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.

Simple question: When designing a list for a high points (over 3,000 points) game, do you find yourself fielding some of the "fun but less efficient/effective" units, or do you just pile in more of what already works?

The topic came to me after messing with Army Builder and trying to design a 4,000 point list. I'm a skaven player, and there was talk with a few friends of running a "Chaos" Dwarf and Warriors of Chaos (2,000 points each) versus my Skaven, as I have the larger model collection.

At first, I was building a list based on what models I actually owned. I started with the "usual" choices for Skaven: couple clan rat units w/ weapon teams, couple big blocks of skaven slaves, pair of Warp Lightning Canons and a pair of Doom Wheels. As I started throwing in other units I owned, I began to wonder if they were really worth it. I had added a large Jezzail team, some Poisoned Wind Globadiers, Night Runners, Storm Vermin, Rat Ogres, etc. etc. Looking at my list, I began to wonder if those units were really worth their cost, or if it would just be prudent to throw down more of what I knew worked; 4,000 points is an awful lot of skaven slaves after all!

I know there are a few exceptions. The Screaming Bell at 4,000 points is a bit less of a points sink than it is at 2,000 points. (Okay, same cost but takes up less of my Lord selection.) Taking a block of Plague Monks seems more viable, even if I could get a Clan Rat w/ Shield AND a Slave for each Plague Monk (with half a point to spare too!).

I guess what I'm trying to get across is: Do people find in larger games that units which are usually not worth it suddenly become worth it, or does a "Grand Army" basically look like a bigger block of what you'd run at 2,000 points?

I'm the same way. I don't have enough models yet, but I still like to put together army lists, and at 3000-4000 pts, I think about adding a Dragon Mage, even though they aren't super-efficient, just because it's cool.

At the 3-4k range, you can add some of the more points inefficient units, as the higher points kind of dull it down.

I also try to vary the units somewhat, because playing a 4k game with nothing but your 2k list doubled seems rather...pointless. Why not just play the 2k list and be done in half the time?

greenbay924 wrote:because playing a 4k game with nothing but your 2k list doubled seems rather...pointless. Why not just play the 2k list and be done in half the time?

QFT

At 3000pts plus all the big point sinkers are less of a pain and although they may not the most efficient way to spend points games like these are obviously meant to be a little fun so why not spend big on those dragons and special characters you wouldn't normally use.

I see high point battles bringing out super-units that are not really available at lower point levels. Of course, you have the points to include more "fun" units- but you'll be facing some far nastier things at that level.

I'd personally use the points to make units larger and more resilient/killy, rather than just adding more.

Yeah, I've found that 4,000 point armies generally aren't that much bigger then 2,000 point armies because it allows people to spend points on those big nasties that they generally can't afford in smaller games.

Seems to me that some units that are too inefficient to work at 2K can do very well at 3K+. Most of the time, those uber-units/elite units simply cost to much to afford the supporting units in the same list. At the Grand scale, this is possible, allowing for more 'fun' armies, and sometimes, just as competitive.

It might be me, but I think you're going to be at a disadvantage if you don't take use the special grand army rules. Namely having lots of dupe specials/rares. So you might have a super dragon of awesomeness, but if your enemy has 6 cannons, it isn't going to matter.

I have been wanting to exploit using:
12 spear chukkas
6 rock lobbas
4 doom divers

It's not actually too effective, but to see the look on the opponent's face when 22 warmachines hit the table would be funny...

Call that exploiting?

6 Cannons
6 Mortars
4 Volley Guns
4 Helstorms
+Stanks =P

Chances are half of that will blow up within the first turn but it'd still be cool to say "I'm now deploying my 20 war machines" lol

Yeah...but all those warmachines cost me a whopping 1160 points! that leaves 1800 still for the rest of the army!

djones520 wrote:Yeah, I've found that 4,000 point armies generally aren't that much bigger then 2,000 point armies because it allows people to spend points on those big nasties that they generally can't afford in smaller games.

Have you seen many 4000 point Ogre lists?? Most of the time they really are predominantly just "double my 2k list" with a couple added extras. With the Ogre book, you can almost take one of every unit in the book and have some points left over.

That's mostly due to the ogres not exactly having the most variety of options, do you take ogres with cloubs, giant blades, or with cannons in their hands?

When i get to having a 3k army i'll go for a true stegadon herd