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

What do you guys think is the better pt value of 40k armies for tournement play? Should the point level be standardized for Indies, RTT's and GT's?

I dont think that 1750 really makes for quicker games since the "Ard Boyz were 2500 and those games still managed to be fit in under 2.5 hours.

I cant really see a good reason for 1750 games over 1850. It seems to me that the difference is really minimal, but I'd rather play a larger game.

They’re both pretty equal in my eyes. The best argument for larger point games, IMO, is that they dilute the power of certain builds which rely on overloading with a particular unit. Like 3 Falcons, or 7-8 Tyranid MCs. The smaller the game, the nastier these lists tend to be.

I'm more of a 1500 point person myself, though moving into 2000 point range soon, and liking the ability to afford some more 'toy' units and such.

Then again, I'm not a tournament player so whatev

- Salvage

I vote for 1,500 points because I don't think T.O.s allocate enough time for tournament games played at a level above this when considering true horde armies like Tyranids, Orks and IG.

Most people playing big horde armies regularly do not finish at least some of their tournament games, and this is a big disadvantage because horde armies really tend to shine in the final turns of the game (for example, IG regularly rely on obliterating their opponents and then moving up to capture objectives in the final few turns).

As a result, I really think the tournament mentality of playing 1,750-1,850 point armies in 2 to 2 1/2 hours (including set up) really discourages people from playing true horde armies.

I personally think this can only be bad for both tournaments and the game in general.


Just my 2 cents.

I think the horde players that dont finish games have only themselves to blame.

I've played horde tyranids AND orks in the past, I'm aware of time constraints and move accordingly. Its when you see horde players moving EACH model EXACTLY 6" and measuring EXACTLY 2" apart to minimise blast casualties that they hold the game up and are unable to finish. (this is just one example of the way some horde players hamstring themselves)

While this might seem unfair in that i'm saying that horde players have to move their models faster and say, a space marine player has more time to analyse the movement phase, I think there is a definate difference in the tactics of each.

Horde players generally storm everything forward and swamp the enemy, smaller armies (against armies they are hugely outnumbered against anyway) tend to use more "refused flank" or creative maneuvering to attain victory.

I really dont think Horde armies benefit THAT much from smaller pt values. They CERTAINLY wouldnt benefit more in 1750 rather than 1850. I also tend to agree with Mann above, that 1500 would benefit those "overloading" armies a bit.

Playing orks, the only time I haven't finished a tournament game is when the opponent played intentionally slow. That includes lists which had around 130 models mostly on foot.

Asshats that play intentionally slow are the problem, not horde armies.

I prefer games at 1850. More balanced play/list builds IMO.

What do you guys think
1850 or 1750 for the points at the GT's
What are the pros and cons that you can think of

The big one right off the top is that there is a big push to keep everything standardized this year. The independent tournaments us 1850 for the point scale, so there should be no reason that the GT's dont.

More points is always better in my mind.
They can't say that the games are any longer since they were able to do 2500 points for the ard boys no problem in the 2.5 hour games.

Post this thread up on all the other boards, if we get the whole community on out side maybe they will make it 1850

this is my thought 's on this what do you all think?

I am all for 1850. In fact I would like to see 2000 become the standard. 1500 is a nice number too and I think these army lists rely on skill more than the build.

- G

I really like 1850 and that is my favorite point limit.

It seems at 1850 I can take all of the stuff that I want to. At 1750 I have to make some cuts out of my army that I do not want to make, and at 2000 there is always extra points I don't know what to do with.

If horde armies have trouble making 6 turns, then you need to lower it. For 1850 2.5 hours should be plenty. But if you start having rounds that are 2 hours and less, you need to lower the points.

I fully understand that many seasoned tournament veterans can finish their games with gigantic horde armies at 1,850 points.

However, the problem is IMHO that someone who has just started with their horde army or is relatively new to the game isn't going to have that same familiarity.

By playing the points-level most tournaments do and setting the time limits where they do, they are sending a message to new players:

DON'T BRING A HORDE ARMY UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY ADEPT AT PLAYING WITH IT.


As a result, I think you see new players always stuck choosing low model count armies to bring to their first tournament.

In my mind, I would like to not just tolerate horde armies, but to actually encourage their participation. If tournament games were 1,500 points but still 2 1/2 hours long would it really be that bad? When I finish early I happily walk around the tables and look at other games still in progress or go get something to eat.


Besides, GW keeps saying that they are writing the new codices to be played at a 1,500 point 'sweet spot' and that's what all the UKGTs are played at, so why do we in the US have to feel that 1,500 points just isn't enough?

1500 pts is best, IMO. It's what the game has been designed around since 3rd edition, and is what is suggested / mentioned for game size in the rulebooks.

As the games get larger, 1750 or 1850, the board starts to fill up and you start running out of terrain and places to hide. Smaller games leave more room for maneuvering, as opposed to pure, mindless combat.

yakface wrote:
I fully understand that many seasoned tournament veterans can finish their games with gigantic horde armies at 1,850 points.

However, the problem is IMHO that someone who has just started with their horde army or is relatively new to the game isn't going to have that same familiarity.

By playing the points-level most tournaments do and setting the time limits where they do, they are sending a message to new players:

DON'T BRING A HORDE ARMY UNLESS YOU'RE REALLY ADEPT AT PLAYING WITH IT.


As a result, I think you see new players always stuck choosing low model count armies to bring to their first tournament.

In my mind, I would like to not just tolerate horde armies, but to actually encourage their participation. If tournament games were 1,500 points but still 2 1/2 hours long would it really be that bad? When I finish early I happily walk around the tables and look at other games still in progress or go get something to eat.


Besides, GW keeps saying that they are writing the new codices to be played at a 1,500 point 'sweet spot' and that's what all the UKGTs are played at, so why do we in the US have to feel that 1,500 points just isn't enough?

So Yak, are you saying its OK for unseasoned generals to monopolise the time in a tournement game? Horde players will do that at 1500 JUST as much as at 1850.

If you're going to a tournement, shouldnt you BE adept with your army that you bring? So that you CAN play quickly in an attempt to finish the game and give your opponent a full 6 turns?

Also, assuming the horde player ISNT practiced at playing his army, a 1500 pt horde is still a 1500 pt HORDE. Slowhammer'ers are always going to play that way. Give them more time and they'll use it, the same will go generally for inexperienced players.

In tournement play, EVERYONE should play at a brisk pace to ensure that your opponent has plenty of time. I guess I just figure that if you're playing a horde and taking up more than your fair share of the allotted time...you shouldnt be playing a horde, period. If a horde player cannot get his turn finished at least CLOSE to the same amount of time as your average marine player...he really shouldnt be playing that horde, not in a tournement anyway.

I totally understand your point BTW, I just dont sympathise. I also think that playing slow is simply "playing slow" , as easily done at 1500 pts as at 2000. If you give them more time, they'll use it.

Deadshane1 wrote:
So Yak, are you saying its OK for unseasoned generals to monopolise the time in a tournement game? Horde players will do that at 1500 JUST as much as at 1850.

If you're going to a tournement, shouldnt you BE adept with your army that you bring? So that you CAN play quickly in an attempt to finish the game and give your opponent a full 6 turns?

Also, assuming the horde player ISNT practiced at playing his army, a 1500 pt horde is still a 1500 pt HORDE. Slowhammer'ers are always going to play that way. Give them more time and they'll use it, the same will go generally for inexperienced players.

In tournement play, EVERYONE should play at a brisk pace to ensure that your opponent has plenty of time. I guess I just figure that if you're playing a horde and taking up more than your fair share of the allotted time...you shouldnt be playing a horde, period. If a horde player cannot get his turn finished at least CLOSE to the same amount of time as your average marine player...he really shouldnt be playing that horde, not in a tournement anyway.

I totally understand your point BTW, I just dont sympathise. I also think that playing slow is simply "playing slow" , as easily done at 1500 pts as at 2000. If you give them more time, they'll use it.

40K isn't chess where every army is takes the same amount of time to play and there really isn't any way around that fact.

An army like the Imperial Guard has so many more units firing a much larger grand total of low BS, low Strength weapons (Lasguns) that as a Guard player you just have more dice to roll to achieve the same sort of damage that another army with high BS, high Strength weapons can achieve with their fewer models.

So yes, a Guard or Tyranid or Ork horde player is going to take more time to set up, move, shoot and/or assault (depending on the exact make-up of the army). That just is the nature of the game, some armies take longer to play with than others.

You are exactly right that a slow player can ruin a game no matter what size army he's playing, but someone who plays at a reasonable pace with a horde army is indeed going to have a harder time finishing their game in a certain amount of time than if they were playing with a smaller army. It is just a fact.

Sure you can take a hard-line stance and say: "we only want players who are adept at playing with their armies at a tournament", but the reality is, I don't see how it is a bad idea to make tournaments more inviting to players of all calibers who would like to bring any type of army, horde or otherwise.

I'm not against playing with 1,850 (or more) sized armies, I just think that the length of time alloted should be extended beyond what most people currently set it at, that's all.

yakface wrote:

An army like the Imperial Guard has so many more units firing a much larger grand total of low BS, low Strength weapons (Lasguns) that as a Guard player you just have more dice to roll to achieve the same sort of damage that another army with high BS, high Strength weapons can achieve with their fewer models.

Certain Guard armies DEFINATLY dont take longer to play...since they (for the most part) they skip movement, psychics, and hth phases. The gunline Guard armies anyway.

I could have argued your other points but I would be doing it for the sake of arguing since I pretty much agree on at least some level with what you've said. (mostly due to being against the 1500pt idea, but anyways...) As much as we like to do that on dakka, I'll refrain.

I completely agree with the sentiment of alloting sufficient time to allow newer/less practiced players the time they need. The last couple of tournaments I ran were 1500 and 2.25-2.5 hrs per round, because I knew a number of the players who would be attending wouldn't be seasoned vets.

However, IMO despite what GW's said, they've failed to properly balance the present codices at 1500. Eldar and Tyranids in particular. The codices which can easily spam hard targets at that point size while facing fewer heavy weapons to counter them. 1750 or 1850 make for better armies and better counters to those annoying armies.

It is harder for new Space Marine armies to do as well at 1500 points when compared with armies such as eldar.

- G

I think what slows down IG is the set up. Often I have been on turns 2-3 in an RTT and an IG army at the next table is still setting up.

I do want horde armies to get their full 6 turns, because Tyranids and Orks are assault armies and do not come to grips until turn 4 or so, and it is unfair to have a tournement that has a lot of points, but not enough time. And then you have a real problem when you are playing horde vs. horde.

Yak, you played IG at the LVGT, didn't you have trouble finishing your games at 1750 points in 2.5 hours?

I don't like 1500 points games...It just seems SO hard to cram everything I want into that few points.

It also really hampers the variety you see in the lists. With the feeling that you 'need' certain things in any list to compete and those things take up X amount of points, Any Tournament that hovers near that theoretical X number of points will see a lot of the same army lists.

If you increase the point limit, the variety of units that are 'good' but not 'needed' are quite larger and there is alot more variety now that the 'needed' stuff is taken care of.

I'm not sure horde armies are really to be encouraged anyways, as they are one of the 'rock paper scissors' armies out there. Recent tournament I was at, I was running a Swordwind themed Mech Eldar list (No Falcons though). I played at least 3 opponents that had hardly any anti-tank as they were specialized in assault. Somehow I got knocked down in sports because I was the paper to their rock.

Given what everyone has said, if I was running a tourney I would pick 1750. I would personally consider how much terrain I had and the horde army/ time limit issue to be the main things to be consider.

As a gamer I find 2000 is a little large, it works both ways regarding picking your toys. In 1500 people have to choose what they want to bring with them. 1750 seems like a nice sweet spot, with 1850 being maybe more beer and pretzels than tactically competitive.

The issue with 1500 pts ties to Vehicles and non-Troops being Scoring.

When only non-Vehicle Troops are Scoring, and the majority of missions are Objectives-based, 1500 pts becomes very good.

With new-style Codices (Eldar and later, including DA, BA, CSM and Orks), 1500 pts just won't be enough to max out the mean killy stuff *and* field lots of Scoring Troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
With new-style Codices (Eldar and later, including DA, BA, CSM and Orks), 1500 pts just won't be enough to max out the mean killy stuff *and* field lots of Scoring Troops.

And that's a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Armies with just tons of troops are boring as all hell to play/play against.

Oh man I hope yak wasn't that first guy I played at the LVGT. lol

I prefer 1850-2000 points.

I've never had a problem getting my game in well under time with any army I play. I've played 200 model armies, and against some players I've had to move them twice a turn. I've timed myself, I can move all 200 (gaunts) twice in about 6 minutes.

I think the reality is, playing horde armies isn't favored by vet players not because you cannot place your army but (imo) because it's so damn tiring if you have to move.

IG Gunline (ok, any gunline army with 100+ models) that takes forever to setup--guess what, bring a damn tray and don't put all of your guys back into your foam.

Yes, this does mean damage might (will) occur to your minis on occasion at a GT. Suck it up! You brought the army, you should be able to deploy ANY army in 5 minutes.

Hell my 120 Sister army took me less than 5 minutes to setup because I didn't feth around between rounds, I reorganized my army for the next fight and had 120 Sisters on top of my case all lined up ready to go.

I concur with Mannahein

"The best argument for larger point games, IMO, is that they dilute the power of certain builds which rely on overloading with a particular unit. Like 3 Falcons, or 7-8 Tyranid MCs. The smaller the game, the nastier these lists tend to be. "

That said, each army has a point range where it shines. I won't post specific examples because people would probably disagree about them, but I'm sure those of us with multiple armies can pinpoint the level at which they stop spending good points and start filling in force org slots.

I actually think that in general, 1500 Points is probably the best.

Mostly because the higher the points level the easier it is to "break the game".

Now this is true for most armies, stuff like Zillas and Mech Eldar throw this for a loop, but as I make armies for my Marines, Necrons, or Orks, and when I make armies for other people for other lists, it becomes really hard to fit in the combo's that make a list "unbeatable" or as close to that as you can get.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
With new-style Codices (Eldar and later, including DA, BA, CSM and Orks), 1500 pts just won't be enough to max out the mean killy stuff *and* field lots of Scoring Troops.

And that's a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Armies with just tons of troops are boring as all hell to play/play against.

It's bad to make the player choose? I disagree. It means that the army needs to be well-balanced.

And Troops are vital, but they won't win games on their own because they lack speed and punch. All-Troops will probably only draw games, rather than win.

Exhibit A) Ork Boyz

They have both speed and punch.

Well for the longest time people in our area have been at home with the 1,850 lists for tounament play and we set our league up to run with it.
GWs switch to 1,750 was a bit of a suprise after all thse years, and while i can run with it if i had to, because i play smallish elite armies like deathwing even loosing 100 points kind of hamstrings my list due to unit points costs being so high fro so little return. ideally GW should go by thier own guidlines of 1,500 or 2,000 points.

That being said i do have a 1,500 point SOB army for some fun fast games. it would be easier for newer players to hit the 1,500 point limit, but i enjoy the larger games so i can play with more of my models.

If you use marines as a baseline...and 10 man squads as their baseline for the future...1500 points is very bad.

Not in any way good except for Xenos players, with cheap and plentiful troops. Our 'expensive' units generally run 13-22 points, and destroy marine troop units without much trouble.

Add that all together, and I welcome 1500 points + all the players using marines. Makes winning so much easier.

This is good, eh?

Stelek wrote:Our 'expensive' units generally run 13-22 points, and destroy marine troop units without much trouble.

Care to enlighten me what these units are? I have Tyranids and Eldar so I'm interested.

Greets
Schepp himself