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.

 Griddlelol wrote:
In my experience it's the other way around. At low points games there's no room for ridiculous formations, or crazy powerful units.

I can bring a Warhound Titan at <1000p.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
In my experience it's the other way around. At low points games there's no room for ridiculous formations, or crazy powerful units.

At small point games I can take a single super heavy or flyer and no one will be able to kill it because no one could bring enough guns so be able to do so at such low point levels.

You're absolutely right, you could do that. But then nobody's going to want to play against you ever again. Much like how, theoretically, you could turn up with your mates for a game of five-a-side, then all five of you stand across your own goal mouth, entirely blocking it. You're not going to lose the game, but everyone's going to think you're basically the worst.

750-1250, 1500 at a push, if at all possible I avoid playing anything higher as it just drags on too long. I'd rather play a couple of shorter games, or a mid-size 40k game then a quick round of X-wing, than spend all evening on one 40k match.

1000-1250 is nice, but 1500 is the sweet spot.

1750 is a stretch and 1850+ is just way to much. The game becomes cumbersome and the armies bloated at that point.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
In my experience it's the other way around. At low points games there's no room for ridiculous formations, or crazy powerful units.

At small point games I can take a single super heavy or flyer and no one will be able to kill it because no one could bring enough guns so be able to do so at such low point levels.

It's been my experience that bringing such units to low points games ruins what's fun about low points games. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. However, that's my preferences for all points-sizes, not just small games. I like small games, with ridiculous stuff left to the side, because it's very important to use every model more effectively, and because the games are fast.

Low point games. Less rules, streamlined, and requires you to get creative with listbuilding rather than "spam the best unit you got".

Generally I go for combat patrol or 1000-1500 point games. I rarely play anything larger.

I like my 2000+ games. Gaming group pretty much banned LoW after one dude had his Tesseract Vault sniped off the board... twice, so I don't have to worry about cheese-tastic shenanigans besides Riptides.

I've heard this idea from several places that 1500 is the size GW playtests at. It is supposed to be the sweetspot.

Anecdotally I find this to be true but i'm lucky if I get a game once a month so I need to test this theory more

Small points vs large points correlates directly onto a time vs balance scale.

At 1500 deathstars shine. But at 3k you can bring enough to deal with it.

I prefer smaller games though. Less effort to say to the opponent 'hey, mind scaling back a bit?'. If they do great, we can have a fun game. If not, no problem, just won't be playing them.

 Nazrak wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
In my experience it's the other way around. At low points games there's no room for ridiculous formations, or crazy powerful units.

At small point games I can take a single super heavy or flyer and no one will be able to kill it because no one could bring enough guns so be able to do so at such low point levels.

You're absolutely right, you could do that. But then nobody's going to want to play against you ever again. Much like how, theoretically, you could turn up with your mates for a game of five-a-side, then all five of you stand across your own goal mouth, entirely blocking it. You're not going to lose the game, but everyone's going to think you're basically the worst.

Pretty much this. Smaller games tend to keep players honest if you will, because its harder to justify the expensive OP units at a 1000 points or less without coming across as a total TFG.

 Nithaniel wrote:
I've heard this idea from several places that 1500 is the size GW playtests at. It is supposed to be the sweetspot.

Anecdotally I find this to be true but i'm lucky if I get a game once a month so I need to test this theory more

This rumour assumes GW does playtesting. I find the notion implausible.

2K points is a normal size game for me.

1500 when playing at the store. Like others have said a lot of times I get slow play opponents ( wether they don't know their army rules or just overthink every move) and after 3 hours I'm ready to be done.

I don't see how people can bring a super-heavy to a 500-750pt game and still manage to fit everything into the FOC.

Granted I'm a bit out of touch with the new FOC rules in 7th so maybe there are some odd ways to fit them in.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I don't see how people can bring a super-heavy to a 500-750pt game and still manage to fit everything into the FOC.

Granted I'm a bit out of touch with the new FOC rules in 7th so maybe there are some odd ways to fit them in.

Its not hard at all. 1 HQ and 2 Troops are only like 300 (and that's with some upgrades, if you take no upgrades at all you should only be around 200) and that leaves you with plenty of points for a Super Heavy since a lot of them are 400 pts or less (Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, Stormsurges, Obelisks)

None of that is even using 7ed FoC rules. You do this with a single CAD and an allied IK detachment at most.

feth, wow, that's crazy. No one uses those things in my area, and I refuse to play against IK so I never really come across them.

Go ahead play your knight in 500 pts my orks will just ignore that bastard and MSU all the other objecties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Will the game be interesting na not really but at least I will have a chance while 2k of power builds will almost always win.

We play larger games these days. 2v2 with 5000 pts per player is a nice format to play.

 wuestenfux wrote:
We play larger games these days. 2v2 with 5000 pts per player is a nice format to play.

I love 2v2 games -- they're by far my favorite. We play a little lower though, about 3500-4000 (total, between the two players) on most games, partly because of table size constraints.

 Talys wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
We play larger games these days. 2v2 with 5000 pts per player is a nice format to play.

I love 2v2 games -- they're by far my favorite. We play a little lower though, about 3500-4000 (total, between the two players) on most games, partly because of table size constraints.

Yesterday, we were only three guys playing 40k. The others did KoW and WMH.
We played 5000 vs. 2500 + 2500 pts. Me, Necrons Decurion 5000 pts, vs. GK with Robots and Tau with 3 Riptides and Stormsurges. Was a fun game despite some rule debates. Maelstrom mission, a draw at the end.

My group play 1850, But the other night we played a 4 player game with 3,700 points per side. It was WAY more fun than the standard game we normally play

I'm kind of glad to see <1500pts is most common. Sometimes it seems like the loudest people are the ones who play 2000+, with 2000 being "small". It's nice to see those people aren't the majority though.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Pretty much this. Smaller games tend to keep players honest if you will, because its harder to justify the expensive OP units at a 1000 points or less without coming across as a total TFG.

I brought a Riptide to a 500 point game once. My partner was running a Canoptek Harvest plus a CAD of Immortals, though, so it was completely justified.

In general I think you're right, and I personally prefer small point value games too. I've actually never played anything over 1000 points, and those went on for hours.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm kind of glad to see <1500pts is most common. Sometimes it seems like the loudest people are the ones who play 2000+, with 2000 being "small". It's nice to see those people aren't the majority though.

I do not think this is a very fair judgment to make; you are judging the whole based on your very small pool of encounters.

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm kind of glad to see <1500pts is most common. Sometimes it seems like the loudest people are the ones who play 2000+, with 2000 being "small". It's nice to see those people aren't the majority though.

I do not think this is a very fair judgment to make; you are judging the whole based on your very small pool of encounters.

I thought it was obvious but perhaps it wasn't, when I said it seems like the loudest people are the ones who play big games, I don't necessarily mean all people who play big games are loud, just that it seems like the loud ones are often the ones who play big games.

So no, I'm not making a judgement on the whole at all. I even said "it seems like..." which should make it obvious that it's an observation, not necessarily fact.

Sometimes it just seems that people are pushing for larger games with bigger models and higher model counts, and GW themselves seem to be pushing that as well.

Every time I play a large game I just get bored halfway through the first painfully long turn, so I'm encouraged that most people play smaller games even if it seems there's a push for larger ones.

I can't say I have observed any particular link between loudness and points preference.

I've considered 2000pts to be the standard size for a very long time.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I can't say I have observed any particular link between loudness and points preference.

I think you're reading far too much in to my comments.

It's just before this poll, if someone had of asked me what size games I think most people like to play, I probably would have guessed 1850+, and 1850 simply because it's become a bit of a standard, otherwise I would have guessed 1500+ or 2000+. I would not have guessed most people would have been below 1500pts (especially on this forum more so than IRL).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I can't say I have observed any particular link between loudness and points preference.

I think you're reading far too much in to my comments.

It's just before this poll, if someone had of asked me what size games I think most people like to play, I probably would have guessed 1850+, and 1850 simply because it's become a bit of a standard, otherwise I would have guessed 1500+ or 2000+. I would not have guessed most people would have been below 1500pts (especially on this forum more so than IRL).

Most? Less than 1500 and 1500-2000 are tied in the poll

 jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I can't say I have observed any particular link between loudness and points preference.

I think you're reading far too much in to my comments.

It's just before this poll, if someone had of asked me what size games I think most people like to play, I probably would have guessed 1850+, and 1850 simply because it's become a bit of a standard, otherwise I would have guessed 1500+ or 2000+. I would not have guessed most people would have been below 1500pts (especially on this forum more so than IRL).

Most? Less than 1500 and 1500-2000 are tied in the poll

52% say they prefer < 1500pts by this poll, 87% below 2000pts and only 13% above 2000pts