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.

Me and my 2 mates have been having a kind of ongoing debate on this little sweetie.

One believes the feel of the game is different at 1500 pts and doesnt quite play right. The other believes thier is no such issue as the core mechanics dont change.

Now i`ve been in the 2nd camp for a while now, but after a couple of 1.5k pts battles i now find myself agreeing with point 1.

Personally for me it almost feels restrictive, but on the other hand i think it makes it a bit more about tactics and how to use the basics better. So i cant quite decide.


So what do you think Dakka? Do you notice any changes in the game at different points values?

I LOVE 1500pts. The game is technically designed for 1500-2000pts. Anything less and its too restrictive, anything more and it becomes a matter of taking everything awesome.

1500 forces you pick between more scoring bodies and the better choices in the force org chart. It also limits the use of huge deathstars. The game is actually perfect at 1750-1850 I find. Just enough, yet not too much. Every army feels balanced around there.

Then again, I also hate playing 2500pts now. That point level just feels wrong.

40K works just fine from 1250 over 1500 and 1750 to 2000 point, in my experience.

Restrictive is a good thing at the lover values. Tough choices have to be made both during army creation and during battle.
Also entire armies aren't wiped out in a single shooting phase...which is a good thing.

I like the 500pts skirmishes more than anything quick and fun

Blacksails wrote:
1500 forces you pick between more scoring bodies and the better choices in the force org chart. It also limits the use of huge deathstars. The game is actually perfect at 1750-1850 I find. Just enough, yet not too much. Every army feels balanced around there.

This.

1750 is the sweet spot for 40k IMO.

kryczek wrote:One believes the feel of the game is different at 1500 pts and doesnt quite play right.

Absolutely the game plays differently at 1500 points to over 2000... and that's a deliberate design choice. As others have pointed out, the game was designed for games around the 1500 point mark. It's supposed to be restrictive, so you're not just building lists full of all the goodies in your Codex. You have to make some tough choices in order to design lists that function well.

Over 2000 points becomes a whole different game, because there tends to be a lot more bling on the table.

I personally like 1500. It really is balanced without being overly restrictive.

What do you guys think of 1850? From what I gather its near tourny standard.

I myself am a vet of 1k games. I just don't have a big enough army to field any higher (I refuse to use tanks! But I guess that's going to change soon).

Anyone who remembers when special characters could only be used in games over 1500pts would disagree with your friend.
The game does act differently around the 1500 points line. Some armies are strong up to that point, some are stronger beyond it. It's usually one of the things I do when looking at a codex is how well it performs at 1500,1750, and 2000.
But to say the game is unplayable below 1500 would be incorrect, it's just more difficult.

I find about 1500-1850 is the sweet spot as all armies can function at those point levels any lower and armiesl ike IG and my orks have a field day while others may struggle.

2000pts starts to get silly and is really expensive to play at if you dont run marines and still want a decent army.

At lower points cost you need Tactics and a lot of streamlining. I had a list with 30 Orks Boyz I scraped about came out with more firepower and another 20 Boyz.

Thats at 500p. All armies work fine at all points levels, you just have more restrictions depending on the army.

500p are the best IMHO 30-45 Mins a game. Quick and fun. And easy to transport. I do like my 30k point games with loads of players. My 500p addition killed so many TAC squads. The Stomps I used did kill 2 Warhounds.

The games does change at 1500/1750/2k and I think that's a good thing! Often at 2k armies which can fill up one force org slot with multiple option (looking at you IG) benefit hugely, whilst at 1.5 you have hard choices which I think add more tactical thinking.

In fact in the group I play with it's most common to play 1750, them 1.5 and almost never 2k

The rulebook specifically says that 'a limit of 1500 or 2000 points produces a well-balanced game' (p86). As an aside it also says that 25% of the table should be covered in terrain, which is something I very seldom see, but I digress...

And I think the rulebook has it right because below 1500 is about where some armies begin to have definite disadvantages and above 2000 certain armies can very easily be 'maximised' (I'm presuming here that we're talking about 250 point jumps between values, thus small games might be 500, 750, 1000, 1250, medium games 1500, 1750 (and the odd-man 1850), 2000 and larger games 2250 or 2500.

For me 1750 actually seem the point at which almost every army hits a 'balance' between having to make hard choices and still being able to field a cohesive force. I didn't play much 1750 until a couple of months ago (mainly either 1500 or 2000 before that) and my experience is that it tends to give a better game than either (though of course one can have a lousy game or a great game ant almost any points, but as a general thing 1750 does it for me best).

I enjoy 1500 and 2000 point games. They play different because they should, for obvious reasons. 1500 is supposed to be restrictive. You have to really think hard before blowing 1/3 or more of your points on a deathstar unit in a land raider. One lucky shot can screw you, big time.

As a Black Templar player, I prefer 2k, though. At games over 750, I'm required to have the Emperor's Champion. He's great and all, but Templars REALLY need their marshal once you hit 1500 points because of all the Righteous Zeal checks you have to make. So now I've spent 250-300 points on HQ's in a 1500 point game. Kind of pricey, IMHO.

However, at 1500 points, I can certainly make do. It just means I have to be smart about the supporting cast for them.

Of course 40k works below 2000pts. That said, many of the remarks about it being balanced around 1500pts are a bit dated, armies have been getting larger and larger and GW has been pushing larger and larger games, especially in tournaments, and the statement that many people are basing their '1500=intended balance point' around is many years old, IIRC from 3rd edition. I personally find that 2000 is the best balanced, letting armies cover all their bases and dulling the edge of many of the more abusive armies while raising the average power level of most armies in general leading to a better rounded game.

1750 or below. 2000 is about the upperlimit. These 2850 tournament armies are really battles of the codex as you can fit anything you want into a list.

I like 1500 points best. Larger and the armies can field essentially any toys they want, rather than having to be selective. It also increases the roll of the compulsory FOC selections versus larger games.

I might be old school, but I personally prefer 1,500 or lower, than anything above it.

I feel like the restriction during both list making and gameplay add a lot more strategical and tactical depth to the game... Look at Chess, one of the game set with the most limitation, yet also one of the most strategic game of all.

Meanwhile, the more point over 1,500 you have, the more it become about Codex vs Codex instead of player vs player. List building essentially becomes 'Take your best Heavy, Fast and Elite Choice 3 times, take your meanest HQ, fill the rest with troops... if possible, field the character that makes one of your heavy/fast/elite choice scoring.' and gameplay essentially become about who has the biggest toys on the table, and the biggest toys are usually in the newer codex...

The game changes, but it's hardly unplayable at 1500. I actually like 1250-1500 points more. I've noticed that the game balance feels like it scales strangely as you go 2500+, but 1500-2000 is definitely good.

the annual tourney around here is 1500 points.

I generally play 1850-2k, except before the tourney comes around. Then everyone is practicing with their 1500 list.

I find some armies don't come into their own until after 2K. Especially 4th ed codexes.

I like playing games in the 1500-1850 range. When you hit 2500+ the game just gets too straining on my mind for a pick-up game and I end up nearly falling asleep!

But yeah, about 1750/1850 is the magic number I'd say.

Iranna.

Tarkand wrote:

Meanwhile, the more point over 1,500 you have, the more it become about Codex vs Codex instead of player vs player. List building essentially becomes 'Take your best Heavy, Fast and Elite Choice 3 times, take your meanest HQ, fill the rest with troops... if possible, field the character that makes one of your heavy/fast/elite choice scoring.' and gameplay essentially become about who has the biggest toys on the table, and the biggest toys are usually in the newer codex...

To me (and not to be offensive) this sounds much like previous edition thinking. Armies that build their troops last with what points are left over are often those that have the hardest time in 5E. In the last few years troops have not only become more important for the missions themselves but also more capable units that contribute to the success of the army, taking all your best elites/fa/hs before even looking at troops tends to result in lists that are missing some key capability.

As I am not a fan of the current 40k ruleset, I find that larger games exacerbate my problems with it. To this end, I don't really like playing games over 1000pts. At 1000pts, you can still take a variety of units, buts troops will still make a majority of your army and every unit must have a purpose. During the game, no unit can be thrown away and risk/reward calculation is more important. IMO smaller games promote the critical/tactical thinking that marks the difference between a wargame and a board game.

I am aquite inexperienced, but like 1500-1750 best. I think that if you want to play much above 2000, you'd be better off playing Epic..

I play 1250 with my friends, and love it.

I play 2000 at tournaments, and like that too, but it does play differently..

I play 500 - 1000.

I find 500 to be perfect for a quick 30 - 45 minute battle.

And I find 1000 to be perfect for a longer 1 - 1.5 hour battle.

It depends on which I have time for and the army I use.

For 500 I generally use Space Marines and for 1000 I usually use Eldar.

Some of the most fun I've ever had with this game was in 40k in 40 minutes games. 400 points, minimum 1 troops choice, no units with more than 3 wounds, 2+ armor save, or vehicles with armor (front + side + rear) over 33. Played on a 4x4 table, these games can be a lot of fun. It's just hard to do with some more restrictive codex, and it sort of favors horde armies. 30 Ork boyz will generally beat 10 tactical Marines in any given situation.

I personally enjoy 1,850.

I prefered 1500 in 4e, but with the new rules I like 1750-1850 area. With only troops scoring, all of my cool stuff got worse. The cheaper transports also kinda bug me, I'm guessing that change came about because someone high up in the company said "Sell more metal bawkses"