With people in full prep mode for OWAC 2 there can be a lot of angst when it comes to making your 1000 point army list. One tactic would be to just give points to what you want to paint and then any amount over the 200 points per month is just not considered.
For the last challenge, I attempted to make a strict, legal 1000 point force. 1016 I think. I ended up adding a lot of stuff right at the end that brought it up to around 1300 and some, War Altar and wizards mostly.
We've all heard that the Armies book, and its minimum troop requirements, were designed for 3000 point armies. It's also been kicking around for quite some time that you could just reduce the troop minimums by 1/3 or 2/3 for a 2000 or 1000 point army. Airbornegrove pointed out to me where you can find this in writing, White Dwarf 144.
It's a pretty good article on a person's thinking for how they're going to start building an army, and I think what the intent of the OWAC really is, rather than being a straight up painting competition.
See, this guy thought so too.
There it is in Black and White. reduce compulsory numbers by 2/3 for a 1000 point force.
But the minimum unit size is still 5 models.
This looks like a pretty playable force.
Anyway, thanks for looking and commenting. Next up we'll be talking about assembling and painting and Undead army.
Great post....and you know how I love 1000 point lists. I really dont think people should be constrained by min/max but to those who do this is a great find.
ReplyDeleteThanks Airborne, yeah I wax and wane on the subject. I'm at the point now where I just want to paint the models I have and play with them. I don't really want to worry about a killer list. That being said, focusing on a tight and playable force is great for getting the ball rolling.
DeleteLOL, I actually used this article for starting my dwarf army and it worked quite well. As long as all are agreeable with it all. One of the house rules we did use was to put a constraint on the levels of heroes. Looking back I can't remember it exactly... Where'd I put that binder with my army lists in it......
ReplyDeleteHi Joe, sounds good. Finding old lists is a lot of fun, I found some of mine recently. In some ways the total point value limits the hero level. But yeah I think 15th level for 1000 points sounds about right. I've also house ruled lower magic levels before.
DeleteNice find!
ReplyDeleteThanks Xin.
DeleteReducing max. regiment sizes by isn't practical. I'd end up with tiny infantry units limited to 5, 7, or 10 figures - and thats assuming I round up.
ReplyDeleteHi 023, I purposely did not focus on the maximums. I feel like with the 1000 point list the minimums are what is the problem as it eats up points for the character models pretty quick. In our Dark elf example the minimums are 40 warriors, 20 crossbow and 10 witch elves. 40x0.33 = 13.2, 20x0.33=6.6, 10x0.33=3.3, but in each case he's just ended up taking the unit minimum size. So 15 Warriors, 10 Crossbow, 10 Witch Elves. Honestly, if none of it works or makes sense for you, don't bother. I just take what I find useful and ignore the rest. In any event I think where the problem is is always the compulsory rank and file troops. I would not apply this across the board.
DeleteI know, I only mentioned it because it was in the article.
DeleteHi 023, got it. Yeah I just completely ignored the mention of the maximums.
DeleteThe question is whether this comment in WD will be considered 'official' to gamers. There will always be that one guy that won't have read the article (or has, but doesn't agree) that will argue with you.
ReplyDeleteNo one needs that kind of negativity im their life. Dont game with them. ;)
DeleteHi Dale, that is true. If our theoretical gamer is an originalist then this would not satisfy them. For that matter I would not have been able to field my Bretonnians, as I used the lists published in White Dwarf as well. A gentleman's agreement on the framework of the game is always a necessary starting point.
DeleteGood article Sean. I never bothered with the point restriction myself, just collected what I thought was cool. But I do think it is a better way to build an army ala small point size to start with. That's if GW didn't keep introducing new editions every year. Kinda throws the whole "build it slowly" method out the window if you want to tournament play the game. If it's just to play with your mates then it's a fine way to game.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, enough waffle. Good stuff mate :)
Thanks Papafakis. The release of newer editions and nerfing certain units or armies is what got me away from the hobby. That is why I have reveled in returning to WFB 3rd Ed and Rogue Trader. I too would prefer to just collect models I like and put them on the table. The 1000 point army, while frustrating, is a good place to start.
DeleteI’d be curious as to whether this WD article was the progenitor for the 4th ed armylists that use percentages and 5 model unit size minimums.
ReplyDeleteRelatedly, 2nd ed. Ravening Hordes has some weird unit sizes.
Hi Slouch, good question. I came into the hobby just before the release of 4th Ed and sort of rejected it as I'd just bought into 3rd. I'm trying to look at other editions of the game for how things were "fixed" later. I'll have to look at Ravening Hordes again. There is something to be said for just stating out armies based on the rulebook alone.
DeleteSweet. The Good ol days aye!
ReplyDeleteThanks Simon, glad you liked it.
Delete