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

So I've been thinking about all the compromises I have to make to shoehorn my armies into the current GT format (1750) and wondered what others thought.

1750 is a really boring place for 40k, sadly I don't think GW realizes this.

It's really just 1500 points with another unit on the table.

1850 really lets most armies 'stretch their legs'.

If the rules are supposed to drive sales, and once the sales are done the tournaments are supposed to showcase the best the hobby has to offer...

Why do I not feel like going when I can't bring my armies the rules sold me on?

What do others think?

Please leave out the 'but I can't move my 200 model army in 2 hours and get a fair game in' quasi-argument. I've done it many times, well under 2 hours, at GT after GT. So can everybody else.

I think 1750 is optimum. You get the usual dreck for 1500, then 250 points worth of 'Fun'.
1850 starts getting into the larger' style' game, where you could realistically see somebody fielding 3 Monoliths-GAK!

So 1750, FTW Stelek.

PS-Good Poll idea Sir.

1500 pts, as recommended in the rulebook.

Stelek-
Please leave out the 'but I can't move my 200 model army in 2 hours and get a fair game in' quasi-argument. I've done it many times, well under 2 hours, at GT after GT. So can everybody else.

You sure can move faster than a speeding bullet Sir! I played a Donkey-Cannon once who insisted on moving his Horde Nid army, and making sure there was exactly two inches between every model..........every move. Even in assault phase. Weird I know, but said Donkey Cannon went straight up to the Judges table at the end of the Tourney and asked for a 'recount'. Asshat.

Even after I explained I had ZERO 'area of effect' weapons. An hour and a half, into the game at turn 3- I resigned in disgust.

1750 FTW.

I prefer 1850. 2000 lets some of the more point dependent armies (like chaos) to get a little over the top with some of their options and 1500 does too much to cripple them.

1750 is sort of boring if for only the reason that it doesn't allow much fat to be on the army list to compete at the higher levels.

After doing 1850 for years, I wish we could go to 2000, I love bigger games....and dont have problems finishing myself.

2000 here as well, more choices. I play infantry heavy IG and if your organized and know what your doing, you can get your games done in time.

The tournament size should be an equalizer for the armies.

I've been told that Nids at 1500 is a killer, but after that, the list gets a bit diluted because the other armies can afford the units/weapons they need to deal with big bugs more easily.

OTOH, IG can fit a butt load of heavy weapons into 2000. 3 full heavy weapon platoons and the HQ heavy weapons puts out alot of shots and negates the AT you brought. 13 heavy weapon squads and PHQs with 42 heavy weapons would make baby Jesus cry. Go ahead and take a squad or 2 out per turn, but beware the next shooting phase.

IMO, 1500 and 2000 reward/hurt certain armies too much so the standard tourney size would be good at 1700-1900 points.

I been playing 1750 since some of my friends are into tournaments and want to practice for tournaments and I feel that 1850 probably would be slightly better as I can fit that little extra I can't at 1750.

JohnHwangDD wrote:1500 pts, as recommended in the rulebook.

agreed. the games setup quicker and end quicker. the table is more wide open and makes movement more important. most armies a competitive at 1500 points. at 1500 points imperial guard are an army to contend with in a tournament because the other armies are limited in the anti-tank weaponry. in larger games, IG are still limited to 3 russ tanks, while the extra points are a bonus to other armies that can now afford anti-tank weaponry.
also, more games can be played over a day at 1500 then the others.

Flagg07 wrote:The tournament size should be an equalizer for the armies.

Well...I think the game system should be balanced, so that tournament size isn't how you equalize things.

I play pretty much every army type, and at 1850 I don't have to make a 'dead killy' list like I do at 1750...and in my experience the 1850 level gets you away from min-max'ing because you have a hard time doing that and spending all the points.

I can make shredder lists that are overpowering at any points level, I just find the lower points level boring because there's no incentive to play 'fun' lists.

You *can* play 'fun' lists and still be competitive, but I don't think it's as easy to do in 1750 as it is at 1850 with half the armies out there.

I rather like 2000, but mostly because squeezing anything other than Sisters of Battle, Seraphim and Exorcists into a witch hunters army is pretty difficult at 1500 and 1750. 1850 isn't bad, I just dislike that it isn't a number followed by at least two zeros.
But then Sisters haven't been relevant for like 7 years, so they probably don't count.

Wehrkind wrote:I rather like 2000, but mostly because squeezing anything other than Sisters of Battle, Seraphim and Exorcists into a witch hunters army is pretty difficult at 1500 and 1750. 1850 isn't bad, I just dislike that it isn't a number followed by at least two zeros.
But then Sisters haven't been relevant for like 7 years, so they probably don't count.

I totally agree on the Sisters, always been my problem with my list.

I also like 2000 because you can fit in units you normally wouldn't consider(Land Raiders, for me, anyway) and aren't penalized as much for bringing list "fat". Last time I played in a 2000 point tournament, it actually took less time than the usual 1750/1850 tournaments I go to, though that may have more to do with the organizers of each.

Stelek wrote:1750 is a really boring place for 40k, sadly I don't think GW realizes this.

It's really just 1500 points with another unit on the table.

1850 really lets most armies 'stretch their legs'.

I find it remarkable that the 250 points difference between 1500 and 1750 is virtually nil in your opinion, but the extra 100 points between 1750 and 1850 make or break the gaming experience.

As far as I'm concerned, games are broken into low (1500) medium (1750-1850) and high (2000) point games. It seems most GT batreps I read have several games that fail to finish due to time, and that takes a lot of the tactical aspect out of play, which is a shame. It encourages a different type of play and focuses on just killing units for VPs, and potentially stalling...bad stuff.

On the other hand, GTs are also a place to show off awesome models, so perhaps the larger game size is better for that, to allow more custom-built armies? I would imagine larger game sizes usually result in more diverse lists, too, with a few exceptions. That seems to be another thing gamers look for when they go to GTs.

On the whole, then, it would seem larger game sizes are probably better for GT. Just be prepared for potential time issues.

Well the reason I find 1500 vs 1750 kind of blah vs 1500 vs 1850 not being so blah is you can get quite a different army at 1850 vs 1500, where at 1500 vs 1750 you get...maybe an extra unit.

Not really compelling.

I think 1850 is a good number. 1750 isn't bad, but the extra 100 points allows you a chance to help round your army. I've always found that some armies start to really break down at high point cost. The higher the point total the more "filler" you get with no real punch. Also, some armies go the opposite way at higher points and can get quite broken. 1750 is acceptable to me, but 1850 would be a little better.

Stelek wrote:

Flagg07 wrote:The tournament size should be an equalizer for the armies.

Well...I think the game system should be balanced, so that tournament size isn't how you equalize things.

I agree. The problem is that the system isn't balanced and army performance can be impacted simply by the point level being played.

I'm happy with 1850 to 2000 points.

I voted for 2000 for myself, because I like taking those extra, over the top units (600 points worth of transported radical inqusitorial death, for instance).

However, 1750 is good, as small games (1000-1500 points) are great for the fluff bunnies, as they can't go too far from competitive, and 2000+ points are great for powergamers who can take their ultimate combinations and smack each other around.

1750 seems a fair compromise.

1850 always equals a nice play experience from both sides IMO. 1500 always feels like not enough and 2000 to much.

Lemartes wrote:1850 always equals a nice play experience from both sides IMO. 1500 always feels like not enough and 2000 to much.

I agree. I voted 1850 for this reason.

1750 is...well, it's like stretching taffy. Almost doable but not quite.

With 1850 I can make a fun AND competitive list. Isn't that what people want in the hobby?

I'd love to make said lists but I can only do it with a few armies at the moment, which is sad really.

1500 actually gives units room to maneuver on the battlefield. Elite, compact armies like SM actually *feel* small, while hordes are still large.

At 1750, the board starts to clog, and by 2000 pts, if you're not playing 8' wide, it's just too crowded.

I voted 1,500 points just because (as I've said many times before) with the time allotment currently given to tournament games I think it allows relative newcomers to tournament gaming to play horde type armies without constantly worrying about finishing the game.


That said, I think variety is the spice of life and I think every year the GT should cycle through a different point value, with game time adjusted accordingly.

1850 is just 1750 plus fun. I voted 1850.

And I'd rather see newcomers to tourney gaming worry about finishing than see vets (well, everyone actually) frustrated by playing lists without many interesting units.

The cycling points value idea is a good one, though. "It's 2250 year, boys. Get that tarp off me third Land Raider!"

JohnHwangDD wrote:1500 actually gives units room to maneuver on the battlefield.

Myth. There is very little maneuver in 40K because the vehicles with which you can maneuver suck at it.

Before you say Eldar, they're getting removed in 5th.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Elite, compact armies like SM actually *feel* small, while hordes are still large.

Sorry, is this a stereotype? My Eldar are outnumbered by marine armies at every turn at this points level.

So are my Tau, my Nids, etc.

I don't know about you, but large SM armies are pretty common and it's actually the Xenos armies that are 'compact and elite', not SM.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At 1750, the board starts to clog, and by 2000 pts, if you're not playing 8' wide, it's just too crowded.

Sounds like terrain envy--you want the 3+ save backed by the 5+ save. Sometimes, you just have to take the lascannon hit and die.

Since you can clog the board at 1500 points with at least 5 major armies, it seems like a argument without merit.

Especially since the 'normal' way to beat SM is outnumber them so much in units and bodies they can't gun you down faster than you gun them down.

Probably why alot of people are running large numbers of SM as a base, not as an extension from 1500 > 1850.

Stelek, this isn't a debate.

The reason 40k doesn't have much maneuver is because most games are played for VPs instead of Objectives, not because vehicles are weak. If you don't need to move to score VPs, then maneuver isn't a priority. If you need to move, then you will take (and use) vehicles or other enhanced movement.

What Xenos are you talking about? Super-elite Eldar? Nidzilla? Right.

And no, I'm not suffering from terrain issues. When we play, we have at least the recommended 25% coverage.


Anyhow, all the more reason to look forward to 5th.

All the Xenos. I play them all.

Vehicles are weak, if you think they aren't weak you're kidding yourself.

If you instead need to march forward slowly and get to the middle of the table in time to contest, that takes your army 6 turns but my army manages to do it in 2. Without vehicles of any kind.

Having terrain be important is being phased out in 5th, maybe you haven't noticed.

I voted for 1750 since that is what is conflict size in Canada. Quite honestly I would them to standardize the pts value and rules regardless of country so if I go to a conflict in ontario then go to one in the states I can use the same list and the same rules set.

Though having played alot of dithering players in tournies I would definitely prefer a smaller points total otherwise it will be impossible to get a full game in. Nothing I despise more than players who are slow and as a result I get like 3 turns in.

Stelek-All the Xenos. I play them all.

Vehicles are weak, if you think they aren't weak you're kidding yourself.

If you instead need to march forward slowly and get to the middle of the table in time to contest, that takes your army 6 turns but my army manages to do it in 2. Without vehicles of any kind.

Having terrain be important is being phased out in 5th, maybe you haven't noticed.

Seems a bit hostile to me Sir, but I am a bit sensitive!

JHWANGDD- I agree, this aint a debate, it's just opinions on points for Tourneys.

1750 FTW though..............

I agree with John; anything over 1500 points and a 4'x6' board is just too cramped, particularly with Imperial Guard and Tyranids.

Stelek wrote:All the Xenos. I play them all.

Vehicles are weak, if you think they aren't weak you're kidding yourself.

If you instead need to march forward slowly and get to the middle of the table in time to contest, that takes your army 6 turns but my army manages to do it in 2. Without vehicles of any kind.

Having terrain be important is being phased out in 5th, maybe you haven't noticed.

Too bad it isn't 5th yet, maybe you haven't noticed. And we are talking about the current GT format. As if they wouldn't change it for 5th Ed.