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.

This was actually a really great poll, ArbitorIan! From the shape of the graph, it's pretty clear gamers don't want LESS than 1500 points... but it'd be really cool to see more events offering a slightly lower point level than 1850-2000, and it seems most of us are open to it

MVBrandt wrote:
I tend to think you should select a points level that works for the time allocations and your player base. Commentary that infers people are idiots if they think 1500 isn't enough for a TAC environment is not very helpful to a case.

BFS this past weekend set at 2000 and nearly every game finished with 3 hours per round, and I never felt a frenetic pace going on at any table ... I personally finished every game with almost an hour to spare, but hey ... great for me ... I got to take my opponents for a beer after games before the next rounds.

I agree with Tironum's post in a lot of ways ... instead of inferring people are idiots for wanting a higher points level than 1500, or inferring that it's the ONLY functional points level for a tournament ... try instead to make your event work as well as you can for its attendees, and appreciate that there's a wide variety of options to attend. Plus, with 1850 still being mostly the norm, there's also a "standard" of sorts for those who don't want to have to constantly tweak their list for the next event. Everyone gets to be happy!

The only thing that gets rough is if a TO runs an event at a certain size and points limit, and comes out of it going WELL WHAT I DID WAS PERFECT. An event always bears honest self-critique in the aftermath if you want it to get better.

You also played a mech army that deployed 6 vehicles and reserved foot elements. And you made a conscious decision to not play Nids because of the time and energy it takes to play them.

It's a little disappointing that you pat yourself on the back for playing a list that has to deploy and move 6 units in the early turns for finishing on time. I applaud the BFS for stepping up to 3hr rounds as I feel that is necessary now for 6th ed tournaments, but please don't use your personal results as measure of how much time we need to finish random game length tournament games. Not everyone plays mech lists or has the option to leave their more hoardey armies home.

I don't really consider myself to be back patting on this one. Seven units deployed, btw. I also had a lone wolf! :-P

I try to avoid discussions oriented around model count. If I wanted to bring current nids at 1500 it would be an extreme struggle to finish in three hours also. The cost of units and what's good in the meta are far too variable to permit model count as a very valid eval of game time.

There's a broader conclusion to draw, that games do take longer in sixth, and so players who normally would prefer to put more models down (ie me) are choosing not to regardless of points cost and game length.

I am sorry if my toneless internet text came off that way, however. Certainly wasn't my intent. I do generally disapprove of broad stroke statements, my own and others! I read someone in the post writing terse statements implying 1500 was the only or obvious way to play, and I suppose it got my goat.

Everybody wants to be able to play the list they want, how they want. Higher points may impair your ability to play what you idealize, but the same is true in reverse. It's unfair to off handedly say some "just want to be able to play with more toys," in the same way it's unfair to say "horde players need to just play faster or bring fewer models."

The lack of a "right"answer is why compromise and variety are so very important.

So just to back Mike up on this I finished every game comortably at BFS and I ran a Daemon army with 80+ models, I typically deployed 50 to start the game. Now I did not have tons of shooting so that makes a bit of difference (though lots of running makes up for it.) I'm in the camp of points level matters less than round time. If you provided enough time for any points level it will finish. (The GT I run ran 2k in 3 hours and had only one game not finish so with BFS there is at least reasonable evidence that 3 hours will allow 2k games to finish naturally). Some events seem to want to run 1750+ in 2 hr 15 min rounds, and then they don't finish...surprise. But I'm not sure 1500 will finish in that time either. I feel you need at least 2.5 hours for tournaments rounds and closer to 3 if you want 1750+ points.

The last tourney I played in was a 2250 tourney. We had 3 hour games, and for the most part people were finishing on time. I like the higher point levels just for the fact that you get to see more of people's armies. Almost all 1500-1850 tournies I see lists for are all the same, run x of this units, fill in with y other unit to make points. bringing totals up helps us bring more flavor to the tables, which is what it should be about.