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.

 Pouncey wrote:
I mean, if you build your models without obvious squad markers, there's no reason you have to build your models for only one unit, and getting them confused is easy to avoid if you simply avoid playing them in ways where you forget what unit they belong to. Generally this only means avoiding any multi-combats where two similar units in your own army are involved, and even then, they have to be so similar you can use the same model for both units. You might get two units of Seekers confused, you won't get a unit of Seekers and a unit of Daemonettes confused. Getting a unit of Assault Marines confused with a unit of Vanguard Veterans is also difficult given how ornate the Veterans are.

Invest in either shoelaces or broken\oversized rubber bands.

The only reason 1850 is the competitive side, I honestly don't understand the number considering how 40k has been cut commonly in 'quarters' 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000. 1850 is just a wonky number. The other thing to consider is why 1850 is being posted. People that have conflicts with a Fluff / Theme / Friendly list roll into "Don't care what you run then" mentality as if you don't matter. So the real fault is to the community and competitive play grading only thought pattern.

I think it also breeds a superiority complex where people should try and read into what a poster wants but no one wants to do that unless competitive play is the main focus. Your army list is ether 1850 life or no one gives af... Honestly though if its true that 1850 is becoming that common, I would get pretty bored competitive play wise considering I think you should always have a shifting point value for competitive play simply to make list building, army knowledge and resourcing efficiency more a thing. The value should never be a static number(Would rather generate a random number from 500~2000) unless its some big event. Course some people use smaller events as practice for bigger ones which there again your ether 1850 life or your not... The first time I heard of 1850 was back in 4th even then I thought the extra 100 was just strange. From what I remember the reasoning was it shaved off the double land raider possibility that was more common at 2000.

I play 750 ~ 1750 mostly, but I also play 5th. Aside the edition I play and the point values I generally make fluff or theme lists. Which ironically fit the 'Don't Care' label. So I don't even bother posting lists anymore. You could easily make a Yes/No poll on if you post army lists other then competitive in army lists and I'm pretty sure that poll would be a lot of No's. Or maybe even a poll on what is the most common point value you play at competitively. List values of importantance and see how it goes.

As time goes by I realize that a good set of game rules for me is 1,000 points with no Lords of War.

Big enough to have transports to speed up the game and small enough to make turns not take a billion years.

Out of curiosity, I did a little bit of digging into my local areas tournament history. 1850 appears to have become the standard around here sometime in early 5th edition. Prior to that it was 1750.

Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

I enjoy 1500 the most. with 1 or no big "toys"

Local area does 1999 events

Nvs wrote:
Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

Yeah because FW and special characters are super broken.

I prefer 1500 or 2000. Only recently started playing 2000 point games regularly and it's really "clicking" with me.

It may be because that points level lets me field almost my whole daemons army, and so it's really easy to plan around.

A couple of my friends can only play up to 1500, one can play up to 1850 - he specifically planned his army to that number and hasn't added to it yet. It's all good, I just don't like doing less than 1500 anymore. I'd rather play another game, something more of a skirmish game, at that point.

I generally liked the 1000, 1500 and 2000 pts standard. It made it easy to walk into your weekly meet and roughly adjust playtime according to both parties wishes. It also allowed for easy adjustments to odd numbered players if tables were taken or you know.. just an odd number of people showed up. Some of the most entertaining games I've had were 1k per player 2v2. Obviously this is all based on the casual side of things. In tournaments anything from 1.5-2k seems fair, though 1850 sounds odd even then as 1750 just appears more logical. Surely TO's will have their, more or less nefarious, reasons to make this the current standard.

1850 was all I ever knew in 5th. Then 2k in 7th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

Yeah because FW and special characters are super broken.

Hopefully that was sarcasm. FW is frankly these days more apt at making decent rules than GW proper. You would have much more balanced game if you would ban anything BUT FW stuff!

I know in the last voting poll put out by ITC recently that the option for smaller tournament points was given (for 1650 or 1500 I think?) but the players voted that down. They seemed to want to still bring their big toys, no matter if games ran out of time or not.

Call me crazy, I have never played an 1850 point list in my life. Have been playing since 2nd edition and most of my games are above 2k points.

I have written 1850 point lists, but always modify them at the table to meet specific points requirements.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

Yeah because FW and special characters are super broken.

Hopefully that was sarcasm. FW is frankly these days more apt at making decent rules than GW proper. You would have much more balanced game if you would ban anything BUT FW stuff!

Yes I was making fun of the quoted poster.

I think 1850 is the most common for several reasons.
Back in 5th ed, my group most commonly played 2k games, but once 6th dropped and allowed double FOC at 2K, the norm became 1850 as it "felt" similar to 2k but restricted lists to 1 FOC. 1850 was essentially 2k with the fat taken out, or it is like a 1750 list with added extras, depending on your view point.
Also common at during this transition was 1999+1. If you ask me, that is more annoying than 1850.

With the increased complexity of the rules, 1850 just seemed to stick around, even though the "restricting lists to 1 CAD" ship has sailed

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

Yeah because FW and special characters are super broken.

Hopefully that was sarcasm. FW is frankly these days more apt at making decent rules than GW proper. You would have much more balanced game if you would ban anything BUT FW stuff!

Yes I was making fun of the quoted poster.

The problem with FW is that when they started being accepted mainstream and more and more players had them is when we started seeing internal balance really start to slip and GW no longer even attempted to care what they released rules wise. Now we see people try to justify how CSM are 'fine' because you can always take 3 different GW books and an IA book to make a list. People may not remember it because it was nearly 20 years ago... but we used to play this game with 1 book and a single case of minitaures. What's so wrong with wanting to return to that? Returning to a day where Eldrad didn't lead every Eldar army?

Nvs wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nvs wrote:
Back in the day the limit was 1500 and I prefered 1000. Now the limit seems to be 2000 and I prefer 1500. If you play 1500 pt games you kind of feel like you still have to make some tough choices. At 2000 you can make any list you want and your difficult choices tend to be an extra model in 1 unit or a piece of wargear in the other.

Not to mention the length of each turn is excessive when you start getting up there in points.

I still prefer 1500. I just hope 8th returns to the glory days where not only were the points lower, but FW and special characters were excluded.

Yeah because FW and special characters are super broken.

Hopefully that was sarcasm. FW is frankly these days more apt at making decent rules than GW proper. You would have much more balanced game if you would ban anything BUT FW stuff!

Yes I was making fun of the quoted poster.

The problem with FW is that when they started being accepted mainstream and more and more players had them is when we started seeing internal balance really start to slip and GW no longer even attempted to care what they released rules wise. Now we see people try to justify how CSM are 'fine' because you can always take 3 different GW books and an IA book to make a list. People may not remember it because it was nearly 20 years ago... but we used to play this game with 1 book and a single case of minitaures. What's so wrong with wanting to return to that? Returning to a day where Eldrad didn't lead every Eldar army?

Gdubs isn't going to reduce games down to that size anymore. Gotta keep selling tons of SM's and their toys!

So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

No, I hate FW because the vast majority of it is out of place in 40k and should be reserved for larger scale games like was the original intent back in the original Apocalypse days. We've moved so far beyond that point now that it's a lost cause unless GW was intent on rebooting the rule system and were prepared to make some hard choices when it came to army design. They have said they won't AOS 40k, but that doesn't mean they changes would be slight either. Now is the time for them to consider it.

Nvs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

No, I hate FW because the vast majority of it is out of place in 40k and should be reserved for larger scale games like was the original intent back in the original Apocalypse days. We've moved so far beyond that point now that it's a lost cause unless GW was intent on rebooting the rule system and were prepared to make some hard choices when it came to army design. They have said they won't AOS 40k, but that doesn't mean they changes would be slight either. Now is the time for them to consider it.

Is it really though? Most Forgeworld that I actually see is perfectly in place.

 bomtek80 wrote:


Gdubs isn't going to reduce games down to that size anymore. Gotta keep selling tons of SM's and their toys!

True.

But they could also do another underhanded and dirty thing and change the scale of those marines so old ones look out of place next to new ones encouraging everyone to buy the new models anyway. Which seems to be the approach they're taking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Nvs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

No, I hate FW because the vast majority of it is out of place in 40k and should be reserved for larger scale games like was the original intent back in the original Apocalypse days. We've moved so far beyond that point now that it's a lost cause unless GW was intent on rebooting the rule system and were prepared to make some hard choices when it came to army design. They have said they won't AOS 40k, but that doesn't mean they changes would be slight either. Now is the time for them to consider it.

Is it really though? Most Forgeworld that I actually see is perfectly in place.

That's only because things have 'jumped the shark'.

If it's a Titan of any size, GMC, grav, or D it really doesn't belong here. At least not in smaller size games like are being discussed in this thread. The line should have been drawn before we went down the flyers path. Should have been drawn before we went down the Wraithknight and Riptide path. It certainly should have been drawn before we went down the primarch path.

Nvs wrote:

 bomtek80 wrote:


Gdubs isn't going to reduce games down to that size anymore. Gotta keep selling tons of SM's and their toys!

True.

But they could also do another underhanded and dirty thing and change the scale of those marines so old ones look out of place next to new ones encouraging everyone to buy the new models anyway. Which seems to be the approach they're taking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Nvs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

No, I hate FW because the vast majority of it is out of place in 40k and should be reserved for larger scale games like was the original intent back in the original Apocalypse days. We've moved so far beyond that point now that it's a lost cause unless GW was intent on rebooting the rule system and were prepared to make some hard choices when it came to army design. They have said they won't AOS 40k, but that doesn't mean they changes would be slight either. Now is the time for them to consider it.

Is it really though? Most Forgeworld that I actually see is perfectly in place.

That's only because things have 'jumped the shark'.

If it's a Titan of any size, GMC, grav, or D it really doesn't belong here. At least not in smaller size games like are being discussed in this thread. The line should have been drawn before we went down the flyers path. Should have been drawn before we went down the Wraithknight and Riptide path. It certainly should have been drawn before we went down the primarch path.

You know that most of forge world isn't Titans, GMCs, and the like? Most of Forge World is like 20000000 different versions of the same Leman Russ variant, lol.

Nvs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So your problem with FW is that GW jumped the shark?

I too hate Disney because Walmart doesn't pay good wages.

No, I hate FW because the vast majority of it is out of place in 40k and should be reserved for larger scale games like was the original intent back in the original Apocalypse days. We've moved so far beyond that point now that it's a lost cause unless GW was intent on rebooting the rule system and were prepared to make some hard choices when it came to army design. They have said they won't AOS 40k, but that doesn't mean they changes would be slight either. Now is the time for them to consider it.

I'm sorry, what? Hazard Suits don't belong in 40k? Vindicator Laser Destroyers? Eldar Corsairs? Death Korps of Krieg? The other 90% of FW's products?

I always (used to) think that 1850 was a good value for synergy and fun, but without too much cheese or broken lists.

Now that Combined Detachment (decurions) limit the flexability of list building, 2000 pts is almost required for some list creativity, and i find myself even considering 2250.

But, since I play Chaos and Orks, bigger isnt always better, especially when facing the competition.

"Forge World Filth!!!!!
That broken stuff shouldn't be allowed!"
Grumbled the Tau player as the two Lucius Drop Pods landed in front of his Riptide Wings and Marker Drones...

I'm probably part of the problem in not really having a preference in points limits. I play tournaments and whatever whoever is available on my day off suggests for a pickup game.
I'd probably have a preference if I could use the pin-board to arrange games, but as it stands any game is better than no game.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
"Forge World Filth!!!!!
That broken stuff shouldn't be allowed!"

The issue with FW isn't the power level. A lot of FW stuff is pure garbage, while much of the rest if "fanboy-awesome" - it has rules you'd normally associate with noobhammer fan-spank homebrew models and derives power from the fact that opponents don't know what it is or what it does.

The issue with FW is that often such rules are located behind a £50+ paywall - you either pay out for the rules and are thus forewarned of fan-spank "power" units, or you don't, and turn up to a game only to be faced with a Tau FMC Suit with AP1 flamers and an AV rating and Empra knows what else. GW is apparently interested in building a "community" around their game. I'm not sure how this nonsense is supposed to achieve that.

My brother and I plan all our lists around 1850 pts. Though, if we are going to plan a bigger game, we will look at 2500 pts. We use 1850 pts as a benchmark because it is tournament standard in most places here.

 greyknight12 wrote:
When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?

Because the TOs and their tournament celebrities discovered TauDar, and it was best at 1850...it was efficient enough to take riptides and wave serpents without any real "fat" in the list (by 6th edition standards). Both Eldar and Tau players felt entitled to a good edition because Tau had been bad since 4th and Eldar were so used to being top-tier that their lower power level in 5th insulted them. At 1850 most armies simply couldn't take enough tools to deal with what TauDar brought to the table; the extra 150 gave Tyranids options but TauDar had to start taking less "efficient" choices. So, everyone went to 1850 and it's stuck. Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

Despite being cynical, this makes sense. Having recently returned to the game (been gone since 3rd), I couldn't work out why 1850 was the points level. People would tell me its because that's what most tournaments were, but no one really answered the question as to why. 1850 as a points value didn't make sense, as humans we tend to like numbers that look 'right' which meant the value should have been 1500, 1750 or 2000. This 1850 just didn't seem right. The only reason I kept coming up with was there was either something very exploitable at 1750, or it crippled too many armies and so an extra 100 points was added, it didn't occur to me that there was something exploitable at 1850.

So, cynical or not, thanks for enlightening me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thinking, if running a tournament advertise it as an 1850 point tourney, and when all the players arrive have one single table and declare 'last army standing wins' and watch the abject horror on the highly competitive players and the joy on the more casual players faces.

Have plenty of side table for when armies get wiped out.

The cynical response to a cynic is that misery loves company.

There has been some research, tournaments might be moving to 1650 (due to time restraints), just food for thought.