Second, when we started this blog one of my original hopes was to use it as an outlet for discussion.
And so, I propose a discussion topic: pre-written, all comers (within the relevant meta) army lists.
For fantasy I have always been a strong advocate for 2400 points for a few reasons. First, that's what they play at the Nexus, which is useful for me since I already have a list at that point level. I also really like the having my 25% be 600 as opposed to 625, not that the math is any harder, but it feels like a cleaner points value. The question that arises then is concerning smaller point games.
Should we simply use multiples of 400? It would follow the same kind of idea. Often we think to use multiples of 500, but I would argue that 1600 would be better only because it leads to 400 max lords/heroes, and minimum core, as opposed to 375. In reality a 1600 point game and a 1500 point game are the same size as far as time and number of units on the table are concerned.
More up for discussion, I think, is 40K. In this case it is important to remember that at 2000 points the force org chart doubles, meaning you can have 3-4 HQ, and up to 6 fast attack/heavy so long as your willing to take 4 troops. I know I have a list written for one force organization chart at 1999 points.
I have been reading some 40k discussion and articles online, and it seems that at tournaments for the <2000 point category it is becoming more and more common to use 1850. There are arguments why this is, essentially calling it a restricted 2000 point army. Some more competitive players will say that they can build stronger lists at 1850 than at 1999. What are your thoughts on 1850? Should we stick with 1500, 1750 and 2000, or should I start writing up a new list?
I don't play FoW but I'm sure there are interesting things to say about that as well.
Anyways, since nobody commented on my last post, I don't assume anyone will comment here, but it would bring me warm feelings if you did.
As an outside reader that isn't incredibly invested in WH/40k, why does it matter the difference between 1999 and 1850 points? If the maximum is set at 2000 and you have a more powerful list at 1850 than the next guy at 1999 why not build that list?
ReplyDeleteOr, do you mean to say at 1850 they have a stronger list compared to another player also at 1850?
Again, not being terribly invested in the gaming side of wargames, why not just make everything a 360 multiple? Sure 1440, 2880 and 2520 are strange numbers but for the sake of math is that not the easiest? Multiples of 36 (therefore 360)are much easier to divide (as you probably well know). I assume the only reason to avoid this is because point values in the game tend to round off to even 5s or 10s?
And one last thing as an outside viewer. Asking for comments works! (As you can see). Would you guys do a full battle report on an apocalypse match? Seeing your own play styles for large scale would be a lot cooler than seeing fate fuck all your mothers in dreafleet.
Thanks for commenting, sorry it took so long to respond I'm still getting used to this having a blog thing.
DeleteI completely agree with you when you say "why does it matter the difference between 1999 and 1850 points." In my opinion it really doesn't. Wooster Shooster a few comments below says they differ only in auxiliary units, which may be the case, but a 1850 point army will almost always lose to a 1999 point army. When he says stronger I think he means that it's a more focused force and that people aren't needlessly upgrading to get to 1999.
As for the multiples of 360, the math works out fairly close either way, people consistently run lists that are within 5 points of any number. Looking at 1440 vs. 1500, either way you might end up with some points to cut/fill, but the 1500 just looks nicer (In my opinion) and I guess that's why we play multiples of 50.
Lastly, yeah, we will totally do an apocalypse report. Problem is we didn't get the best pictures for a battle report and we didn't take note of what's happening. I think we should just let the last game rest and focus on having another, once the new Apocalypse book comes out.
I promise we'll work on that battle report, and I always try to keep my promises with the Anonymous of the internet.
Nice work on that treeman, the fur you added is looking really good. As to those point I like both 2400 and 1600 for fantasy, both for simplicity and 1500 somehow seems a bit small for fantasy. 2400 is nice cause it just makes it easier to write up a nice big list, and we can always do 2000 points as well although I'd usually rather go to 2400 in that case if we have the time. 40k...1850 works well for me, I can make that with my Tau (still getting more!) but both 1500 and 1750 still work for me.
ReplyDeleteI figure the guys preferring 1850pts like it because you can really make a list with no issues as to slots. At 1999 those start to be much more restrictive. I'd want extra fast attack slots for my Tau at 1999/2000pts so would probably rather play 2000 then, but that's just me. Slots being a restriction just makes different lists, but restricts some competitive strategies.
Right. I also think that if you are intentionally restricting yourself to one force org then an 1850, or even 1750, point list only differs from a 1999 point list by some auxiliary units, maybe some upgrades, that aren't focal to the army. And while these add-ons may be fun, in a competitive setting (not that ours is, lol) may end up being wasted points. I know the difference between my 1750 and my 1999 is simply adding a monolith, and while a monolith may not seem like a small addition, it plays no focal role in the overall strategy of the army.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to push anything either. In fact, I already have written lists for 1500 and 1750.
Thanks Molgrimmar! It took quite a while so I'm glad it turned out well.