Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Yes, however, most of those games are oversized for the board. 1500 points is what they suggest in the rulebook, so it's a good default starting place.

I've never found 2000pt games to be oversized for a normal board unless one is trying to throw down 200something orks. As for the rulebooks suggestion, I don't think most people stick to it, at least here on the west coast. I don't think I've played a 1500pt pickup game yet at any store I've played at, its invariably 1750, 1850 or 2000.

1500 (balanced) - Russ (~150) + Baneblade (~600) = 2000 (balanced).

Ahh ok, missed that sorry.

It depends on how important you consider movement and density. 2000 pts on a 4x6 board is very dense. It's like First War, because the DZs are so tight. Cut that to 1500 points, and the game becomes much more fluid because units are forced to move to cover gaps in the line.

Also, 1500 forces players to make more decisions about what to take - you can't squeeze in those last couple "extra" units.

We usually play with 50% terrain, if not more, and have never had a problem with horde armies.

Yesterday a friend of mine took 40 Boyz and 150 Gretchin in a 2050 army on a 6X4 table. He filled two thirds of his DZ, but it certainly wasn't clumped or unwieldy.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yesterday a friend of mine took 40 Boyz and 150 Gretchin in a 2050 army on a 6X4 table. He filled two thirds of his DZ, but it certainly wasn't clumped or unwieldy.

BYE

You mean, 120 Boyz and 150 Gretchin... :-)

Sorry, meant to say 4 units of Boyz.

Yes, 4 units of 30, plus a further 150 Gretchin.

BYE

some of us just need a bit more space, I guess.

JohnHwangDD wrote:some of us just need a bit more space, I guess.

I suggest diet and exercise. Maybe a hobby that involves moving around a bit more.

btw: This applies to myself, too. Actually trying it depresses the hell out of me.

Janthkin wrote:Like JohnHDD, your's must be a happy and cheerful nature. I am cynical and untrusting (I blame law school...or possibly my "Lost and the Discontinued" army) - I feel it necessary to point out (repeatedly!) the places where the current design falls short, in the (probably vain) hope that someone at GW might read and understand the concerns...BEFORE we have a new codex that doesn't fix the fundamental problem.

Oh, a new codex could certainly be made worse. The new codex could be released which does nothing but remove doctrines and add some random new unit that’s neither cool nor worthwhile. It could be ‘fixed’ with all sorts of rules that stop guardsman operating like guardsman. It could keep all the current weaknesses of the list while opening up a new FOC breaking rule for competitive guard players if they’re willing to do something completely extreme, like taking 6 or 9 leman russes.

So yeah, things can certainly get worse. But it doesn't matter whether you think the glass is half full or half empty, when talking about a single element of army design (the cost of weapons upgrades) it makes no sense to assume some arbitrary point of the old list will remain the same, and it makes no sense to directly compare the cost of an upgrade in one army with the cost in another.