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'm curious about this. Some people like to play at 2k or 1850. These are fairly high-point games, and let you bring a lot of toys to the table. Some claim that games at this level are truly 'balanced' Others claim that these huge point levels just lead to people taking multiple choices of the same unit, so it's more about who can take more stuff than who is the best general.

Other people like to play at 1500 or 1750, these are somewhat smaller games, and require you to truly think about everything in your list, as you can't take 4-6 copies of your primary troops choice, there just isn't enough points. For these tactical reasons, some people claim that these games are more balanced. Other players claim that their army can't bring enough stuff to be effective at this level (this complaint typically comes out of Eldar and Tau players, thanks to their really costly transport tanks)

Then there's 'Ard Boyz, 2500 points, many lists simply top out when working with this many points, and some players say that this is balance, everyone can bring their entire codex to the table. Others again, claim that their codex just isn't designed to scale up to this massive level (especially older codexes like Dark Eldar and Necrons)

I'm not asking which one you play more often, I'm asking which (if any) points value is more balanced for 40k games.

I would say anything above 1250 is balanced.

In my experience, in lower points Tau tend to get slaughtered, and orks tend to rock.

The Tau can't properly operate without larger points. You just can't afford the heavy support you need in small games, and if you put it in, the rest of your army will lack substance.

The orks just need to put loads of models on the table and they're good to go...

1500 is the most balanced from my limited experience, though my gaming group (as one might gather from my various posts) runs at very small points limits, so 1500 games haven't happened for awhile. We usually stick to 1k games.

I reckon 1500 to 1850 is good value - you can build a lot of synergy at these levels with your units across almost every single list, and it allows codex's with weak troops choices some room to move.

I like 1850 myself. Most of my gamegroup plays 2k (which I think is fine btw), but some of the tournaments around here are 1850, at 2k you can bring all the toys you want in your list, at 1850 you need to think a bit, because you can only bring some of the toys you want, you've gotta trim the fat and focus on what maters.

Up to 1850, any more than that and everyone is just stocking up on tons of excessive anti-tank

At 1000 half the armies can't get what they need to function properly.

At 2000 almost all of the armies are just doubling up on stuff, the older armies feel Very stretched thin, like dark eldar.


1500 to 1750 is where it's at imho.

Allows for good combos without favouring one style of army, while still making you actually work a little to make a list.

1850

much above that and older armies like DE and Necrons just fall flat. a couple of armies falling down means its not balanced.

much below that and most armies tend to get swamped by more efficient troops choices, I'm looking at you, Orks. One army standing above the rest is not balanced.

2k

at 1500 it's very nearly rock-paper-scissors-esque in army building, which does not make for interesting games (oh, he brought a hammer army with two land raiders, and I instantly am in a losing position because I choose an balanced force with more troops instead of another broadside team)

really, that's absurd.

at 2k, you have the flexibility to not have to worry about tailoring lists JUST for horde/av14/drop-pods or whatever, you can make actually balanced lists that can deal with all of the above (in theory.)... which means the game becomes about who's a better general and not who's better at list building.

Additionally, having redundant units is a good thing - what, you want to have a 1500 game that basically ends on turn 2 or 3 because both of you have that one unit you both need to thrive (whether it's that one troop choice or that unit of broadsides, or what have you), and you refuse to play aggressive out of fear of losing it and basically being dead in the water? it this fun? Am I to believe this makes for enjoyable gameplay?

2k allows for back and forth, and means alpha strikes aren't game-ending "I drove 45 minutes out for this?" type affairs.

Oh and, let me be frank - DE are are very good army that's hard to play, (they scare the hell out of me to play against) and necrons are just flat-out bad at ANY point level. I'm not going to play a weaker version of 40k just because GW's codex creep squelched an army.

Point cost doesn't matter as much because certain things don't change about list symmetries and the abilities of certain units.

What lower point games limit is the amount of spam you can fit in an army. To some, they feel that spamming units takes away from the tactics of the game at higher point levels. They feel that higher point games allows players to just put as many multiples of "good" units as they want and win games without really thinking.

To others, they feel that playing at lower point games limits their list selection too much and therefore it decreases their ability to fully compensate to the various different armies they will face.

I disagree with both arguments.

Concepts don't change no matter what the point cost is. Every army needs the following:

1. A decent amount of anti-mech.
2. A portion of anti-horde, template coverage
3. Counter Assault or Assault
4. The ability to protect and defend scoring units.

Now at different points levels, what you field to cover those concepts can change.

For example, at 1000 points, it would be a good idea to field a single Whirlwind. it's cheap and it covers your anti-horde prospects. At 2000 points that single Whirlwind sucks, but you have more room to either field more of them or change up what you bring to compensate for anti-horde, maybe a Land Raider Redeemer or a Thunderfire Cannon, etc.

Spam does not a good list make. Every decent competitive IG list I have seen never fields the same Heavy Support Choice more then once. At most I only see 2 Vendettas on the field at 2000 points. Why? Because relying on a single unit allows other lists to exploit the disadvantage that unit has. Congratulations, you brought 5 Tervigons to the ard boyz. Watch me take them down one by one as they take your only scoring units with them.

To clarify, Spam is different then redundancy. Taking multiples of a good unit is different then maxing out the amount of that unit you could get. Redundancy is still important at higher points cost. My argument that the difference is fielding 3 or 4 predators in a new BA list to fielding 6.

Being adaptable to different enemies and missions is possible at any point level, it just requires different thinking at different levels.

My opinion is that for competitive tournaments, 2000 points is the best. It gives you just enough that any player can field any unit they want, but isn't too much to where the games can start getting cumbersome in a time limit.

I voted for 1850-2000

As it's been said before, (almost) every army can field balanced list below these levels. But anything below 1500 cuts the options players of certain armies have. Especially the 1 HQ 2 Troops restriction works towards this imo as armies like SM or Necrons come up with high points costs for troops choices. Thus you can't really decide which spot of your army should take on which task because a majority of your points is already spent on mandatory choices. So it's not about balancing but about the possibility to play an army the way you like (while still being competitive)
Though i have to say that I like smallish games like 500 or 750 because every mistake will be punished immediately (as long as both players have about the same tactical experience), in the end luck will often ruin these games. More points lessens the propability of lucky shots or at least makes the consequences acceptable.

once you get into 2000 pt games you can essentially field everything exactly as you would like. Smaller games require more forethought in what you NEED to bring to the table in order to win games.

Some armies don't even open up until 2K plus, and some armies lose their dominant schtick once you get much above 1250 or 1500. Very few armies, I believe, scale very well throughout the entire range of battles, so I think the answer has to be somewhere in the middle, around 1750. It's enough points to field a counter to low-level deathstars, but not so many points that you start seeing some of the ridiculous 'Ard Boy style list with 30+ missile launchers and Hunter-Killer missiles on every damn vehicle.

Personally, I think of 1850+ as a "big" game and 1250- as a "small" game, so I would have to say that 1500ish is what I consider to be a size that feels right. As such, I would say that - based on my own experience - 1500 is probably the most "balanced" game size.

i voted for 1850 - 2000.
I personally like the 1750-1850 range.

Majority of the games I play these days are 1850 and 2,000, These feel like the only games I can play where I can feild combinations that make my army fun to play with, fun to play against, and make a nice presentation on the game board.

The nice bit about 1500 - 1750 is you have to make choices, you can't have everything, it's more interesting

1500 is more or less the bare minimum to even get what you want to play into a list, plus troops. Oftentimes you're short on a key element to an effective list, like anti-tank or anti-horde. Codices with points efficient troops simply run over non-points efficient troops since 1/3 of the total list or more typically has to be sunk into that single force org slot.

Small selections of critical dice rolls also become hugely influential. A single unusually bad rolling distribution (say, 6, 6 to immobilize your Land Raider) and a huge chunk of your army is gone.

2,000 points let's players build redundancy into their lists, enough that a Single Dice Event is a recoverable misfortune, not a crippling loss.

I think 1500 is pretty solid. This gives everyone a chance to effectively get their meat and potatoes 1000 points and 500 to play with. Even small elite armies with high point costs can usually field 2 troops a hq and 1 heavy support at the 1000 level. 1500 gives a good step up from that and allows for some good customization. I feel that at 2000 and above there becomes too much of an opportunity for everyone to field a 500 point "beatstick" super unit. IMO this leads to a devaluing of normal troops too much for my liking as they become fodder in many armies.

Hrm, in hindsight, maybe I should have had "1750-1850: Mid sized games" as an option.

I prefer the 1750 pt level.
It can be played within 2 h and I can integrate some units that I have problems integrating at the 1500 pt level.

1850-2000 probably.

This allows you to comfortably take the units you need/want after fitting in HQ and Troop necessary for any list.

This also shouldn't stretch a codex FOC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although I think even at 1850, its starting to stretch the Codex for Tau to take more useful units.

Personally, I prefer 1000 point games because of the smaller natures of the conflicts, and the way you have to really budget your points. However, it's fairly obvious that these games can get quite limited quite quickly, especially for a member of the Malleus

Personally, I like to keep it small. I find skirmishes to be more intimate in both the use of your units, and the nature of the conflict itself. Every man lost is worth something, and every enemy destroyed is a small milestone.

As an Imperial Guard player, I like the 1500 to 1750 range, although I've only played one 1750 game, and all I did was add a Plasmacutioner (230 points) and a couple upgrades, boom, 1750 from 1500.

I like them mostly because they're relatively short games where you need to think about every single guy that goes on your list.

I prefer 1750-1850 much more than anything else. 1500 is simply too cramped IMO. 2k penalizes armies that don't scale well. The midsized games allows you to actually add some flavor to your armies but still forces you to make tough choices about what you want.

It's not the size of the points, it's how you use it.

After many years of play and experimentation, I conclude that the most competitive and interesting points level is 1500. Games above that can be interesting, but list design above 1500 is generally not interesting. Above 1500, lists encourage spam - fill out 3 slots with the same of something, then fill out 3 slots somewhere else with the same of something else. No thought is required in list design above 1500. At 1500, a spammy list is still possible, and in some cases effective, but the player makes the decision to specifically play a rock-paper-scissors style - he may have a hell of a rock, but he does not have the points to spam rock and still have enough left over to spam scissors as well. Thus an all-comers army at 1500 is difficult to do if you aren't creative enough to progress beyond a spam list.

Games above 1500 are interesting and fun, and I enjoy playing them as much as the next guy. They may be just as balanced as any other point level. However, for challenging competitive play, it has to be 1500.