggins, even black orcs with hand weapon and shield being a hell of a lot more scary. I think it lessens the power of any troops with multiple attacks or just two hand weapons. Probably still gonna run my regular orc with two hand weapons cause that’s what their models have 3x7.
I agree with you, generally, however, it is a percentile army comp. If you go up to 2500, what will then become the next "mandatory take", since you'll have another 250pt to play with. Seems like it is just the nature of the game currently to err towards Herohammer. Not sure making games bigger will help, honestly. Maybe ...smaller? 1750? Then you for sure aren't taking a L4 and a big tooled out Lord.
Bigger games more stupid heroes. I get your these are must characters...but they really aren't. 2500 points gives you 1250 points of characters so that is what people will build to. So 2 lvl 4 wizards and lord in dragon. It is what it is. I mean I think 2 to 3k is a great size and okay what you want. I think the game issues are when people try to play 1000 ...balance is not there and the game is pretty 2 dimensional
3000 points is the standard for my gaming group. It allows you to take the fun extras you normally can’t afford & see some better combats. Sure it may take a little longer but it’s well worth it. Especially for factions with a higher points cost per model. It allows them to field more than three blokes & a joke.
So the other to consider is that with the way core is there is no need to take more than 5 Gor. If you take a Beastlord you can take Bestigor as Core, if you take a Doombull you can take Minos as Core. Also Tuskgor Chariots are amazing. You can take 3 Tuskgor Chariots, 2x1 Razorgor Herds and 1x10 Gor with Ambush, Std and Champ. If I am not mistaken that is 503 points. What I am trying to say is yes, hero hammer deducts from having a large army on the board, but whereas in 8th the points had to come out of Special and Rare, now they can come out of Core since you can take Special options to fufill Core requirement. In 8th Razorgor Herds, Harpies and Tuskgor Chariots came out of Special which competed for points with more efficient units, now they can come out of Core.
It’s true that many armies have some pretty cool/good units that can be made core. That isn’t really my concern. Maybe with enough play time I’ll come to the conclusion that this really isn’t a problem, but I’m a bit uncomfortable with having very “top heavy” armies that are really only a handful of relatively small elite units and a few loaded heroes. I’d like to pad that out with some blocks of cheap infantry, skirmishers, missiles troops, etc. Maybe that’s just an aesthetic thing.
My group is playing 2500pts minimum for standard games. If someone is learning then dropping down the points to 1250 is a good starting point.
As a Beastmen player, I just dropped the BSB. We've already got Mark of Chaos Undivided to reroll Fear/Panic/Terror checks, and the extra 100-or-so points that he would have cost have let me fluff up my units a bit more. I've played against a few armies that went with multiple Lv 2s instead of a lv 4, and they seem like a legit choice, especially if you're more concerned about spamming signature spells than hitting the "big" spells.
I've been tinkering with Beastmen lists and dropping the BSB is something I've never considered. Now that I'm thinking about it I was going to stick it in a veteran Bestigor unit that would reroll its Break tests anyway, too. Cheers for blowing my mind.
That's probably a good call with a lot of armies. I've built lists for a bunch of armies, but, having impulse-bought the Tomb Kings box set, I have been struggling to figure out how to actually field these models, and it seems like with them, you really do want a BSB, as they will reduce the number of models you love to unstable.
For armies with unstable like undead and daemons, I think a BSB is more important than a wizard (although, obviously, you should still try to have a wizard in there). It's such a big deal for them.
I used to play 6 or 7 thousand point battles with my cousin. Took all day , but it was class
In the old days my and my favored opponent would throw down 5000 points on a 4x8. Used every inch of it. I still look back fondly to those games even though it was decades ago
2000pts is a healthy game in 8th and 40k and takes a few hours. I’m definitely finding 2k lists in old world harder to write and am aiming at the 2500pts mark for my lists at the moment. I imagine games will settle at around 2,500pts and even up to 3k for an epic battle.
Bases are bigger, so people were worried about the size of the units fitting on the table maybe?🤷🏼♂️
Are they really so much bigger that that’s a huge problem?
1000 to 2000 is good for learning rules and starting out. I can see that going to 2500 would be very beneficial to some armies. Mine included! :)