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.

I see a lot of 1500, I'm assuming this is mostly british? Am I wrong?

What are the regular 40k tourney points limits these days?

1500 in most of europe from what I've seen. In the US it varies by region but the general pts are 1750, 1850, or 2000.

GT heats in Germany are 1750 pts. Dito for GT final this year. GT final last year was 2000 pts.
Our gaming group plays RTTs at the 1750 pt level.

1750 seems to be the oz average, with a few 2000 and 1500 pointers.

sounds good. 1500 just seems too small for me!

Americans like 1750 or 1850 for 40k tournaments - apparently, we don't believe in the concept of maneuvering on the battlefield.

I think in 1500 its too easy to make rock/paper/scissor lists. Like if you LR spam in 1500, many armies just wont have the units to kill them, and then they can just tank shock on to objectives FTW... am I wrong?

I find 1750 to 2k to be a perfect point limit.

Yea most are 1750 to 2k

I find 2k almost too many points personally, a lot of armies don't really scale well with that last couple points.

I think 1850 is by far the best but that's personal opinion.

GeneralX wrote:I think in 1500 its too easy to make rock/paper/scissor lists. Like if you LR spam in 1500, many armies just wont have the units to kill them, and then they can just tank shock on to objectives FTW... am I wrong?

I don't play with those kinds of oppopnents.

You wont have a choice in tournies...

... which is why I don't play Tournies any more.

GeneralX wrote:You wont have a choice in tournies...

I'm under the catagory of "don't play tournaments". I'm also in the category of "ask the people at the local stores who the tournament players are and preemptively put them on my 'do not play' list."

on topic: 1500 pts shuould be ideal... being that this is GW we're talking about, points are usually alot higher.

JohnHwangDD wrote:... which is why I don't play Tournies any more.

Then why are you posting in this thread?

I don't play 40k tournaments any more, but if I did, I prefer 1500 pts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't play 40k tournaments any more, but if I did, I prefer Dos Equis.

Fixed.

I like 1850-2000 because this means you aren't often "list beaten," but actually have to play the game. At 1500 points it is very easy to tailor a list (especially with older Codices) that is requires a combination of bad luck and/or bad play to lose against a signifcantsegment of opponents.

I think that 1500 is especially good for Dark Eldar, and that they suffer as the points go up, whereas Space Marines scale up very nicely to 2500 or more points, and can still be decent at 1500 points, just not as flexible.

Indeed, jwolf.

I'm a casual gamer, not a tournament player, but I'm also a tournament player, so don’t get any ideas...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Indeed, jwolf.

I'm a casual gamer, not a tournament player, but I'm also a tournament player, so don’t get any ideas...

This makes perfect sense...

Eh, I'd say 1500 with the removal of Massacres but instead just a W-L-D (Like in the UK) gives alot of lists a fighting chance that just don't have the ability to make big wins at 1750-2000. (Tau comes immediately to mind.)

1500 requires much more thought to make a killer list, since you can't fluff out as much on upgrades or filler. You have to be very smart about how you build your list.

In 1750+, it seems like you always "get everything you want" and you don't really have hard list choices to make. (IE, to add extra armor, or not? Spirit Stones, or not?) A fireprism with a holofield is pretty much a no-brainer at 1750, while at 1500 points, you really have to think, if I take two prisms, that's 60 points total that I just spent on upgrades! 60 points buys an awful lot at 1500, where it becomes less of a burden at 1750+

Of course, the next step would be to take out the 20-0 points system for wins. That type of system allows the denial players an equal chance as the army's playing for the massacre.

I like 1750. Enough points to have a decent game but not the overkill of 2000 points.

whitedragon wrote:Eh, I'd say 1500 with the removal of Massacres but instead just a W-L-D (Like in the UK) gives alot of lists a fighting chance that just don't have the ability to make big wins at 1750-2000. (Tau comes immediately to mind.)

1500 requires much more thought to make a killer list, since you can't fluff out as much on upgrades or filler. You have to be very smart about how you build your list.

In 1750+, it seems like you always "get everything you want" and you don't really have hard list choices to make. (IE, to add extra armor, or not? Spirit Stones, or not?) A fireprism with a holofield is pretty much a no-brainer at 1750, while at 1500 points, you really have to think, if I take two prisms, that's 60 points total that I just spent on upgrades! 60 points buys an awful lot at 1500, where it becomes less of a burden at 1750+

Of course, the next step would be to take out the 20-0 points system for wins. That type of system allows the denial players an equal chance as the army's playing for the massacre.

But I already take 2xfire prism with no holofields in 1850 : /


I agree with what someone said about about "list beating" in 1500, which I in fact said above as well.

So, anyways I hope all the tournaments bump up a couple hundred pts sometime soonish, but I'm in America so I guess it doesn't matter.

1850

GeneralX wrote:
But I already take 2xfire prism with no holofields in 1850 : /

I agree with what someone said about about "list beating" in 1500, which I in fact said above as well.

Your anecdotal evidence completely refutes my point about weighing the amount of points spent? I don't think so. My point was that, in 1500 points, you have less points, which means you have to be more thrifty in your spending of points than in 1750+. This is a true statement, because like any sensible consumer, if you have less, you want to be able to get the most you can for what you have, and still have the best quality. Taking the holofield example, a holofield is 30 points, on a tank that most likely will be far enough away from the enemy it is shooting at to warrant not needing the extra protection. However, if you have a surplus of points, as is usually the case in higher point games, it is less damaging to the integrity of your list to slap the extra upgrade on, where as at the smaller points level, the decision to take it becomes harder, and usually comes at the expense of something else equally important to your strategy.

I've also heard alot about "list beating". What lists are you talking about that are unstoppable at 1500 points?

The Casual Gaming Mafias point is that 1500 points is the perfect amount to play a tournament with because if they did play at tournaments, the people they would play with would not play competitive spam lists because if they did that, they wouldn't be the kind of people that they'd be playing with in the first place, but since they do, that's why they don't go to tournaments therefore they are correct.

Not hard to understand at all.

And the WAAC Tournament Mafia's point is that more points mean everyone brings beat-stick net-lists, so they can all have all their toys.

See, I saw what you did there, and I did it too Why don't we keep the discussion to the merits of smaller vs larger tourny games, rather than making personal attacks against other posters, however veiled.

Those in the 1500 point camp see an increase in mobility in the game, as there are fewer models on the board, and see a better tactical game as a result.

Certainly, some lists play better at smaller points, Nidzilla, for example. Its hard for certain armies to bring lots of AT to a game that small. I'm sure there are others. However, it also limits armies like Dual-lash, who can't fit two princes, two vindies, 9 oblits, and plague marines all in the same army, with room to spare.

Larger games, as mentioned, mean you can fit more things in the list, and potentially be able to deal with all comers. I personally don't agree with that. Certain other lists get better at higher points, so its really a wash, in my opinion.

In either case, I find that the time limits are insufficient for players to run certain builds (horde ork, nids, ig) under a 2 hour 1500 point game< or a 2:30 1850 point game. Regardless the size, I think that players should be able to run a legal army list< and complete a full game.

I personally like to play in tournaments that vary. 1000pts-1850pts is the perfect range.

its my opinion that varying the tourny points from event to event will limit the ability of power gamers to bring the same list every time.

My friend, if you think that was a personal attack, welcome to the internet!

For the record, I was just taking the highly convoluted workings of the posts above and making them into one sentence. Whilst I'm not a part of the casual gaming mafia, I'm not exactly a tournament player either. Beer over games is nice.

However, I do amble along to the occasional tourney, and I've always thought that 1500 points makes the porridge too cold, 2000 makes the porridge too warm, but 1750 makes the porridge juust right.

I'm of the "the more the merrier" mindset. When people get to bring more of what they want, there is less of a chance of them getting hosed by an army build they just can't handle, so winning becomes less about match-ups and more about in-game strategy.

Why do so many dakka threads descend into this casual gamer vs. tournament gamer nonsense? They're both equally valid ways to play.

For what it's worth, I would define myself as a casual gamer becaus eI mostly play in store pick up games or campaigns.

However, just because I don't participate in tournaments doesn't mean I don't want to tune my lists to be as tough as possible. I still want to win those casual games after all.

Right now, I'm trying to re-jig my crisis suit units to be all differently equipped but have the same role in their units for wound allocation purposes.

So, I guess I'm a casual player with a tournament/math-hammer approach to list building. Likely makes me the worst of both of those (utterly pointless) camps, but it works for me.