As far as Im aware there's nothing stopping you from already doing that. I think the way it is now is catered for everyone. They have specifically listed 3000pts as a warband game size iirc. The problem is if you try to balance for 3k it will have big ramifications for the bigger points sizes, and the game is hard enough to balance as is.As I tried to explain in my first post I would like to open two possibilities in the rulebook of 9th Age.I'm the total opposite, I love the big games, and would ideally like the game to go to 7000pts+, but with the number of monsters/shooting similar, so theres a much greater emphasis on infantry blocks. Armies feeling like real armies with battlelines, on larger, deeper battlefields. I'm a huge fan of the perry brothers style huge historical battles, Id love a fantasy game to take on those proportions. Smaller games are fun for scenarios or campaign, but I wouldn't want average games to be any smaller than it is now.
On one side: 4500 Points - Minimum for ETC tournaments
On the other side: 2500? Points - Warbands.
So everbody is happy...
The game will never be balanced at smaller points levels, I played a lot of 1500pts games in 8th and earlier, it inherently favoured certain armies, mainly the ones with better core sections and less reliance on the rare section. Similarly magic can have a much bigger impact on the game. A spell like unerring strike can effectively win the game turn 1 against certain lists. If you're playing with beginners though that stuff doesn't really matter. Just get stuff on the table and have some fun!
The post was edited 1 time, last by Ielthan ().