|
|
Post by mottdon on May 13, 2020 14:20:33 GMT
I don't see many hordes or steadfast rules affecting games of 500 points very often. That's usually what we play for quick games or to teach a newcomer. Low level spellcasters are completely playable too. You usually have to decide on if you want to go magic or close combat leadership style though. true!! and this is also the interesting and cool part of playing smaller games. the 8thed. works well also with small and quick games. Honestly, I often like to play this way simply because it forces me to be a bit more careful as to what units I take, instead of taking one large army with everything in it. All bases covered play. It also allows us to get in several games, so if I have a bad round of rolling...well there's always next game. |
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 13, 2020 15:04:09 GMT
Also, WFB was just as playable at small points levels - you can have great games at 500, 1000 or 1500 points. It's the players that chose not to do that. I respectfully disagree, while warhammer 8th edition is playable at smaller pointvalues, the way combat, magic, steadfast, hordes etc etc works compared to earlier editions it makes small units kind of useless, eg if playing say 500 points, you want a spellcaster, a small chaff unit & one large unit of heavyhitters, compared to older editions like 6th where a small unit of 16 is very viable, characters of less importance & chaff more important, I think it´s better to base the game on something like that, but make it scalable, maybe by introducing "advanced" rules such as steadfast or step-up at certain point values. I get your point, but really it depends on the approach of both players. If you're playing a 500 or 1,000 point game against a mate and you both have a relaxed, easy-going approach to gaming you'll be fine with units of 10, 15 or 20. If you're playing against a random person at a store - or worse, at a tournament - with a more competitive atmosphere, then yes if you bring your friendly list and your opponent has a mini-deathstar, then you won't have a particularly fun game. But that problem exists across every game system. That said, when you're new to the game you might not know anyone who plays yet so you're potentially thrown up against highly competitive players, and 8th does very much favour large infantry units. While they feel more realistic and look stunning on a battlefield, it takes a certain kind of addict (most of us here  ) to be content with buying, assembling and painting units of 30+ of the same models particularly when you're just starting out. |
|
|
|
Post by midnightfox0083 on May 13, 2020 15:31:22 GMT
I take units of 30-40 because they look like more proper regiments. I'd do it regardless of if Horde or Steadfast existed. 15-20 models always looked so light to me. That's a speed bump, not a unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 13, 2020 18:28:11 GMT
I do think GW should have work/pushed some more on lower point levels, all from changes to magic to more tournaments in lower points.
One thing I like about 2500 is that magic feels more balanced.
I have very hard time playing t3 vs Firebolt(any magic) in lower point levels as it is more a nuke.
Also 2500p makes sure almost all models/special chars can be played/fielded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 13, 2020 19:39:52 GMT
Also, WFB was just as playable at small points levels - you can have great games at 500, 1000 or 1500 points. It's the players that chose not to do that. I respectfully disagree, while warhammer 8th edition is playable at smaller pointvalues, the way combat, magic, steadfast, hordes etc etc works compared to earlier editions it makes small units kind of useless, eg if playing say 500 points, you want a spellcaster, a small chaff unit & one large unit of heavyhitters, compared to older editions like 6th where a small unit of 16 is very viable, characters of less importance & chaff more important, I think it´s better to base the game on something like that, but make it scalable, maybe by introducing "advanced" rules such as steadfast or step-up at certain point values. I agree. The standard scale of game in 8th is 2000-2500, it is designed/ balanced for that point. In 4th the game was balanced differently for smaller forces. That is not to say you can't play super scale battles with more models or smaller ones |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 14, 2020 17:22:18 GMT
I remember looking at armies like the one below and thinking they were huge. 8th edition laughs in the face of them. That is 3000 points worth  |
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 14, 2020 18:07:00 GMT
Anyone want to tot up how many points that would be in 8th?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 14, 2020 19:12:18 GMT
Probably in the region of 2.5k, but 1000 points of that is the 2 monsters. You can't do like for like any more for various bits
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 15, 2020 15:14:19 GMT
Anyone want to tot up how many points that would be in 8th? : Level 4 Wizard; Lore of Death; Blood of Hashut; Great Taurus; Dispel Scroll; Armour of Destiny; Dispel Scroll 565Sorcerer-Prophet: Level 4 Wizard; Lore of Hashut; Blood of Hashut; Lammasu (Level 2 Wizard); Black Hammer of Hashut; Talisman of Preservation; Charmed Shield 63520 Hobgoblin Cutthroats: Murder Boss; musician; standard bearer; shields 11210 Chaos Dwarf Infernal Guard: Deathmask; musician; standard bearer; hailshot blunderbusses 21216 Chaos Dwarf Infernal Guard: Deathmask; musician; standard bearer; great weapons 272Deathshrieker Rocket Launcher 1008 Bull Centaur Renders: Bull Centaur Ba'hal; musician; standard bearer; shields; great weapons 465Dreadquake Mortar 1959 Hobgoblin Wolf Raiders: Wolf Boss; standard bearer; shields; bows 1552 711 pointsBut adding a bsb we are about the same points. But yes it’s not 100% comparable. |
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 15, 2020 22:24:24 GMT
Yeah because in 4th a lord rides one of the monsters and was half as many points. Minimum hobgoblins in 8th is also 20
|
|
beastyboy
Full Member
5th eddition lizardmen !
Posts: 205
|
Post by beastyboy on May 16, 2020 6:21:04 GMT
I remember buying old old temple gaurd blister packs 2 models for fiver when i was young but i could save up that in a week if I was good and did my jobs around the house paying 35 quid for 15 is cheaper ... but saving up 7 weeks was not on the card.
|
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 16, 2020 17:28:46 GMT
Hmm, so points aren't dissimilar, but the main things are the Lords vs Core balance. That list wouldn't be legal in 8th and you'd need to cut down your Lords points (unless End Times) and up your Core, which obviously increases the model count significantly. Was it 8th that first had the move to % allowances? I think my older 7th books had "0-2" type requirements for Lords/Heroes/Core/Special/Rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 16, 2020 17:38:48 GMT
I don’t think the price investment is that big of a difference today from earlier. You used to by blisters of 1-3 models and they costs a lot. Now you instead get 10-20 plastic sprue kits(except those sick 5 model kits...). I had people in the 90ies complaining about prices. And with inflation I actually feel it has gone down per model basis. Also from what I have seen AoS do not play low model count any more, it looks like WFB, just worse pain to move singular models. You just need to paint a lot more in 8ed  |
|
|
|
Post by gangland on May 17, 2020 15:23:36 GMT
I guess I lucked out because when I started playing I got an island of blood set for $80 and played it with a friend until he eventually got the Battle for Skull Pass set.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on May 17, 2020 18:42:38 GMT
But yes it’s not 100% comparable. yeah, 4th/5th ed you needed 25% of your army to be "Regiments", with no distinction between Special/Rare units in later editions, hehe |
|
) to be content with buying, assembling and painting units of 30+ of the same models particularly when you're just starting out.
