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.

People at the local GW are always confused why I always want to play at 1000 points. I have a simple reason. The first 1000 points are the most important of your entire army. That first 1000 points is your core, your backbone, your grounding. That first 1000 points will make or break you. That first 1000 go straight to your troops, your HQ and your essentials. If you have done something wrong there, then you are going to be fighting an uphill battle the rest of the way. 1000 pt games are also the hardest to play. If you screw up, your done. I feel like, if you can play and ration out 1000 points, you can easily play any higher points level.



What dose dakka say to this? Dose dakka agree with me about the first 1000 being the most important?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AND I posted in the wrong forum. Should be in general...

First of all... Does.

Anyway, at that low points value newer codexes have a bigger advantage over older ones. Furthermore it is general held that the game is much more balanced at the 1500-1850 points mark.

I enjoy playing 750 games on our day when we have a short time to play at our FLGS.

If you want to focus on fundamentals, lower the points even more.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Everyone should have a good "core" to their army.

Depends. It also means bad dice rolls make an even larger impact. It also depends on your codex. I play vanilla SM.

I don't personally enjoy my entire game hinging on whether or not I roll bad saves for a single unit and I'm not a fan of having 1/3rd of my total army value spent on two 5 man tac squads with a combimelta, PF and razorback, or half my points if I go 10 man.

Contrasting this, is IG, where I could field two 3 plas+chimera mechvets squads for cheaper than I could the 5 man + razorbackx2 setup.

Even GKs are better off. You can pull off Crowe + 2x 5 purifiers + razorbacks for the same cost as an Epistolary + 2x 5 men + PF/Combimelta + razorbacks. This is a huge chunk of a 1000 point army, and you are right, at this low a point level every unit you have matters, how good each individual unit is matters because you don't have many to lose. And when those requisite choices that you have to make, and drain 1/3rd to 1/2 of your points ain't that great? That matters too. Ask necrons about that. 460 points, minimum, into warriors and HQ. I bet they're going to have a LOT of fun at 1k points, don't you think?

I can probably play and pull a win, sure. But I sure as heck wouldn't prefer it....Unless I pulled out my GKs or IG...and quite frankly, I don't really have fun with them at the moment.

Anyway, at that low points value newer codexes have a bigger advantage over older ones. Furthermore it is general held that the game is much more balanced at the 1500-1850 points mark.

This.

I used to love playing at 750-1000 points when my army was capped at 1500. 1k is tighter, and it certainly felt more tactical at the time: one mistake and you've lost a quarter of your army in vain. That, however, isn't tactical because 40k is entirely non-determinate. Bad dice rolls can turn a perfect play into a disaster. The more dice you have to roll, that harder it is for them to backfire.

At higher points, an army is also more personal. My CSM 1k list looks pretty similiar to any other Monster Mash, but at 1850 I've got Bikes and Possessed and all sorts of interesting things. More importantly, my base has bought room for these units to work without being shoe-horned into other roles.

I really love playing at 1k.

It really opens up a huge variety of builds that really don't function so well at higher points values, and contrary to what others have said in this thread, I find it lessens the competitive gap between newer and older codices.

I find it really makes the game a lot more enjoyable, as it really draws attention to pivotal dice rolls without unbalancing the game. It is important to remember that whilst your own lucky dice rolls will have a large impact, so will your opponents, and hence the game 'swings' a lot at 1k, really making the experience more enjoyable for both players.

On a final note; I find players use far less redundancy in smaller-pts value armies, as they need to pack a variety of tools. This really makes the game more interesting, as you frequently see a nice balance of troops over 6x razorbacks or 9x Vendettas. The game really feels more 'epic' at this pts value, as even little squad sergeants can have a big impact on the game.

Just my personal opinion.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:I really love playing at 1k.

It really opens up a huge variety of builds that really don't function so well at higher points values, and contrary to what others have said in this thread, I find it lessens the competitive gap between newer and older codices.

I find it really makes the game a lot more enjoyable, as it really draws attention to pivotal dice rolls without unbalancing the game. It is important to remember that whilst your own lucky dice rolls will have a large impact, so will your opponents, and hence the game 'swings' a lot at 1k, really making the experience more enjoyable for both players.

On a final note; I find players use far less redundancy in smaller-pts value armies, as they need to pack a variety of tools. This really makes the game more interesting, as you frequently see a nice balance of troops over 6x razorbacks or 9x Vendettas. The game really feels more 'epic' at this pts value, as even little squad sergeants can have a big impact on the game.

Just my personal opinion.

Necrons disagree with this closing of the gap at lower point values... So do the, I have to spend at least 120 points on worthless Fire Warriors Tau...

Not to mention that most players would prefer that their skill be rewarded and not the 'ability' to role dice well at the key point in the game or risk losing the game.

I generally dont like playing higher than 1850, just because the games take too long.

1000pt games are my favourite points limit, victories are quick and decisive, rather than the boring slogging matches 2000+ games often turn into.

@ Norade -
The players skill is still the primary factor at this pts value - the smaller number of squads on the board means that movement must be even more precise, assaults carefully timed, and shooting carefully prioritized. Luck may seem more influential, but it will still even out over the course of the game.

I would also argue that necrons are far less boned at 1k than they are at upper pts values; at least they can squeeze in enough AT at 1k to kill vehicles, whereas at 2k they are totally screwed if they run into enough armour.

As for Tau; the amount of firepower they can pack in at 1k is really quite impressive. If you'd like, I'll post a sample list.

Honestly, I feel that 1k is the fairest pts value for a game.

Aye, timeframe plays a factor. When I'm in a hurry I will generally postpone though, even if it means I have to take a week off.

The meat of the topic though I think is valid. The core army is extremely important, the idea behind the army and the specific units you have chosen to carry that idea out are key elements to you not getting tabled....I just don't feel that saying that this happens within the initial 1000 points, and the rest is just "fluff" tells the whole story. I think what will be a viable "Core" for your army is going to greatly depend on both your codex and your point value, and the specifics are going to change wildly.

My current Ultramarines army is centered around a TH/SS squad with a librarian in a land raider. At 1500 this list, if the rest of the army supports the terminators, will cause extreme discomfort and/or death to the enemy. At 1000 points this will fail. I would do better at 1000 points by dropping the land raider and terminators and keeping the predators and land speeders. It will also change entirely the way the army plays. In neither case is anything expendable, in neither case do the fundamentals of knowing what to shoot with what, what to charge, what to shoot, what needs to be softened up and what can be left as is before a charge so shooting can be sent elsewhere, to contest objectives or go for annihilation, deployment, etc. go out the window. They merely change what my pitfalls are going to be, and how many tools I have to deal with my opponents specific unit types.

Unfortunately, going lower with vanilla marines your options get suspiciously like "Troopmatch 40k"...And you don't have enough power for that fight with the newer codexes in many situations. Consider your points value part of your deployment. If you, Bobby the necron, decide to go up against Jason the grey knight at 500 points...Well...You made about as big a mistake as I would deploying 3 land raiders in clear terrain with 9 broadside suits on the other side of the board and 15 crisis suits waiting to plasma the contents. What changed? You set yourself up for an uphill battle before the first shot even fired, it's just there are more pretty models on the board with the latter example.

This is just plain wrong. Some armies do not function at 1000 points. (Demons and tyranids at least in IMHO.)

The biggest problem with this argument is that certain tactics do not work at 1000 points. So if you want to runn that tactic at 1750 points you might not want to invest money in units you do not use at 1750 points.

Also, if somebody really likes the landraider model it does not make sence to bring it to a 1000 point game since it eather dominates the entier game, or dies to good rolling eraly and you meet up with 25% points less then your oponent. (Also, who brings enough melta to take out landraiders at 1000 points?)

I fall into the "disagree" camp.

Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters...none of them have the ability to really field a good army at 1k points.

OP: I also disagree with how you flesh out the first 1,000 points.

Rather than picking an HQ, then picking troops, then fleshing an army out...my preferred method is to decide what KIND of army I want to play, then filling in units from there.

Orks for example. I start with Ghazghkull Thraka, add two Loota units, two deffkopta units, a burna unit, a gretchin unit, three battlewagons...then go to my troop section to see what my troops are going to evolve as to fit my army. Will I have points for a nob squad? Sticking to boyz?

Same thing with my Dark Eldar. I actually backfill from heavy support to elite, then up to troops - and the HQ selected will depend on the army being played.

As for Necrons, I refuse to play them below 2,000 points. It takes me 2,000 points to get over the MANDATORY disadantages I'm forced to put into my list. Like 500 points worth of them. Every game with my Necrons is like 1500 vs 2000 because of my stupid warriors.

I agree with Niiai and Dash.


1000 point games just don't work for certain armies.

1500 points is the minimum threshold for all armies to begin to function decently. there's a reason you never see 1000 point tournies aside from small time joints.


you also don't have a 1000 core points regardless of your force. I never bring the same Troops and HQ to games. i build them out for each list individually. some lists have a Libby or Pedro as HQs, sometimes both. my Troops choices loadouts differ depending on my overall list. do i need anti-tank? Lascannons in Tac squads. have i got anti-tank covered or am i short on points? Missile launchers in the Tac squads.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:@ Norade -
The players skill is still the primary factor at this pts value - the smaller number of squads on the board means that movement must be even more precise, assaults carefully timed, and shooting carefully prioritized. Luck may seem more influential, but it will still even out over the course of the game.

I would also argue that necrons are far less boned at 1k than they are at upper pts values; at least they can squeeze in enough AT at 1k to kill vehicles, whereas at 2k they are totally screwed if they run into enough armour.

As for Tau; the amount of firepower they can pack in at 1k is really quite impressive. If you'd like, I'll post a sample list.

Honestly, I feel that 1k is the fairest pts value for a game.

I'd like to see your 1k list actually.

Also, I beleive that 1500 is the fairest game, as single mistakes won't ruin your entire game, and you can personalize your list very well. Also, you can get a solid chunk of all five kinds of soldiers, whereas 1000 is pretty much troops, HQ, and usually a single elite choice.

Grey Templar wrote:

you also don't have a 1000 core points regardless of your force. I never bring the same Troops and HQ to games.

Wish I could do that with my Necrons. My HQ and troops are always a Necron Lord and uh...two units of warriors. ><

well, yeah. Crons excepted.


if you HAD options i bet you wouldn't always be running the same HQ and troops

For SOME of the new new codexes this works

IG, SW, BA and GK all have very good troop units that can be build in a number of ways. Their troops are very competitive choices.

Nids, SM, Orks, Sisters, Eldar and DE All have decent troop choices, but they need much more support from the other FOCs to make good lists.

Necrons and Tau both a quite poor troops choices. many players would not take any if they could, (or had other scoring units). These guys mostly use MIN/MAX builds, which do not work at all points levels.

Im abit split with 1000 point armys. One one hand, it works for some books but not for others. One of the ways i like to test to see if i like an army, is to do 1000 points of them, before committing to something larger.. though that might not be the best way, with how craptacular some armys are at that level..

stratassj wrote:Im abit split with 1000 point armys. One one hand, it works for some books but not for others. One of the ways i like to test to see if i like an army, is to do 1000 points of them, before committing to something larger.. though that might not be the best way, with how craptacular some armys are at that level..

Which is why you need to put some deep thought into an army's style before hand. Pick an army, stick with it, and go 1500. Like it? go apoc or start another.

Dashofpepper wrote:I fall into the "disagree" camp.

Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters...none of them have the ability to really field a good army at 1k points.

OP: I also disagree with how you flesh out the first 1,000 points.

Rather than picking an HQ, then picking troops, then fleshing an army out...my preferred method is to decide what KIND of army I want to play, then filling in units from there.

Orks for example. I start with Ghazghkull Thraka, add two Loota units, two deffkopta units, a burna unit, a gretchin unit, three battlewagons...then go to my troop section to see what my troops are going to evolve as to fit my army. Will I have points for a nob squad? Sticking to boyz?

Same thing with my Dark Eldar. I actually backfill from heavy support to elite, then up to troops - and the HQ selected will depend on the army being played.

As for Necrons, I refuse to play them below 2,000 points. It takes me 2,000 points to get over the MANDATORY disadantages I'm forced to put into my list. Like 500 points worth of them. Every game with my Necrons is like 1500 vs 2000 because of my stupid warriors.

Agreed on both accounts. Some armies are pretty soft at 1K, or their 1k lists look very different to 2k lists. And for the second point, If I'm taking riflemen dreads and some typhoons, my grey hunters probably want to be in razorbacks to gunline it. If I'm taking vindicators and MM/HF speeders, I'd probably want the grey hunters to be in rhino's for the push. Most times when i write a list I'll get some support, probably some elites and FA, then get my required troops, then flesh out all the sections. It depends on each army, but I would say the way you pick and equip your troops is biased by your choices of elites, HS and FA- even if you haven't actually picked them yet, you will still have an idea of what your going to want.

Niiai wrote:This is just plain wrong. Some armies do not function at 1000 points. (Demons and tyranids at least in IMHO.)

Dashofpepper wrote:Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters...none of them have the ability to really field a good army at 1k points.

While I don't disagree with the opinion that some armies don't function very well at 1000 points, I'd have to disagree that Daemons don't. In 1000 points, I can have two Tz Shooty heralds, 6 fiends, 8 crushers, 3 plaguebearer units. If anything, daemons work best at this point level, but suck at higher point levels.

Testing an army at one points level and scaling up is a poor plan. What works at one points level does not automatically work at another. An army should be designed for the points level you intend to play at.

Happygrunt wrote: If you have done something wrong there, then you are going to be fighting an uphill battle the rest of the way. 1000 pt games are also the hardest to play. If you screw up, your done. I feel like, if you can play and ration out 1000 points, you can easily play any higher points level.
...

I disagree. I think the game is better balanced at 1500 to 1750 points.

At 1000 points or below, player skill actually becomes less important and the rock-scissor-paper-character of list-building and army selection becomes much more prevalent. If I bring 2 Landraiders at 1000 points, you either have a suitable tool to crack them or you don't. Win or loose can largly be predicted by looking at the list and the mission before the game is even played. Same for a Green-tide at 1000 pts. Or an all-Bike list. 1000 point Wolf- or Draigo-Wing? DE Raiders-spam?

Don't get me wrong, I love the quick, little games. But with a few more points, and thus the odd more exotic unit in the list, the margin for "player-skill" becomes larger, not smaller, as there is a bit more room to turn things even in a bad match-up.

I think at 1000 points, a game of 40k is much more similar to Warmahordes than 1850 40k.

What I mean is that at 1k points, powerful lists will be combo lists. Sisters get tri exos as a build. In 1850 the exos are powerful, but at 1000 the exo combo will dominate the pace of the game, as the triple exos ARE the army.

Space marines will see things like 10 THSS termies + shrike dominating the table. At 1850 that unit is powerful, but again at 1000 that unit IS the army... and its a good army!

All comers units are less useful at 1k points, specialist units are more useful. No fat, everything has to work together towards 1 goal, fast games dominated by the actions of your chosen deathstar combo...

So basicly, I disagree entirely with the premise... your first 1000 points in an 1850 list might be your base, but a 1000 point list forgoes a strong base in favor of a one sided trick that destroys any generalist unit.

Edit: My 1000 point listbuilding tactica
Find a very efficient unit in your codex that you like. Take as many of them as you can. Add support elements that buff your chosen unit. Bring as few troops as possible. Profit.

DevianID wrote:

Edit: My 1000 point listbuilding tactica
Find a very efficient unit in your codex that you like. Take as many of them as you can. Add support elements that buff your chosen unit. Bring as few troops as possible. Profit.

The thing is that there are SOME codexes where your "efficient unit" is ALSO your troops choice.

Space Wolf Grey Hunters are an excellent unit.
IG Veterans or Platoons are good as well.
BA assault squads are nice too.


Necrons will play with a 360/1000 pt handicap because they need to take 20 warriors and they are kinda terrible.
Space wolves have a 0/1000 pt handicap because Grey Hunter are a "good" unit and most players do not mind taking them.

The thing is that when that handicap is 360/1500 or 360/2000 it is much less of a burden, especially as the Necrons NEED to spam multiples of one unit type for their lists to work.

im2randomghgh wrote:
I'd like to see your 1k list actually.

I know you said you wanted to see his, but I felt like showing a 1k tau list I do very, very well with.

shas'el with cyclic ion, plasma, targeting array, hw multi, bonding, target lock, two shield drones
3 crisis with tl missile pods, 2 flamers, 've with airburster 2 shield drones and bonding
3 stealth suits with 4 gun drones, team lead with bond and 2 marker drones
12 firewarriors
10 kroot
piranha with fusion blaster and targeting array
broadside with 2 shield drones
broadside with 2 shield drones

That comes to 997 points.

and the few codeices whos troops are steller are the ones who rock at 1k.

everyone else struggles.


my list of armies that have steller troops and as such do well at low points values

SWs
BAs
IG
Orks
GKs(terminators as troops!!! game can't be below 500 points for this)
Tyranids(tyranid prime and millions of gaunts)

Dashofpepper wrote:I fall into the "disagree" camp.

Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Tyranids, Sisters...none of them have the ability to really field a good army at 1k points.

OP: I also disagree with how you flesh out the first 1,000 points.

Rather than picking an HQ, then picking troops, then fleshing an army out...my preferred method is to decide what KIND of army I want to play, then filling in units from there.

Orks for example. I start with Ghazghkull Thraka, add two Loota units, two deffkopta units, a burna unit, a gretchin unit, three battlewagons...then go to my troop section to see what my troops are going to evolve as to fit my army. Will I have points for a nob squad? Sticking to boyz?

Same thing with my Dark Eldar. I actually backfill from heavy support to elite, then up to troops - and the HQ selected will depend on the army being played.

As for Necrons, I refuse to play them below 2,000 points. It takes me 2,000 points to get over the MANDATORY disadantages I'm forced to put into my list. Like 500 points worth of them. Every game with my Necrons is like 1500 vs 2000 because of my stupid warriors.

Tau can field a really good army at 1000pts. They have mobility and can field a decent number of ap2 weaponry, anti-tank as well as str7 suppression.

Necrons - 1000pts 1/2 of it is on troops the other 540 is spend on maxing out on destroyers and heavy destroyers which sucks I agree.

Dœmons - not sure myself, nids - you could bring tervigons, at 1000pts it owuld be hard to deal with 4 of them.

Sisters - Immospam?


I do agree that the 'core' 1000pts is important, the problem with large points games is that you can take 'everything' making army building skills less than important. It also reduced tactical elements as each unit isn't as important since you probably have multiple units to perform the same roles.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Rather than picking an HQ, then picking troops, then fleshing an army out...my preferred method is to decide what KIND of army I want to play, then filling in units from there.

This.

This is especially important with books that have more than 1-2 successful builds.

Grey Templar wrote:and the few codeices whos troops are steller are the ones who rock at 1k.

everyone else struggles.


my list of armies that have steller troops and as such do well at low points values

SWs
BAs
IG
Orks
GKs(terminators as troops!!! game can't be below 500 points for this)
Tyranids(tyranid prime and millions of gaunts)

Why isn't CSM first and foremost in that list? Tyranids do not perform well at low points levels because they can't include proper anti-tank support. Blood Angels aren't particularly good, either.