The Official 2018/2019 Warhammer 40,000 Grand Tournament Season drops army size to 1750 points.

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/the-official-2018-2019-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Thoughts? How will it affect your meta?

I think it is a good call, and hopefully other tournament organisers will do something similar.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I think it is a good call, and hopefully other tournament organisers will do something similar.

Agreed. I don't think other organisers will. ITC/ETC and other big tournaments seem to view GW GTs with a fairly high level of contempt so they'll probably ignore what seems to be a reasonable decision on GW's part. My club has been playing 1750 since 8th edition landed and we've found that even relatively slow players can get a game completed from deployment to final turn in 2.5 hours. In general I think it'd be interesting if tournaments had more variety in their points limits and mission structures, if only to make people think a bit more about their armies. I'm sure it comes down to TOs being risk averse with their rulesets due to the costs involved in running a tournament - you don't want your different set of rules to turn too many people away.

1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

Long as it allows people to include Fun Units, I'm up for that.

Nowt worse than a points level that means you can't take your favourite Big Boy to war.

Don't like it at all.

I think it's a good move. Having to make hard decisions, rather than allowing you to take pretty much anything, makes the game better IMO.

tneva82 wrote:
1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

This.

Less points are preferable.
I would even consider 1650 or 1500 pts for larger tourneys.

As much as I don't like that idea, it's probably a necessity. I've only been to a few tournaments, mostly local. The one big tournament was about 50 people, but that I've had some crazy stuff with how to build your army.

For tournaments we've found 1500 to be about the sweet spot. at 1000, the first turn matters overmuch and there's almost no way to get battles to go to objectives turn 4-5. We tried a 1000pt format with "sudden death" objectives that were meant to be achievable on a crushing victory, or "normal" objectives achieved turn 4-5, and while we had about half games going to the normal objectives the sudden death objectives popped up pretty frequently.

At 1500 though it's a lot harder to load everything into an alpha strike and just hose whole armies down.

Good move. I like to run basic stuff but with a guard army it is simply too many models to play at a decent clip and not ruin the experience for the other chap. Anything which means I can go down that route and not worry about taking expensive stuff to speed up play is good in my book.

I don't think its a good idea because:

1. They have spent a year balancing their game based upon feedback from 2k points.

2. They are currently pitching their premiere competitive event, where each game round is 30 min less than you can expect at most other uk events, and then reducing its points by 1/8th.

3. They have recently released anti spam rules, which inherently become less effective at a reduced point value.

4. If its hard to make balanced competitive lists at 2k, which can cover the bases to defeat the crazy hyper competitive lists, imagine how much more difficult it will be with 1/8th of the tools.

5. The competitive community (which lets face it GTs are aimed at) has spend a year learning how to play a 2k meta, invalidating a lot of 'game feel'.

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

7. There are better ways to make sure that games go to time. (like having more than 5 2.5 hour rounds over 3 days!).

And that's why unlike last year, I wont be buying a ticket this time around.

Speaking as someone who qualified for the final in a heat, and then decided to not attend the final due to the (imo) bad 3 day 5 short game schedule and 4 weeks of planning time i had after waiting for the FAQ to drop.

I like 1750. 2000 feels like you can have everything you want (Unless you play space marines and use subpar units ) , and 1500 feels too small of a force for me, I like to change my list from game to game, but thats a bit too much.

1750 is a sweet spot in the middle. For 1000 point games I prefer to just use other sistems and go to play some skirmish level game.

 Mushkilla wrote:
The Official 2018/2019 Warhammer 40,000 Grand Tournament Season drops army size to 1750 points.

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/the-official-2018-2019-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Thoughts? How will it affect your meta?

Noooo, really?!
It was really down to this or chess clocks.
I like it!

Makes sense. The reality is that the hope/promise/assumption that 8th would play faster than before isn't true. In fact its often slower. Something had to give, reduced points is probably the easiest solution.

The issue GW had with 8th is they made if faster to play 8th if you used armies similar to 7th....but made infantry so good that spamming 100s of models is superior in every way to running tanks etc. They also added CP giving players another point of decision which slows things down, and made re-rolls super prevalent (no more re-roll saves, but tons of re-roll hits, wounds, and FNP mechanics that are slow).

5th ed was the fastest edition I have played and that was in large part that mechanized forces were king. Moving 10 boxes around the table is much faster than 100 individual models. Now they were too powerful in 5th, however I think they have been over corrected for the past 3 editions (Hull points made them too weak, loss of fire points hurts many this edition, as does their ability to die quickly for their cost compared to infantry units.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to points drop, I like it my LGS plays 1500 points, I think it is a much tougher point level to play, and lower points makes soup much less attractive because the taxes for detachments become more meaningful.

It’s a direct response to this year’s winner slowplaying. And it’s fine. I wish GW would try clocks, but I understand why they went lower points instead, and having a variety of points values in tournaments is a good thing.

Well, I guess the big question is...will the independent circuits follow suit?

I can certainly approve. I really like 2000pts for casual games in which you have the time to play it out, but for timed competitive events, you really need to "cut the fat".
1750 makes the most sense as it still allows variety of list building, yet makes some choices difficult.
1500pts would be too restrictive and would likely create concentrated lists that would seem repetitive.

Hopefully this trickles down to most local events to change the overall meta.

 meleti wrote:
It’s a direct response to this year’s winner slowplaying. And it’s fine. I wish GW would try clocks, but I understand why they went lower points instead, and having a variety of points values in tournaments is a good thing.

Just as easy to slowplay 1750 to max turn 3.
It will help a little in the overal amount of turns the games go but won't fix the actual problems.

I approve of this move. I've always felt that lower point games were more interesting because they required the player to make real compromises and choices in list building.

We shall see what it does for lists!

Some units behave very differently when you have more open space on the table. I think it's very healthy for the game.

My preference in the tournament world would be 1500. It is at least a step in the right direction as it does also heavily influence what we take in our "casual" games (by casual I mean the tournament practice games that make up most of our pickup games here)

However in my neck of the woods: ITC = life. If ITC doesn't adapt this, it will be ignored.

It's good to change things up. Personally I hope that my local tournaments adopt this, while the non tournament games do not. I would very much like a distinction between what is someones tournament list, or someones casual list.

I don't think its really going to solve the problem, but its not a bad change regardless. I wish it was 1800 though, almost entirely because I like numbers divisible by 3....

 Ordana wrote:
Just as easy to slowplay 1750 to max turn 3.
It will help a little in the overal amount of turns the games go but won't fix the actual problems.

If 99% of games go the full 5-7 turns, then it becomes really easy to identify slow play. It's also easier to justify an insentive to go the full 5-7 turns at that point.

 Wibe wrote:

 Mushkilla wrote:
The Official 2018/2019 Warhammer 40,000 Grand Tournament Season drops army size to 1750 points.

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/the-official-2018-2019-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Thoughts? How will it affect your meta?

Noooo, really?!
It was really down to this or chess clocks.
I like it!

Or just up the cost of chaff.

Although this event is kind of lame:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword. If you have created your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.

Seriously not a fan of color based WYSIWYG

I think that a problem may occur due to my suspicion that GW has currently based points off of an assumption of a 2000 point game. By lowering the army size but not lowering point costs that's going to handicap a lot of "elite" armies (I play mono GK and I know it will hurt my ability to be even somewhat competitive).

I prefer building for 2000 points, but there is no question that 1750 is cleaner and more effective for tournament play. I'd be very interested to see what ITC thinks of the change as Reece has mentioned that 2k is too high, but hasn't made any moves on his own to adjust the point values.

2k is only too high because units are undercosted. And units that are overcosted will be even more adversely affected by a lower point limit.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that a problem may occur due to my suspicion that GW has currently based points off of an assumption of a 2000 point game. By lowering the army size but not lowering point costs that's going to handicap a lot of "elite" armies (I play mono GK and I know it will hurt my ability to be even somewhat competitive).

I hear this argument a lot. But I also play elite armies, and if anything find lowering army size makes them more effective, not less.

Could you elaborate on why you think dropping 250 points would make elite armies less effective?

Half way to a reasonable points level. Maybe in another year we'll be at 1500.

My elite units prefer smaller point games. I have more options, there. There are fewer hard counters to them. I can more easily concentrate my forces and divide theirs. You can't concentrate or divide when the whole board is full of guys.

Bharring wrote:
My elite units prefer smaller point games. I have more options, there. There are fewer hard counters to them. I can more easily concentrate my forces and divide theirs. You can't concentrate or divide when the whole board is full of guys.

See that's exactly my experience with elite armies. So I don't get the "lower point games handicap elite armies" argument.

 Mushkilla wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that a problem may occur due to my suspicion that GW has currently based points off of an assumption of a 2000 point game. By lowering the army size but not lowering point costs that's going to handicap a lot of "elite" armies (I play mono GK and I know it will hurt my ability to be even somewhat competitive).

I hear this argument a lot. But I also play elite armies, and if anything find lowering army size makes them more effective, not less.

Could you elaborate on why you think dropping 250 points would make elite armies less effective?

A barebones minimum Custodes battalion is about 712. Throw in a near mandatory Magnifica and now I have less than 900 points to bring enough units to cover the following issues TAC lists must prepare for:

1. Ranged Anti-Tank
2. Ranged Anti-Horde
3. Screening Chaff
4. Psychic Defense
5. Objective Campers (Custodes are too expensive to leave sitting on backfield all day).
6. Anti-Air
7. More CP generation (1 battalion isn't enough)

Good luck fitting it all. You almost certainly can't (you can barely do it at 2k). So if I run into a skew list of any category I don't sufficiently load up on then it's GG probably.

Lower points also increase the power of these lists because they can just gamble on facing opponents' TAC lists having insufficient anti-skew to deal with them.

Take my Custodes battalion again as an example. With, let's say 850 points, what units can I add that would let me stop a Magnus led Thousand Sons psyker list, a Tau Y'vahra led gunline AND a list of 3 Imperial Knights?

Then perhaps you need units that can perform more than one role? You might not have as much power in any given role, but there won't be as much of whatever it counters, too.

You don't need to stop a 2k list, just a 1750 list.

A shadow sword with guard chaff? 4 Mantacores w/ Guard chaff? Lets put it this way if you cannot handle those lists at 1750, you can't handle them at 2k either because they also have 250 more points.

While it's an interesting move, not sure it's wise.

Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

This is not a question about balance, and I'm sure the question could be asked the other way - there must be some armies that do better than others at 2000 points.

What I'm thinking about is those armies that take a 500 - 1000 point detachment to protect their more elite units (i.e. SM with a Guard detachment,) and also the ones that invest a lot of points in a single, high-value unit (i.e. Thousand Sons / Death Guard.) Many of them only get away with these lists because of the points available to spend.

At 1500 points, Magnus is now 30% of the cost of a TS army (instead of 22% which he is at 2000 points.) I could see a single unit taking up a fifth of the points, but a third - that's really hard for me. Rubrics and Scarabs would need to be looked at closely because Tzaangor - fragile infantry with a punch - would be that much more valuable.

And forget about Spartans, Fire Raptors, and other high-cost units that sometimes appear in 2000 point games. I'd even have to think hard about Leviathans before taking them. Everything smaller is suddenly more efficient.

While I'm sure this move addresses issues with 'slow play' at some level, it feels like it favors armies with cheap troops specializing in volume of fire over elite armies with spectacular abilities. 8th edition has already been heading this way, and it's cost the more elite armies in a big way.

Not sure that's a good idea, long term. But would be interesting to see what happens with the meta.

I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

 techsoldaten wrote:
While it's an interesting move, not sure it's wise.

Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

This is not a question about balance, and I'm sure the question could be asked the other way - there must be some armies that do better than others at 2000 points.

What I'm thinking about is those armies that take a 500 - 1000 point detachment to protect their more elite units (i.e. SM with a Guard detachment,) and also the ones that invest a lot of points in a single, high-value unit (i.e. Thousand Sons / Death Guard.) Many of them only get away with these lists because of the points available to spend.

At 1500 points, Magnus is now 30% of the cost of a TS army (instead of 22% which he is at 2000 points.) I could see a single unit taking up a fifth of the points, but a third - that's really hard for me. Rubrics and Scarabs would need to be looked at closely because Tzaangor - fragile infantry with a punch - would be that much more valuable.

And forget about Spartans, Fire Raptors, and other high-cost units that sometimes appear in 2000 point games. I'd even have to think hard about Leviathans before taking them. Everything smaller is suddenly more efficient.

While I'm sure this move addresses issues with 'slow play' at some level, it feels like it favors armies with cheap troops specializing in volume of fire over elite armies with spectacular abilities. 8th edition has already been heading this way, and it's cost the more elite armies in a big way.

Not sure that's a good idea, long term. But would be interesting to see what happens with the meta.

My thoughts exactly. Suddenly that $200 knight I just got is a bad investment. But a pretty cool paperweight.

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

If GW released a good tournament mission pack/rules that became a standard I'd be all over it. I'm not a fan of how fragmented things are at the moment. One can hope. Apparently this is the case for AoS tournaments. At least that's what I heard.

tneva82 wrote:
1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

This!

Bharring wrote:
Then perhaps you need units that can perform more than one role? You might not have as much power in any given role, but there won't be as much of whatever it counters, too.

You don't need to stop a 2k list, just a 1750 list.

I am talking about stopping 1.75k. and no kidding I need units that can do more than one role, the problem is I can't afford them.

I wanna stop those Imperial Knights? My cheapest option is probably Neutronagers. They're like 144 each. I can either take 2 in a Battalion or 3 in a Vanguard. If I go 3 in a Vanguard I've now spent like 500+ points for them and the Dominus. So I've got about to 300 to cover all the other holes: perfect!

Maybe I should take Lascannon Devastator? I can at least add a psychic librarian with those. Except one Librarian isn't going to do jack against a Thousand Sons army. Even two won't.

Alright, alright, I'll ditch the Battalion completely and take an Outrider of 3 Jetbikes and a Bike Captain. That gives me ranged anti-Horde and some melee anti-tank that moves fast enough maybe I can fudge the ranged thing. This will only cost me...

970. Over 1,000 once you add the Magnifica. I also only have 4 CP. So I've got like 650 points to load up on psychic defense, get back field objective grabbers, get screens and find some way to deal with something like a Necron Tesseract Vault list or Mortarion Death Guard. I can totally budget it, right?

250 points means a lot to elite armies. We run VERY thin margins in TAC lists in 2k. Those margins disappear when you drop down.

So what's my alternative? Well, it's to do what everyone on this board hates. I'll just load up on nothing but bikes and make a skew list. Bikes have a max unit size of like 10. After my mandatory Captain and Magnifica I can fit like 15 bikes across my three units. Have fun dealing with that! I'm sure NO ONE will complain about skew lists like they used to in 7th.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

Anything with non-scaling mechanics and/or limited 'good' options. Though this assumes mono-codex to some degree.
Also anything not really equipped to deal with the big megaunits like Mortarion stomping all over them, if only because you are less likely to run into him.

I only like less points if there is some limit on what units can be brought. Even at 2000 it is hard for some armies to deal with all the vairable threats in the game. There are Titanic units, Flyers, vehicles, mass cheap infantry, elite infantry, multi-wound infantry, deep strike units, psyker powers, etc. Limiting even more what can be brought just makes the game more rock paper scissor. Personally my opinion is the game is not designed for quick tournament play.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
It's good to change things up. Personally I hope that my local tournaments adopt this, while the non tournament games do not. I would very much like a distinction between what is someones tournament list, or someones casual list.

Speak as someone in your local community, I heartily agree. We have quite a few casual vs tourney players.
Having different points standards for each would really help set the tone.

-

I'm looking forward to seeing if ny local meta picks this up. Presumably if ITC does, we will. It's possible we'll do both and I'll just have two lists ready to go.

Maybe, at 1750, instead of bringing CC anti-horde and ranged anti-horde, bring anti-horde that is one or perhaps both in the same choice?

Maybe, at 1750, instead of bringing anti-tank CC units, anti-tank ranged units, anti-MC CC units, and anti-MC ranged units, you could take some ranged or CC unit that was good vs Tanks and MC? Good enough at both, but not necessarily the optimal solution?

Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

GW is not the king and never has been. There is a reason they moved away from competitive tournaments a long time ago.

Tournaments are problematic. Companies like GW are built to act like cheerleaders for their products, not provide showcases for the most vexing and frustrating problems that exist with their wares.

While I personally frown upon ITC and wish it would go away, I recognize it's an important effort to address the structural defects that exist with GW games. The problem is, it's not universal - there are other systems used by other events, mostly due to the preferences of tournament organizers (which are heavily influenced by region and locality.) But people latch onto it as though it's a silver bullet that solves so many problems.

What I would prefer to see is a universal system adopted by all conference organizers and a strong commitment to incrementally improve it over time based on data collected during tournaments. Keep track of the armies / factions / detachments / units / options being used, the outcomes of specific matches, the historical records of various players, etc. That could lead to a more 'fair' system for competition that people could 'enjoy' (depending on how many OP units GW has released in the last 6 months.)

But there are times it feels like tournament organizers are all doing their own thing and have no real interest in collaborating to make a better system. Things are certainly better now than they were 5 years ago, but with things like Best Coast Pairings - which hides data behind paywalls - and London GT - which uses rules that have little to do with other tournaments - I don't see us getting there anytime soon.

Spoletta wrote:
Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

Other way around. Skew lists become more powerful the less points TAC lists have to prepare for them because you can hit critical mass faster.

the_scotsman wrote:
Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

No, I don't think so.

People have played slow games with elite armies that have low model counts and don't have as many dice to roll. There's a GW dice app for armies that have lots of dice to roll that significantly speeds up that process yet people still don't finish games.

Unless there is a mechanical reason not to play slow, people will slow play when it suits their army. Only penalising/stopping slow play somehow (docking VPs, fixing time per turn) will stop that.

 LunarSol wrote:
What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Again I'm not so sure. I agree that durability is more important at lower points and that units operate differently with more space on the table but I'm not convinced it will significantly change the meta, in which skew lists currently thrive. Whether we play at 1500, 1750 or 2000 points, if you take a list that is "horde" and I don't have enough "anti-horde" I will be at a disadvantage. Taking a skew list almost always gives you an advantage against a list that is more rounded and hence I can't see the incentive not to take one regardless of points?

Neet.... lets see how it plays out.

also chess clocks

*runs for cover*

Skew lists right now are an exception, not the rule, and they surely are not winning tournaments.

What is winning tournaments are well structured lists with all the bases covered.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

GW is not the king and never has been. There is a reason they moved away from competitive tournaments a long time ago.

Gaming does not have to be a singular kingdom. GW can very much should be the ruler of the lands they oversee.

Mmmm.... I have a radical idea for how to improve the speed of play. Would love to know what everyone thinks.

Tournaments pair people for the first round ahead of time. Players have to speak to one another on the phone.

Any players who don't talk this way sacrifice any points they would have earned in the first round.

Instead of some impersonal match where you are just hosing a stranger, suddenly you are playing someone you know, who is part of a community you care about.

I think that would make it a lot harder to play magnificently bad games. The increased communication would ensure players know who to watch out for in future tournaments, and organizers could take steps to deny certain people from being stupidly large lists.

Would be a lot easier than technical approaches to the problem.

I can dig it. Tournaments were 1750 in 6th, and it seemed to work well.

Time to look at revamping my lists to work at 1750, assuming ITC follows suit.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I can dig it. Tournaments were 1750 in 6th, and it seemed to work well.

Time to look at revamping my lists to work at 1750, assuming ITC follows suit.

Unit point costs were also VERY different in 6th. Most units cost more in 8th than they did in 7th, for example. People did the comparisons when the Indices came out.

And then people took all the stuff that got cheaper....so armies still got bigger. Especially in model count.

My 1500pt list in 8th had to add a tank and filler to flesh out a 1250 list in 7th. To get it back to 1500, it adds a crazy amount of stuff.

And the stuff it faces also gets more doods too.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

No, I don't think so.

People have played slow games with elite armies that have low model counts and don't have as many dice to roll. There's a GW dice app for armies that have lots of dice to roll that significantly speeds up that process yet people still don't finish games.

Unless there is a mechanical reason not to play slow, people will slow play when it suits their army. Only penalising/stopping slow play somehow (docking VPs, fixing time per turn) will stop that.

 LunarSol wrote:
What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Again I'm not so sure. I agree that durability is more important at lower points and that units operate differently with more space on the table but I'm not convinced it will significantly change the meta, in which skew lists currently thrive. Whether we play at 1500, 1750 or 2000 points, if you take a list that is "horde" and I don't have enough "anti-horde" I will be at a disadvantage. Taking a skew list almost always gives you an advantage against a list that is more rounded and hence I can't see the incentive not to take one regardless of points?

Dropping points does help speed of play. By itself it does not solve slow play, but chess clocks on their own don't get all games to reach their natural end. Fewer models on the table allows for games to be faster. It then falls to the players to play them that way. At 2k plenty of armies cannot finish games reliably even with clocks, I think both make the best solution. Make it easier to play within the time, and have a reminder/reason to play faster.

As to the idea of a sweet spot. I like 1500 because it makes list building harder, you cannot have everything you want, so you need to scratch out advantages where you can. Does that mean skew lists can be good, sure it does, but they already are. Given that I'd rather have more table space, more meaningful list building decisions, and more finished games.

The only way to prevent skew lists is to have army building restrictions that prevent them. Currently those don't exist.

Maybe it's just that my mono-GK really are that bad but 250 points reduction means that I lose an HQ and a Troop and due to that 1CP. My basic cheap Troop choice is 105 points. My cheapest worthwhile HQ is 152 points. And those are just at baseline point cost.

Like I said maybe it's just GK but I have a hard enough time countering things with 2K point lists.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Maybe it's just that my mono-GK really are that bad but 250 points reduction means that I lose an HQ and a Troop and due to that 1CP. My basic cheap Troop choice is 105 points. My cheapest worthwhile HQ is 152 points. And those are just at baseline point cost.

Like I said maybe it's just GK but I have a hard enough time countering things with 2K point lists.

At this point I've accepted that my GKs are just bad and irrelevant enough that they should not prevent changes that improve the game as a whole even if they make the GKs more bad.

If more bad = more fun then I'm with you but in this instance more bad = no fun. I don't mind losing but I do mind not even having a slightly below average chance of winning. Anecdotally in the 2 local events I've played in I have a 1-5 record. Although at least 2 of my loses came by 3 ITC points or less and another came within 5 points.

If this rule is implemented then I guess that means I'm out of 40K until either codex GK 2.0 comes out or 9th ed (whichever comes first).

Audustum wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

Other way around. Skew lists become more powerful the less points TAC lists have to prepare for them because you can hit critical mass faster.

So much this. Why do people seem to forget that spam and/or overpowered units becomes more impactful in smaller games as players have less to potentially deal with those things?

1500 would be even better.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue GW had with 8th is they made if faster to play 8th if you used armies similar to 7th....but made infantry so good that spamming 100s of models is superior in every way to running tanks etc. They also added CP giving players another point of decision which slows things down, and made re-rolls super prevalent (no more re-roll saves, but tons of re-roll hits, wounds, and FNP mechanics that are slow).

5th ed was the fastest edition I have played and that was in large part that mechanized forces were king. Moving 10 boxes around the table is much faster than 100 individual models. Now they were too powerful in 5th, however I think they have been over corrected for the past 3 editions (Hull points made them too weak, loss of fire points hurts many this edition, as does their ability to die quickly for their cost compared to infantry units.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to points drop, I like it my LGS plays 1500 points, I think it is a much tougher point level to play, and lower points makes soup much less attractive because the taxes for detachments become more meaningful.

I have to second, or maybe third this (depends on what people said lower in the thread that I haven't read yet). In 5th I ran Tervigons, had about 60 models on the table (Hive Tyrants, Tevrigons, Hive Guard, couple of big Termigant squads). In 6th and 7th I ran Flyrants, had 15 models. In 8th I'm running 100-150 models. I'm good at playing fast, and at moving large numbers of models around, but when I run into a Tyranid or Guard player, it is really hard to reach five turns.

2000,1750,1500... It's all the same. The problem comes from the number of models and of dice to roll. 30 Orks can get up to 150 attacks easily. Vs MEQ that's 100 hits, 50 wounds. At this stage you've already thrown 300 dice and for what result ?? 16 wounds...

GW *must* reduce the number of dice rolls at least 2 or 3 time. Remove the to-hit / to-wound rolls, make it Attack vs Defense, a single roll for attack, a single roll for defense. That's it.

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

Exactly this. I feel that they are taking steps in that direction, but it's time to take the plunge and control their game now that they seem to get it.

I can't say whether or not it'll be good for list building, but I can say with some certainty it isn't going to affect slow play, especially the intentional kind you're seeing at high levels.

secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

 Irbis wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

Actually, if 1,500 becomes standard for tournaments, then it opens it up to people who can't afford a 2,000 point army. You actually get more sales, as more people are playing,

The gap between tournaments and causal becomes less and thus more folks are comfortable entering in tournaments.

While many tournaments day they welcome allskill levels, the attitudes of layers that focus on tournaments does not. This might help, as it beings the two closer.

What a stupid idea..

So 250 points will make a difference with orks and AM ? bleh.. no. Does anyone think the outcome of the UKGT would have been different if the winner had 250 less Orks ? I think your really kidding yourself if you do.

What it creates is a greater disparity between Armies that dont have points efficient Troops.. Marine variants , Necrons ect now will struggle even more.

Dont like Soup lists ? these armies will be looking to add more points efficient Troops into there list building.

I see alot more single faction lists being played in Tournaments since the FAQ. with 1750.. thats going to make things worse again.

This is a choice that will make things worse.

If you want to make time efficient.. add chess clocks.

Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

 zedsdead wrote:

Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

Well, maybe. Write a list for AM first. You'll lose a fair bit in the process. You certainly won't be removing all the IS squads.

tneva82 wrote:
1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

<- Yes.

Cutting points for GT's was a good idea after the 1st couple codexes, and now is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see how people have been so slow to adopt it.

dosiere wrote:
Makes sense. The reality is that the hope/promise/assumption that 8th would play faster than before isn't true. In fact its often slower. Something had to give, reduced points is probably the easiest solution.

At 2,000 points at tourneys, We are playing with higher model counts, and rolling more dice than ever before. Sure, we spend a little less time arguing about rules thanks to a better rules set, and better FAQ support, but there are just too many models, and too many rolls to make the game play as fast as TO's and players would prefer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

Well, maybe. Write a list for AM first. You'll lose a fair bit in the process. You certainly won't be removing all the IS squads.

Disappearing 250 points from my AM army is a heck of alot easier then doing it to my DA or SM lists.

 zedsdead wrote:


Disappearing 250 points from my AM army is a heck of alot easier then doing it to my DA or SM lists.

Yes, I agree, but we haven't really quantified the effects. It's more of an emotional thing to remove stuff from a list. If AM lose a basilisk and some IS squads those are both annoying things to elite armies.

Of course it really depends on what format you play, too.

I find I can have all the options I need to face a 1500pt list in 1500pts of Marines. Or Tau or Eldar.

However, in a 2k list, I find I need a lot more of each skew, and that each list is much more likely to include the perfect counter. And that there's enough of each thing that the board can be saturated - so I can't bait a scary unit, then counterdeploy. Or try to isolate it and ignore it.

Going below 1k, I'm certainly limited. My CWE get more limited than my Marines at low points, but neither can be fully TAC.

It might feel like the 250 you removed from the AM list isn't much, but that's a lot of realestate that isn't covered.

As stated, I'd rather it went down to 1500, but 1750 is the right direction.

 Nym wrote:
2000,1750,1500... It's all the same. The problem comes from the number of models and of dice to roll. 30 Orks can get up to 150 attacks easily. Vs MEQ that's 100 hits, 50 wounds. At this stage you've already thrown 300 dice and for what result ?? 16 wounds...

GW *must* reduce the number of dice rolls at least 2 or 3 time. Remove the to-hit / to-wound rolls, make it Attack vs Defense, a single roll for attack, a single roll for defense. That's it.

But I like rolling that many dice....

Reducing the number of dice rolls would require to change the game to a large extent.

I'd opt for a pt reduction to 1500 pts.
Still playable and the game would be faster.

I don't see 250 less points making a big deal when it comes to time.

I would rather they just upped the cost of chaff models. Any model costing less than 10 points should be look at it. Does it really deserve to be as cheap as it is?

But the more I play this edition and the more it evolves, it seems that the game is dictated by 2 things: Either lots of individual models or kickass invulnerable saves. The move from APX to AP-Y, and the drop of sweeping advances, seems like a mistake.

UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.

This isn't a blanket anything.

Bharring wrote:
UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

You might notice Ultra marines have nothing on that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.

This isn't a blanket anything.

Dropping the points level for an event is a blanket fix.

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

 Xenomancers wrote:



Dropping the points level for an event is a blanket fix.

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

It's their event. They didn't make a suggestion. They're in their rights to do what they want at their tournament just as any other TO.

If they want to get a good set of data on games at 1750 - there you go. Plenty of games to review.

Bharring wrote:
UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

If you think the 3+ save had anything to do with why those lists were good, i don't even know what to say.

I think it's good. It will definitely help shift people to playing smaller games,which are usually more fun, and makes people need to think harder about list building.
Yes skew lists may reign supreme, but cover-all bases lists suddenly become even more complicated.


It's annoying though, because having already written a 2k list to get ready for the GT, I know need to change it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

First idea does not change game takes more time in 8th it did in 7th ed AND army sizes went up because gw wanted to sell more models. 2k isn't holy size that always was and allways will be.

Second affects odds etc so now we aren#" even talking same results...say hello to gaming that.

It's likely a foolish move that will end up costing them attendance. Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players. If they are worried about time limits then decreasing points won't stop people from taking up an unequal portion of time and only getting to turn 3. The only way to make people play to a reasonable speed is to force them to track their time and I force a penalty if they go over their allotted amount.

1750 points may be fine for tournaments, since there are time limitations. A regular game is perfect with the 2000 points format.

dkoz wrote:
It's likely a foolish move that will end up costing them attendance. Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players. If they are worried about time limits then decreasing points won't stop people from taking up an unequal portion of time and only getting to turn 3. The only way to make people play to a reasonable speed is to force them to track their time and I force a penalty if they go over their allotted amount.

American ones have, sure.

dkoz wrote:
Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players.

Recent research, or 5th/6th/7th edition?

1750pts is certainly worth a trial run. If it doesn't work out they can always up it again and try something different.

It's subjective, but in my experience "big models" with piles of wounds like knights, nauts, land raiders or battlewagons tend to have more impact on games at 1500 than they do at 2000., simply there is less d6 damage rolled against them.

Not sure if this actually has an impact on competitive games at 1750, but it is surely something to keep in mind. Most of those models aren't doing well on the tabletop right now.

1750 was standard size in the Uk for most of the last few editions don't see it as much of an issue and may make things better.

Sucks for the index armies that have not had there codex point drops yet but that should resolve itself pretty quick.

 Crazyterran wrote:

dkoz wrote:
It's likely a foolish move that will end up costing them attendance. Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players. If they are worried about time limits then decreasing points won't stop people from taking up an unequal portion of time and only getting to turn 3. The only way to make people play to a reasonable speed is to force them to track their time and I force a penalty if they go over their allotted amount.

American ones have, sure.

Ok so yes the best and most important ones
Now I'm not sure but t I've played on 2 different continents and granted it's just anecdotal but most people always preferred to play with more of their toys not less. Also human nature is human nature no matter what country you're in people will use as much time as you give them and still not finish a game.

I like the idea of 1750, I would love to try it in a competitive game or 4...like in a few weeks when my local ITC event has said they are reducing to 1750 and giving it a shot.

2,000 is just too big to play in a short amount of time unless you are playing an elite army. I can usually get my Green tide lists to turn 4 but that is with a lot of hustling and with throwing dice ridiculously fast.

Before a bunch of people who don't play orkz come in here and start telling me how to play my army "Then don't bring a Green tide n00b! L2P!" I don't care what your thoughts are in regards to how I play my army in a competitive environment.

Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

I'm going to a small 20 man charity tournament in September that has decided to use the GT 1750pts limit.

I'm... Glad. I know a couple of the people going and they are the low key WAAC types, but not obnoxiously so. Still didn't stop them from complaining on the tournaments Facebook page tho!

 Blndmage wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

Actually, if 1,500 becomes standard for tournaments, then it opens it up to people who can't afford a 2,000 point army. You actually get more sales, as more people are playing,

The gap between tournaments and causal becomes less and thus more folks are comfortable entering in tournaments.

While many tournaments day they welcome allskill levels, the attitudes of layers that focus on tournaments does not. This might help, as it beings the two closer.

Yes, which is why complaining points were cut reducing need to field mountains of models is so dumb. The game needs to be more accessible, not less, and anything that stops the race to turn every army into horde army is welcome...

Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

Oh plenty of games went to objectives in 7th, i mean you had ONE unit to play with. You played that way for 5 turns and then split the unit to cover the objectives.

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

7th also had trouble with time at 1,850, but this was perceived as being because of the cumbersome rules system.

Then, as now, lowering points just hurts elite armies and bolsters skew lists as well. I played a 2k game with two mid-sized armies in 47 minutes once. All 5 rounds less than 1 hour with 8th's ruleset. Last year at NOVA, I only had one game the entire time that didn't finish with a good 30-45 minutes to spare. It's absolutely a player issue, not a points issue.

tneva82 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

First idea does not change game takes more time in 8th it did in 7th ed AND army sizes went up because gw wanted to sell more models. 2k isn't holy size that always was and allways will be.

Second affects odds etc so now we aren#" even talking same results...say hello to gaming that.

army sizes went down dramatically. Case and point a LR used to cost 260 with a multi melta - now it cost 380.
a rhino used to cost 35 points now it 72.
I could go on and on but the general idea is most things except for base infantry cost got higher. thats why 1850 became 2000 and still - your 1850 in 7th was bigger than your 2k in 8th.

Also - how could you suggest that a time limit for each player that is actually enforced would not speed up play? You lose if you run out of time - people will play faster out of necessity.

Good, IMO its better for the game. Less models/dice/time, and each unit is more impactful.

Honestly when playing 1500/1750/2k its not much of a difference, i play each point level weekly and its fun to change it up time to time, might be me b.c i have huge amounts of games played in 8th already.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Good, IMO its better for the game. Less models/dice/time, and each unit is more impactful.

Honestly when playing 1500/1750/2k its not much of a difference, i play each point level weekly and its fun to change it up time to time, might be me b.c i have huge amounts of games played in 8th already.

Couldn't agree more. Now go tell GW to write me a damn Ork codex that doesn't rely exclusively on taking 120+ infantry to every game or lose by turn 2.

Damn so much for a competitive Deathwatch List. Maybe I can return the book.

( looks sorrowfully at his Deathwing and WolfGuardWing armies).

General Hobbs wrote:


Damn so much for a competitive Deathwatch List. Maybe I can return the book.

( looks sorrowfully at his Deathwing and WolfGuardWing armies).

No ur supposed to use allies

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

Just FYI the 40k GT sold out within a day with an additional heat compared to the last round. At least for GW events the points drop has had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT on attendance. I can't speak for other events but nobody is obliged to reciprocate in making events 1750 points.

Ok so as soon as the tickets go on sale they disappear.


Fantastic

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

I'm glad you can decide what's 'fun' for the rest of us and believe we should be coerced into adopting a new mindset. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but this post reeks of gamer paternalism.

The last ITC survey I saw did have a big favor towards 2K. This was back in 7th since I only keep a rough eye on them. It's what they think is fun so let them have fun with their plastic men their way.

Using the same logic as your post, any one of them could say just getting you to accept a standard 2k format is a good start because then players could re-use the same army between events without alteration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CassianSol wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

Just FYI the 40k GT sold out within a day with an additional heat compared to the last round. At least for GW events the points drop has had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT on attendance. I can't speak for other events but nobody is obliged to reciprocate in making events 1750 points.

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

Should have gone to 1500.
1600 maybe max.

I used to write 1850 standard for 6th and 7th. 2000 became the norm for 8th edition...

1750 may feel a bit cut and dry, but for my new gaming club with time restrictions, just might work out anyway.

Played a 3500 pt game 2 weeks ago and got really spoiled.

1750 just feels way to small for me. I'm playing my first 1850 event this weekend, and I'm not exactly happy with it.

I definitely feel 2000 is an adequate point level for this edition.

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

I said for GW Events it is not an important factor for attendance. Also that is a stupid argument about the slow playing.

I don't really get why people care all that much. Traditionally independent circuits have not followed GW's approach for tournament play and there is no reason they have to right now. Surely it is a good thing that GW are trying out different things? When we've seen the outcome then we can decide what works and does not work. (I'm not hugely wedded to 1750 fwiw. I'd have gone to 1500 or 2000 with longer round times)

Is it 2000points of 4ppm or 2k of 50ppm.
The problem I have is that play time doesn't scale so much with points but more with model count, I'm not going to say that 2k points 100 model's limits are the answer as I think it's wrong to force players unto mono build to be competitive. More varity and options to do something different and to have to show ability to adapt and overcome is great. But right now 2k points of cheap spam is too slow (or too easy to hide slowplay in) for a tournament with time limits.
Short of a rebalancing of cheap troops the options are reduced points to limit the maximum delays or introducing model count limits which would suck. Lower points limits also makes the event scene a little easier to enter, ideally I wish morr tournaments would have game points classes, but I doubt that is likely.

But again to agree with other people if TO's won't address slowplay playing, adjusting points limits won't solve the hardcore problem slow players.

Points limits solve the problem of average players not finishing a game. Actively judging and enforcing the rules solves the problem of slow play. One is a game design issue, the other is cheating.

CassianSol wrote:

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

You can get additional spacing.

I said for GW Events it is not an important factor for attendance. Also that is a stupid argument about the slow playing.

It may be it may not be, we can guess but we don't know.

It may be stupid but it's exactly the same as the argument I quoted. They're both stupid.

I don't really get why people care all that much. Traditionally independent circuits have not followed GW's approach for tournament play and there is no reason they have to right now. Surely it is a good thing that GW are trying out different things? When we've seen the outcome then we can decide what works and does not work. (I'm not hugely wedded to 1750 fwiw. I'd have gone to 1500 or 2000 with longer round times)

I don't find any problem with GW unbalancing it's Heats against elite armies. I DO have a massive problem with people trying to condition the player base at large to fit their subjective definition of fun.

By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

CassianSol wrote:
By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

Not when they clone what's already popular. That was Already determined to be fund by a majority of the player base.

That said, you have to realize intent is a huge part of this. I was specifically responding to a post that thought it was good to lower the maximum Point values because it would condition people to start thinking differently and finding fun differently. You just make your tournament ex set of rules and it is what it is. Where I would draw the line deliberately making your tournament in order to try and change people's perceptions using official GW Fiat.

Audustum wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

Not when they clone what's already popular. That was Already determined to be fund by a majority of the player base.

what? no lol, all tournaments makes house rules and missions that they feel is best for the players, the players dont decided, we may ask to change things but doesnt mean it will be changed. And just b.c it is normally also doesnt mean the majority thinks its the best way, many feel it can be better, all the Ork players wishes some "tournament rules" didnt have "Score 1VP for each 10 models in a unit killed".

Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

Sumilidon wrote:
Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

Its normally 1 unit less, its not lower levels of tactics... if you think having 4 Troupes vs 5 Troupes against a Ork player with 5 Boyz compare to 6 Boyz is any different tactics then thats messed up lol.

You can still have CWE with Ynnari Dark Reaper unit, Shiny SPears, WS's Farseers, Rangers x3, the difference? You dont have a 2nd unit of Dark Reapers lol.

Lower points levels also make bigger models like Knights etc more efficient, as the enemy has less to deal with them.

I think to truly test the skill of players they should lower the points to 1000 and double the number of games.

General Hobbs wrote:


Lower points levels also make bigger models like Knights etc more efficient, as the enemy has less to deal with them.

I think to truly test the skill of players they should lower the points to 1000 and double the number of games.

Pre knights and other solo hard squew armies exsisting that might have been a fun way to go, but now a 1k tournament would be a game of rock paper scissors, forget trying to bring a tac list. Have 1k of ork boys or IG Infantry squads to enjoy fighting nothing but knights. You can't skill or tactically play your way of of those extreme match ups.

Sumilidon wrote:
Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

At which point you flip the clock while they do that. If you think your opponent is taking too long to take an action then make sure it's on their time. It also makes it abundantly clear that you are awaiting their input.

Besides what's the issue that some tournaments lower it? Room for both. Ideally there's both 2k and smaller tournaments. 2k for those who want to play only 2-3 turns per game, smaller for those who would like to play full games that end when scenario indicates it should end. Best of both worlds.

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

I'm glad you can decide what's 'fun' for the rest of us and believe we should be coerced into adopting a new mindset. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but this post reeks of gamer paternalism.

The last ITC survey I saw did have a big favor towards 2K. This was back in 7th since I only keep a rough eye on them. It's what they think is fun so let them have fun with their plastic men their way.

Using the same logic as your post, any one of them could say just getting you to accept a standard 2k format is a good start because then players could re-use the same army between events without alteration.

No idea what "gamer paternalism" is supposed to mean. Also no idea how you interpreted my post as trying to impose my idea of fun on other people. I'm offering an opinion, which is kind of the point of a discussion board, no? I even provided some evidence from personal experience. As far as "coercing" people into a new mindset, that seems like an overly sinister description for a suggestion that varying the points limits at different tournaments might be a good idea. We also don't know if the surveys we see from the current 2k tournaments are self-selecting and therefore skewed. If people who don't like playing at 2k don't go to a 2k tournament their opinions are never recorded.

I also have no idea what the last sentence even means. The point about using the same army without alteration is weird though, since I specifically mention that as something I think is actually a bad thing so I don't know how your "logic" follows from what I said.

1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

Audustum wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

You can get additional spacing.

Unlikely - they run the GT at Warhammer World, and the gaming area has a fixed volume of space to work in.

Pancakey wrote:
1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

How does this work exactly? I mean, why should I pay 50 points for a CP if I could buy 3x10 gretchin and two big meks for 200, yielding 5 CP for 40 each AND units.

I believe I heard that you can pay points in Age of Sigmar 2 for Command Points.

Pancakey wrote:
1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

Pretty sure this is just petty trolling. We already have the ability to pay points for CP - they are called units and there's a wide selection.

CassianSol wrote:

I believe I heard that you can pay points in Age of Sigmar 2 for Command Points.

It's one of the spoilers for the next edition.

AoS has no detachment system though, and one CP in Sigmar is worth about 3-4 CPs of 40K in terms of effects you can unleash.

I realize this breaks the whole perceived time benefit of going to 1750, but most 40K tourneys really need another 1-3 games to winnow the field. There's too many people tied at the top.

Also, as noted, the lower the point values, the easier it is to run a skew list. But, if you have to play more games, the greater the odds of your skew running in to your hard counter skew and the more appealing a TAC list is. The format itself would dampen the crazy lists somewhat.

*side note to the few who seem to insist otherwise, clearly it's easier to skew at lower values. There is some unit in your codex that is the best at doing X. You take 3 of those. Then there is the 2nd best at X, you take 3 of those, etc. Your last 250 pts are either the least efficient or, more likely, you've used those 250 points for shoring up a weakness and inherently become more TAC. Or, in the case of armies like Knights or Custodes, those first 3 units eat the entire point limit, so the list stops there instead of going in to a more variable addon segment.

Most list variability is going to be in the last few hundred points, not the first, so it seems likely lists will look more similar the lower you go.


All that said, to me personally, I don't play tourneys so the greatest impact is the more split the scene, the more random it gets for open play local games where people tend to want to copy whatever the tourneys offer. If you show up with 1750 pts of models and I show up with a 2000pt list, depending what my list is, it might be hard to on the fly shave the points to play you.

Skew lists are literally the only reason I can play competitively with my Ork army right now. Hell, even before 8th, in 7th the only way to play orkz was as a skew list. Spam infantry or spam vehicles, or spam Warbikes. That is basically the only thing I had going for me in those editions.

I said this as soon as people swapped over to 2k, and had a bunch of people tell me how wrong I was.

Now everyone is claiming this will improve the game. Yeah, no gak.

How much influence do tournaments have on how the game is being played outside of them, besides people coping winning lists?

Does it often happen that if a large tournament moves to more or less points, a whole country starts playing that many points too? Or is it something that GW sets up?

So, imo, this needs to be tested as an alternative, but, I believe GW have done it for the wrong reasons.

This change has come pretty much as a result of games not finishing in the GW Heats and Finals. Obviously something needs to be done to attempt to rectify this. The ITC are moving towards chess clocks and no points changes, so I suppose the other “testing” option available is to lower the points. I’m not suggesting that GW and the ITC are working alongside each other to test 2 different options, but, at the end of the day it gives everyone an opportunity to assess the outcomes of the 2 options.

Alternatively, GW could fix their game in regards to hordes, but that would take a hell of a lot more work than just dropping the points limit.

I kinda agree with another poster, that lowering the points limit will help the average player out in regards to time, but, I don’t think it is going to have the massive impact I think GW is expecting. In some cases, it might even cause no change for the average player, as they then subconsciously slowdown, due to the perception of having “more time per unit”.
For most armies, 250 points is 1-2 tanks/walkers/elite units. Troop wise, maybe 2-7 basic min model squads. Loosing a Predator and 1 squad of 5 scouts, isn’t going to suddenly make a game end within the time limit. Loosing 1 Hemlock Wraithfighter, isn’t going to make the game end on time. Loosing 45 Guardsmen (and 2 commanders) isn’t going to suddenly make an army with another 120+ basic Guardsmen and several tanks, finish a game on time. Loosing 41 Ork Boyz, likewise, isn’t going to make a green tide list suddenly also finish on time.

If we take the list that won the finals, cut 250 points, and then re-run the match, do you really think that the game will still go beyond turn 3 and end naturally?

Taking away points, takes away options. Unfortunately, the cost of weapons designed to counter each type of weapon, is generally way more expensive to take than the unit it is there to counter. This then leads to the whole conclusion, that the best anti-horde, is actually another horde due to the weight of dice. We also know, that a full horde army, can happily counter dedicated anti-tank units, simply because their weapons are reduced to removing 1, 1 wound, model a shot for the same price of doing up to 6 damage to a tank. Hordes, generally then have a distinct advantage when it comes to table control. As such, the “competitive” game will tend to move towards being a horde vs a horde. This is then counter-intuitive to the whole “reduce points to increase games finishing”.

It doesn’t matter how many options you have. If you cannot kill 150-200+ models in 2 turns, the chances of you ending the game naturally within the time limit are seriously slim.

The issues lie with the amount of time turns 1 and 2 takes for hordes – in a lot of cases. These generally eat up so much of the available time assigned to BOTH players, that the opponent often just doesn’t have the chance to even the odds.

I think we’ll see 2 very different metas – potentially more (depending on what ETC does), competitively going forward. ITC is going to see a lot more varied top table lists, simply due to the input of chess clocks balancing out time, whereas the GW meta will be way more of a rock-paper-scissors, often with the bigger hordes coming out on top.

For example, at 1750, I can take 3 Knights, 2 Armigers and <300 points of Guard for CP. Alternatively, I could take 2 Guard battalions and 1 brigade (including 6 basilisks) for the same points. With everything going into the basic infantry, I could reasonably expect to kill around 60 turn 1. I then need another 2 turns, to kill the rest of the basic infantry that have now spread out across the table – without taking into consideration the damage done by 6 Basilisks and weight of dice from 120 remaining Guardsmen. If I was smart, I’d ensure, as the Guard player, that the only things left alive were the 3 main Knights, which would mean the damage output would drop to 40ish models turn 2. At this point, it doesn’t matter what the time limit is, or what the point limit is, the Knight player simply can’t kill enough to win the mission (unless of course it was just 100% kill points and nothing else….)

Obviously, this is one of the more extreme examples, but with the release of the new Knights and their codex, we are going to see this played out a fair amount (at least initially). Space Marines are going to struggle to chew through the horde – and if they focus completely on killing the horde, they won’t be able to kill a Knight – let alone 3 – whereas the Knight can happily kill marines. Chaos, could be reasonably ok, they have cultists etc to spam. Drukarhi and Craftworlds have some options, but, again, while their “all comers” list can beat the Knights, their options for 180 guardsmen etc is limited. You can still take 150 Ork boyz for 900 points. Those 150 Boyz are still going to take a lot of time to move and kill.

Karol wrote:
How much influence do tournaments have on how the game is being played outside of them, besides people coping winning lists?

Does it often happen that if a large tournament moves to more or less points, a whole country starts playing that many points too? Or is it something that GW sets up?

Well people like to practice for tournaments or play against people who do.

Also can't copy list if point limit isn't same.

Kdash wrote:
So, imo, this needs to be tested as an alternative, but, I believe GW have done it for the wrong reasons.

This change has come pretty much as a result of games not finishing in the GW Heats and Finals. Obviously something needs to be done to attempt to rectify this. The ITC are moving towards chess clocks and no points changes, so I suppose the other “testing” option available is to lower the points. I’m not suggesting that GW and the ITC are working alongside each other to test 2 different options, but, at the end of the day it gives everyone an opportunity to assess the outcomes of the 2 options.

You spent a lot of time analysing this, but the reality is the heat size is decided by the WHW event team and not the design studio.

I've been playing most of my games at this point level and I adore it. I feel as though it gives you enough points to bring some nice toys, but not so much that you can maximize ALL of your armies toys. It forces me to pick and choose. I really hope ITC adopts this.

Anyone here has a good way to convince people to switch from 2250 to 1750pts? I don't really want to buy more models till GW fixs my faction, and at more points am getting blown up by a 240pts difference between my army and those of other people. I am looking for good argument to convince people to switch to smaller games.

Sounds like the best argument is the fact that you don't have enough models. Are your opponents really not removing units to match your.points costs? That's incredible TFG behavior. Of course they're gonna crush you with a massive point deficit. Jeez why do people play like this?

I miss 30 pt marines, 10 pt guardsmen, squats somewhere in between, tanks that cost over 400 pts on an 8' x 4' board. You could sneak a squad around the end, while engaging the main body of your opponent, and trying to prevent them from doing it to you. Sitting on 1 exp bike warlord, 3 heavy bikes, over 30 rec bikes, 30 heavy bolters with a nice mix in of las cannon for the occasional dreadnought.

2000 pt game with 5pt guardsmen and 13 pt marines, tanks under 200,
(WHY ARE YOUR GUARDSMEN SO SHORT? ARE YOU MODELLING FOR ADVANTAGE? WHAT ARE SQUATS?)
on a 4' x 6' board. Talk about tripping over your buddies. But you NEED more models.

So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

What tank cost 400 points? The Land Raider cost 220 in 2nd ed iirc.

Sorry, I'm old, didn't have a land raider then, so points were not seared into my brain. I just remember, the good old days like other old farts with bad memories.

My point was smaller army, bigger table, very different than what I see now.

Indeed, every new codex release is filled with people saying “awesome, they dropped the points on x-y-z,” release after release. At some point the tactical improvements of cheaper models is going to be outweighed by the sheer number of models necessary to play the game.

At some point, they will have to multiply all points by 10 so they can keep dropping points

Mournssquats wrote:


So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

D)Less list diversity.
E) Stores get less sales
F) Some armies become unplayable in tournaments.

General Hobbs wrote:

Mournssquats wrote:


So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

D)Less list diversity.
E) Stores get less sales
F) Some armies become unplayable in tournaments.

This might be true for 1500 and under, but 2000 vs 1750 isnt that big of a deal, it really only makes you have 1 or 2 less double up units, like for me, my DE list basically is 1 less RWJF and Talos, otherwise its still the same.

Its more impactful on spam and HQ soup, than anything else, we wll still see its, but now you might not want 3 units of Dark Reapers (this is just an example) b.c you need 2 Wave Serpents, so you need to make a choice. This foes for armies like BA/IG, might not get to have that extra character they wanted, might only have 1 captain so you can still fit in that battalion of IG.

Over all, it most likely wont have a huge effect other than speed up the game by 10% at max

Well, one issue I do have, I think many of us secretly or openly love big models. Look at imperial knights, and all the superheavies like tesseract vaults, wraith knights, lord of skulls, renegade knights, baneblades, etc etc.

2000 makes it easier to field such big units who can become the centerpiece of your army. Its just very cool to have such a big model as the centerpiece. I am not saying 1750 can't also field such big units, but then the rest of your army start looking more threadbare.

I mean, superheavies are cool but they look cooler when set up alongside smaller models which can then truly show off their scale. Just my 2 cents.

If people are fielding 3+ on 2k list 1 in 1750 is hardly "no room for others".

Players are funny. Always complaining hobby is too expensive. But what are players doing? "LETS MAKE HOBBY EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE!". Literally. Players are making game more expensive themselves and then complain game is too expensive.

dkoz wrote:
It's likely a foolish move that will end up costing them attendance. Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players. If they are worried about time limits then decreasing points won't stop people from taking up an unequal portion of time and only getting to turn 3. The only way to make people play to a reasonable speed is to force them to track their time and I force a penalty if they go over their allotted amount.

indeed if i want i can bring at 1750pts more than 100 models anwyay and force my opponent to play 3 turns, i can do that at 1500 too, playing demons/chaos with cheap troops i haven't any problem, i can keep bringing hordes and make you play 2-3 turns, so please guys reduce tournament points is only an advantage for who can bring cheap hordes, the gap between hordes and elite will get just deeper, i laugh thinking what a marine a pure custodes or a Gk can bring on the table with 250-500 less points, at 2000 i still win with them (but at least they can put up some fight) at 1500 i crush them with no mercy, so pls do it.
A competent player play fast regardless of points, uncompetent player play slow, period, im playing since 1998 and i faced same opponets many times when they brought different armies on the table, hordes or elites, and games was always about 3 turns, cause they are basically slow, this edition is slow cause buckets of rolling dice, reduce number of dice and poof edition will speed up. There are some lists which roll 150+ dice in a single shooting phase, then wound then armor save, that's where you waste ton of time. Last but not least some units will become broken if you lower the points, think of Magnus at 1750 or worse at 1500 with lot less firepower to handle him, and i can grant if you want you can play it., ppls wanting point reduction to compensate lack of playing skills sometimes, my suggestion is, train a lot with your army, play fast and anything will improve, if then you are one of those changing list every week, well that's not other players concern or Gw fault. My 2 cents.

8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

tneva82 wrote:
8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

The problem is that both number of dice and time per turn doesn't scale linearly. You can half the points but the game doesn't take half the time. It drops circa 25% less time.

The fastest way to reduce game time is reduce/remove the throw 30-40 dice. Reroll dice that meet conditions, remove fails, roll, reroll, add effects, roll save, roll FNP's remove models. Repeat for other x units on the board.

8th is a volume edition its throw lots of dice lots of times & hope you can do it better than the other guy. Untill the amount of throw rethrow mechanics are reduced or balance is adjusted to favour volume less its just not going to get faster bar the players getting more efficient.

Hoards still take way longer than elite armies and it doesn't really address the main reasons that hoard armies and 3 turn games aren't balanced, but conversely 7 turn games are fairly rare with the amount of high alpha damage builds.

tneva82 wrote:
8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

Have points gone mostly down? I would say that a lot of individual unit shave seen point decreases but vehicles have gone massively up.