Let's play less points than 4500/5000 points!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Artegis wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    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.
    As I tried to explain in my first post I would like to open two possibilities in the rulebook of 9th Age.
    On one side: 4500 Points - Minimum for ETC tournaments

    On the other side: 2500? Points - Warbands.

    So everbody is happy...
    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.

    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 ().

  • Smaller point format is really, really needed if T9A is supposed to attract new players. Not ex-WFB players, but people completely new to fantasy wargaming. Building 4500 pts. army isn't exactly cheap. Many people on this forum already have quite big collections and they often forget that simple fact. This game will get more attention if it becomes more beginner friendly.
  • The Warbands 9th Age tournament at Adepticon this year is slated to be 3000pts, and I'm really hype for it. I feel like at these smaller points levels the choices you make both in army creation and in gameplay are a lot more impactful. You're still more than capable of taking some of the things you want in your 4500pt mainstay army, but you're severely limited in that you can't take all the toys that would normally be available to you and you have to make do with what you have. I'm absolutely a supporter of a parallel system of balancing at smaller points levels.
  • Striga wrote:

    Smaller point format is really, really needed if T9A is supposed to attract new players. Not ex-WFB players, but people completely new to fantasy wargaming. Building 4500 pts. army isn't exactly cheap. Many people on this forum already have quite big collections and they often forget that simple fact. This game will get more attention if it becomes more beginner friendly.
    This, I believe, is very very important. I have probably spent something like $150 in paint and models. Probably more (but I don't really want to count). And I have probably done something like 90 hours of assembling of painting. And I'm still half a year away from having a fieldable army. I know I could probably have done this at a lower detail level and completed it faster, but the point is the same. I have 1000 pts now and I really wish there were good rules (not necessarily balanced) that would allow me to field them.

    Deino wrote:

    The Warbands 9th Age tournament at Adepticon this year is slated to be 3000pts, and I'm really hype for it. I feel like at these smaller points levels the choices you make both in army creation and in gameplay are a lot more impactful. You're still more than capable of taking some of the things you want in your 4500pt mainstay army, but you're severely limited in that you can't take all the toys that would normally be available to you and you have to make do with what you have. I'm absolutely a supporter of a parallel system of balancing at smaller points levels.
    I think that balancing for yet another point range might be a bit too ambitious right now? And for me, 3000 pts armies does not solve my (or any other beginners) problem. It is still not "entry level". To me it sounds more like "fun game for committed players".

    So to sum it up I think we might be looking at four different types of games:

    Entry level:
    * 1000-1500 pts
    * Not balanced
    * Could have simplified ruleset
    * 1-1.5 hours

    Fast game:
    * 2500-3000 pts
    * Balanced? Maybe - but dicey
    * Full ruleset
    * 2-3 hours

    Standard T9A:
    * 4500-5000 pts
    * Balanced
    * Full ruleset
    * 4-5 hours

    Monster game:
    * 7000pts+
    * Balanced?
    * Full ruleset
    * Full day
  • To be fair I think those might be generous estimations of the amount of time it takes to play a 9th Age game. Tournaments slot in 2.5 hours to play 4500pt and 5000pt games and they still get completed. It just comes down to how well you know the rules. Of course a game is going to take longer if you're constantly leafing through rulebooks but once you've got it down and both players are capable of operating independently it speeds up significantly.
  • While the beginner rules for T9A will be a great way to get new players in, Im not sure that the standard size being 4500 is a massive deterrent right now. When I started playing WFB me and my mates were playing 500 point games. As you get better at the game, know the rules more thoroughly and understand list building more, higher points become necessary to play a game that feels fair. But getting started you're usually happy to make mistakes and not do everything 100% by the book.
    "We cant all just grease up and wrestle pigs for coin anymore" - Herminard
  • youngseward wrote:

    While the beginner rules for T9A will be a great way to get new players in, Im not sure that the standard size being 4500 is a massive deterrent right now. When I started playing WFB me and my mates were playing 500 point games. As you get better at the game, know the rules more thoroughly and understand list building more, higher points become necessary to play a game that feels fair. But getting started you're usually happy to make mistakes and not do everything 100% by the book.
    Focus on 4500 pts is at least as long as you consider collecting models. At current state smaller battles do not mean smaller units but less units. Unit of 20 rats at arms is chaff be it 2000 pts or 4500. And 20 strong units seems huge for someone who starts collecting. Forcing every beginner starting with units 40+ in size is what killed WFB.
  • Fleshbeast wrote:

    That 40+ unit size combined with the fact that that was 2-4 boxes of minis at AUD$50 a box was what killed WHFB...
    Most manufacturers just catapult themselves out of the market with such price for some pieces of plastic.
    The market model of having shops with salesmen isnt needed anymore with such a high developed and transparent Internet.

    Consider HOW MUCH one shop needs to sell per day to have more income than the direct costs of such a shop.
    And honestly, miniatures gaming is a niche.

    By having much better online support and community interaction and closing most of the shops, I bet there would be much potential to reduce the costs of miniatures.

    I bought less than 5% at a shop....the rest via ebay.
    The price for a new Box is totally away from the market value. Ebay shows the real needed price.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • For me size is most devastating, for two reasons:
    1. I can afford more models then I am able to paint. It does not mean I am filthy rich. It means I do have very limited time and painting 350 models to get a playable army is for me a true quest.
    2. I get bored really fast. I would prefer to have 3-4 small armies from different ABs then to work on a single huge force. Currently T9A demands total dedication to a single army which reduces players base.
  • I agree, that smaller sized games are more enjoyable. As others have said it makes decision making on your build seem more important, and you can't really go for things like heavy avoidance lists. 2000-3000 point games are all good, but I like 2500 the best, but 2000 and 3000 are both great as well. As far as the OP suggesting something between 2700-2800, I've tried to convince friends to play at 2750, but people really like those common increments of 500 too much :rolleyes:


    Honestly though, 2750 sounds like an ideal point range if you're trying to make a smaller sized tournament.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    2. I get bored really fast. I would prefer to have 3-4 small armies from different ABs then to work on a single huge force. Currently T9A demands total dedication to a single army which reduces players base.
    Going along with this, it would be really nice if T9A (possibly after 2.0 or 2.1) made a rule set for 2v2 competitions at like 3000 points (so 1500 each, or maybe you can splitting the points any way you want but one person has to have at least 1300). Doing things like this really encourages players to pick up additional armies since there is a lower point requirement for how big that army needs to be to play to play in a tournament, and also is a great thing for getting a friend into the hobby since they might find it fun doing a short small tournament while being able to play with a friend.
  • Deino wrote:

    To be fair I think those might be generous estimations of the amount of time it takes to play a 9th Age game. Tournaments slot in 2.5 hours to play 4500pt and 5000pt games and they still get completed. It just comes down to how well you know the rules. Of course a game is going to take longer if you're constantly leafing through rulebooks but once you've got it down and both players are capable of operating independently it speeds up significantly.
    But when talking about new players, it is fairly safe to assume a lot of rulebook referencing ;) new players in my gaming group can easily spend 4 hours on a 3000 point game, and can actually end up not finishing at all. It all depends on the complexity of the army, as some lists will just naturally be more time consuming to use (magic vs no magic, shooting vs no shooting, how fast both armies get into CC, etc.)

    I don't think the focus should be entry level rules, but rather ways to represent your army until you have it built. The paper representations of units is actually pretty good, and I've seen a few people use it for stand ins for missing models before.

    Just needs players who don't go nuts about that kind of thing :D
  • After some days without commenting this post I will add new info.

    I did a Basic Analysis of 3-4 Codex about what would be the best- most balanced Points for a small game.

    I still consider 2500 as the Optimum size Points. I would like to remind to the old-ancient-Veteran Players that in the past, we used to Play 1500 tournament lists. Rrarely, we were able to see 2000 Points... With 1500 Points of the old warhammer Fantasy Version, there were a lot of limitations. For example: no possibilities of playing a Dragon... Only few heroes...
    The ninth Age, as far as I remember, the first Thing they did was to decrease the Points of certain Units, and increase the Points of other. That means, if now 1500 of the old Points means 3000 new Points, a reduction of the "unit cost" done in the first stage of the Project, would be equivalent to 2500 current Points (more or less, this is my estimation).

    The Advantages of playing 2500 Points in comparision with the old wh Fantasy System is that with 2500 Points we are able to Play all models we want. For example: a commander riding a Dragon... A steam tank... A master wizard full of Equipment...


    However, These are not all good News. In the case of daemons, the big bird (tzeeentch great demon), cost 1050, which for the Moment, is the only model I see you could not Play at 2500 Points. Increaseing from 2500 to a symbolic number 2600, will let to put this model in. BUT, other armies have the possibility to spam a lot of Monsters.
  • What is the problemhere? right now everybody can play the game he likes best:
    You like small games? There is the warband rule
    You like medium games? There is the standard army size
    You like rally big games? There are grand armies

    Why would anybody change that? To force other people to play only what he thinks is best? We have a rule set that allows for all kind of games. That is how it should be.
  • Artegis wrote:

    I would like to remind to the old-ancient-Veteran Players that in the past, we used to Play 1500 tournament lists. Rrarely, we were able to see 2000 Points... With 1500 Points of the old warhammer Fantasy Version, there were a lot of limitations. For example: no possibilities of playing a Dragon... Only few heroes...
    Funny, I remember playing vastly larger battles in the older editions. And the battles usually included at least 1, if not 2, big dragons or similar monsters.

    The points were toned down in both it and 9th age in comparison, but I can't ever remember playing serious games at 1500 points. Beer and pretzel, sure, but that was never more than quick skirmishes with a lot of house rules, for some weird and quirky games.
  • +1

    Everybodys is free to play the size game he or she wants. If the rulebook mentions that the game is optimal at 4,500 points, that does not mean that you should play at this points size always. Heck, I am sure I can come up with a lot of lists that are still worthless at 4,500 points, just because of the choices I have made. But that is my choice.

    I always play 2,000 points vs my regular opponent and have attended and organised tournaments with points levels varying between 1,000 and 5,000 points.

    I am no new player, but am also starting with the entry level for the game at the moment. It takes a lot of time to get the army done, there used to be no stability (thankfully that seems to be fixed for a couple of months), and well cost.

    But how does T9A reach new players? That is just unclear to me.
    Bloodstorm.nl on Facebook!
    #bloodstormnl on Instagram

    Check my blog of everything!