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.

What I mean is that below 3,000 points, the game is kind of closed and balanced and predictable. But once you hit the 3000 mark, the game really starts to open up.

Do you prefer 40k games at 3K+, or 3K- ?

3K is apocalypse level. I would imagine it starts to get nuts there.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
3K is apocalypse level. I would imagine it starts to get nuts there.

2K is apocalypse level nowadays.

Hell with escalation every game is an apocalypse game, also something I have found is that in higher point apocalypse games it becomes, for lack of a better term, more balanced in that every one has access to the most insane stuff in the game and things like re-rollable saves become moot due to S : (d) weapons. Just my opinion based on the games I've played

Games cap at 1999 here. No one I know owns 3k points in one army , not to mention 3k points of optimised list . It would be rather crazy with multiple FoC , multiple ally and possible D spam . Who ever has more cash to buy D weapon carriers and void shields from ebay would win .

 jasper76 wrote:
What I mean is that below 3,000 points, the game is kind of closed and balanced and predictable. But once you hit the 3000 mark, the game really starts to open up.

Do you prefer 40k games at 3K+, or 3K- ?

You play 40k at 3k standard?

Dear lord man, I have a hard time imagining much larger than 1500. I played 2k when I first started and quickly grew tired of games that big.

If anything, the game becomes increasingly more broken and absurd the higher the points.

I love apocalypse or really high point Dual-FOC games.

It's quite a spectacle on a well made battlefield and it lets you see aspects of an army that usually don't show up due to points or FOC limitations.

The game starts to weirdly curve around back to balance once you get really high points levels.

As I'm fond of saying (in person anyway), a truly huge apoc game is rarely decided by the titans, but rather the handful of grots who survived as everyone else blasted each other into smithereens, sitting on the objective and waving the Ork bannah high.

Any more than 2k and I need an entire day to recover. For 1v2 or 2v2, 2k is the sweet spot. 1v1 my preferred amount is 1500.

3k is just logistically painful, so no. 1000-2000pts, thanks.

IMO the game plays best at 1,000 to 1,500 points, at least it did in 5th edition.

The new stuff that has been put in -- aircraft, D weapons, etc -- makes things more difficult and upsets the balance at normal point levels, but the game system fails to scale well above 2,000 points.

40k is a 1850 / 1999+1 game.

3k+ is apocalypse, not regular 40k.

 Blacksails wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
What I mean is that below 3,000 points, the game is kind of closed and balanced and predictable. But once you hit the 3000 mark, the game really starts to open up.

Do you prefer 40k games at 3K+, or 3K- ?

You play 40k at 3k standard?

Dear lord man, I have a hard time imagining much larger than 1500. I played 2k when I first started and quickly grew tired of games that big.

If anything, the game becomes increasingly more broken and absurd the higher the points.

2.5K standard, pushing up to a meta of 3+K Escalation games.'

It might sound like crap, but I'm telling you, the more points we put on to this system, the funner it gets (I sound like a GW narc, but this is dead honest talk)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:
I love apocalypse or really high point Dual-FOC games.

It's quite a spectacle on a well made battlefield and it lets you see aspects of an army that usually don't show up due to points or FOC limitations.

The game starts to weirdly curve around back to balance once you get really high points levels.

As I'm fond of saying (in person anyway), a truly huge apoc game is rarely decided by the titans, but rather the handful of grots who survived as everyone else blasted each other into smithereens, sitting on the objective and waving the Ork bannah high.

YES!!! My thoughts exact!

I like the game at 1500 myself. Not that I mind higher point games. I'm just mostly used to games at 1500.

Games become longer at higher values sure. But it becomes balanced in the end, even more so then at low point values. in 1500-2000 point games if you brought rock and your opponent brought paper you are gunna lose 9/10 times. But with higher point values you have all of your utilities available to you making the general of the army (the player) matter more as its now more strategy rather than if you brought the right tools. At high point games you always have the tools. Now you just need to know how to use them.

I wish i could get more games at my point value. I have 15000 points of Eldar when all is said and done. and only 4 of those are super heavys. 2 Rev and 2 Scorpion Tanks.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Any more than 2k and I need an entire day to recover. For 1v2 or 2v2, 2k is the sweet spot. 1v1 my preferred amount is 1500.

For 1v1 games, no lie, I think the sweet spot is either 1500, or 3500

I would try a 3k point game but outside of apoc, 2k is the biggest I have played.

Played a 4k non-apoc/escalation game the other week. It was a really good show and there was a single issue over the rules or anything, just straight up explosions.

I can see that at higher point games each army can bring lots of cheese there for it balances. I could bring 500 boys... good luck killing them all

 zammerak wrote:
I can see that at higher point games each army can bring lots of cheese there for it balances. I could bring 500 boys... good luck killing them all

Yes...YEs....YESSSSSSSSS!

Dude, find some friends to play a game like that, I think it will reinvigorate the fun you have with 40k

 zammerak wrote:
I can see that at higher point games each army can bring lots of cheese there for it balances.

All except Tyranids, lol. Their gargantuan creatures get eaten by most other super heavies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 zammerak wrote:
I can see that at higher point games each army can bring lots of cheese there for it balances. I could bring 500 boys... good luck killing them all

Yes...YEs....YESSSSSSSSS!

Dude, find some friends to play a game like that, I think it will reinvigorate the fun you have with 40k

The last game I played with over 100 models made me decide I hate the movement phase in 40k and I'm never bringing such a big army again, lol.

 zammerak wrote:
I can see that at higher point games each army can bring lots of cheese there for it balances. I could bring 500 boys... good luck killing them all

Precisely why you need Apocalypse rules. A game with 200+ models in one side simply isn't playable. Apocalype counters this problem by introducing larger scale weapons that are able to eradicate entire squads with a single shot, therefore shortening especially the moving phase. Playing more than 1999 pts with 40k rules not only completely messes up balance, it further creates additional problems such as extensive movement phases in certain situations / confrontations. If you want to play a very large scale game of 40k, you should use Apocalypse rules as they were created for these exact situations.

3000 points is something I play standard with my friendly gaming group, and I rarely like to play below 2000 points at my FLGS. I find that when you communicate to your opponent what you want out of the game things become much more enjoyable. In our local group all of us have at least one super heavy and at least 5000 points. So we have a lot of flexibility when it comes to list building. A general rule of thumb we use is only bring your superheavy if your opponent wants to use theirs and a single FOC for every 2000 points. Big games are fun when you set time aside for them

 jasper76 wrote:


2.5K standard, pushing up to a meta of 3+K Escalation games.'

It might sound like crap, but I'm telling you, the more points we put on to this system, the funner it gets (I sound like a GW narc, but this is dead honest talk)

I will just agree to disagree. I can't imagine 40k being played regularly at such a high points level. The rules are skirmished based and generally don't scale well, making large games a tedious affair.

But whatever boats your float man.

I am closing in on 5K points of CSM and I can't wait to get to use it all at once.

Optimised, not in the slightest. But cool!

Every once in a while we do 1500 team battles (so 3k/side).

And while fun, I think it's more because we talk so much crap to each other.

I am really liking 600 point battles lately. Especially combat patrol rules.

Play 3k, Single FOC and no Escalation. It can be alot of fun

I think it will become a 3k standard army point size game soon. With all the bigger models coming out and all, seems likely.

I am developing some serious love for 500-point fast skirmishes...

It might depend on Armies. I'm not too familiar with the points cost of other Armies but I know that with my space marines I can easily field 3k - 4k points of single FOC 40k, with no lords of war. I know because I have before.
6 tactical squads, 2 devastator and 2 assault squads are about 3k points alone. Throw Calgar, a sicaran a storm talon and sternies and I'm at 4k+