Switch Theme:

Why 2k? Average game size discussions.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





2,000 is standard I think because it allows lower model count armys to get some models on, and let's the big models actually get used instead of eating up your whole army
   
Made in au
Screamin' Stormboy





Woof?

I (sue me, I know) prefer games of 40k in the 500-750 point range just because it’s quick so I can try lots of strategies and stuff, and also because at that point range even tarpits matter and you have to play more conservatively, which is fun and as mentioned before quick.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The racial make up of the Imperium is 100% Australians. Its the reason the Imperium has survived for so long.
 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






There's definitely different challenges at different points levels.

Tau in 7th Edition, for instance. When you play at points low enough that they can't take Stormsurges, they become a very different prospect

   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

 Cat_astrophe wrote:
I (sue me, I know) prefer games of 40k in the 500-750 point range just because it’s quick so I can try lots of strategies and stuff, and also because at that point range even tarpits matter and you have to play more conservatively, which is fun and as mentioned before quick.

I do love small games, but once the charges start you can end up with just a big brawl in the centre! The '40k in 40 minutes' rules are an old favourite of mine, it is a shame they never updated the article in WD for the later editions.
   
Made in au
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





I find it varies depending on how many of us are playing, a lot of the time there are only 3 of us, and so we are looking at 3k + per side, so that we can all have a decent size army.

On the other hand, for 2 person games I generally prefer 1750 or 1850, but haven't played much 8th, and have heard with the general point drops, going up to 2k feels much the same.

 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





 Cat_astrophe wrote:
I (sue me, I know) prefer games of 40k in the 500-750 point range just because it’s quick so I can try lots of strategies and stuff, and also because at that point range even tarpits matter and you have to play more conservatively, which is fun and as mentioned before quick.


I like this point range as well. Occasionally we go a touch smaller and do individual model activation using Age of Sigmar: Skirmish.

One thing we do though is let our opponent know what we are taking if it includes anything with T7 and up or 7 wounds or higher. They can then adjust their list as otherwise they just might not have the needed anti-tank. Usually though people respond by taking some big cool thing of their own!

Kroem wrote:
I do love small games, but once the charges start you can end up with just a big brawl in the centre! The '40k in 40 minutes' rules are an old favourite of mine, it is a shame they never updated the article in WD for the later editions.


I agree about the 40k in 40 minutes thing. That was great. And it's an approach that works even better with the current edition (though you don't need the same restrictions).

As for the brawl in the centre, that's where scenarios come in. We've had loads of great, very different games using the last 2 open play scenarios in the rulebook as well as the open war cards. The scenarios in the AoS: Skirmish book also make for great small 40k scenarios.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

For me, I prefer games that last between 1 to 2 hours with set-up and takedown. Therefore, no matter the game that is the timeframe I build the armies too. The points are more an outgrowth of that mindset.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





See, I'm the opposite.

I enjoy playing skirmish games in perhaps an hour (particularly if you're gaming several times over the course of a weekend), but every now and then I'm in the mood for a good 3-4 hour slug fest - even longer if the game is good enough to warrant it.

If I'm going to do something in 45 minutes or less I'd rather play a card game, board game, etc. I spend a lot of time painting and building tables, etc...so if I'm going through the trouble of setting it up, I want to get a full evening out of it.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






2k seems to be the point where you can fully realize a complete strategy with your units. You can build in an entire complete effective group of models without having to cut or trim any of the preferred upgrades to make them perform how you want them to perform.

When you drop down to 1500 you start having to make more hard choices. Dropping these upgrades, trimming off models, maybe splitting that full unit into 2 partial units with less over all models.

Things get tight at 1500 and below. I prefer that actually since those hard choices make for more interesting lists.

But If I had to guess why 2k is the standard I would say that is why. 2k gives people a lot of freedom to build how they want to build without too much worry and too much cutting back.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

I've consulted the books and what I found was the following;

"Any Ultramarine army that is over 2,000 points in total can be led by Marneus..."
"Any Ork army of at least 2,000 points may be led by Nazdreg..."
"A Dark Eldar army of at least 1,500 points from the Kabal of the Flayed Skull may be joined by Kruellagh..."

These break points required to use named characters in 3rd edition must have affected the games people played, perhaps encouraging the 1500-2000 point range to become the standard.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




I remember in the early days there wasn't really as much of a standard size. They didn't say anything in WD or the books so we used to play 2E 40K at 3-4000 points.
(It was virtually unplayable at that size)

and 4th ed Fantasy at a similar 3-5000 points.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






In 3rd edirtion Warhammer, the standard points value was 3,000 points. In fact, the army list book told you to change the minima and maxima of various units proportionally if you were playing different sized games.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





 Kroem wrote:
I've consulted the books and what I found was the following;

"Any Ultramarine army that is over 2,000 points in total can be led by Marneus..."
"Any Ork army of at least 2,000 points may be led by Nazdreg..."
"A Dark Eldar army of at least 1,500 points from the Kabal of the Flayed Skull may be joined by Kruellagh..."

These break points required to use named characters in 3rd edition must have affected the games people played, perhaps encouraging the 1500-2000 point range to become the standard.


I'd love to see these kind of limitations return, or even the old "permission required" for named characters, etc. But you can see, from a modern GW perspective how this flies in the face of selling models. It basically tells a new player or new buyer to not bother buying a Marneus Calgar model until a couple years in when they have 2,000+ points assembled, etc. Now, with 8th you could simply make a limitation like that apply only to Matched Play, but in general the days of cool or logical rules which in any way hinder the consumer are dead and gone.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I find that anything less than 2k makes it hard to build a real TAC list.

With pre-game communication or a tight knit group this isn't a problem but if I don't know you are running 2-3 LRBTs at 1500 points it can quickly become a "well I can't kill those things if they just stay still the entire game so why are we here).

Same with morty or magnus. Target saturation breaks the game at 1k and it really becomes a rock, paper, scissors match that really isn't that fun. But if you are playing with like minded people it can be really fun at that level (my brother and I play 1k games and have a blast, I wouldn't play at that level at the local for anything).
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

bananathug wrote:
I find that anything less than 2k makes it hard to build a real TAC list.

With pre-game communication or a tight knit group this isn't a problem but if I don't know you are running 2-3 LRBTs at 1500 points it can quickly become a "well I can't kill those things if they just stay still the entire game so why are we here).

Same with morty or magnus. Target saturation breaks the game at 1k and it really becomes a rock, paper, scissors match that really isn't that fun. But if you are playing with like minded people it can be really fun at that level (my brother and I play 1k games and have a blast, I wouldn't play at that level at the local for anything).


That's only become an issue in recent years though as GW have expanded the scope of the game to include units that really shouldn't be in 40K outside of "special" games, the standard game size began creeping up long before a TAC list had to think about dealing with Daemon Primarchs and Imperial Knights.

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






The whole 'likeminded people' thing has been going on forever. I don't see how people can't find a problem with needing to find a niche within the niche of the game itself to enjoy it. If I want to play a game of 40k that's fun, the requirement for that should be 'find someone who plays 40k'. Not 'find someone who plays 40k at X points level and doesn't use Y unit types and doesn't have Z playstyle'.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Gotta disagree with you Loki. Look at any game - and not just tabletop games, there are massive sub-groups in all of them. The game producer is going to cast as wide a net as possible, and appeal to as many different styles of play as posisble in order to maximize profit.

If you're that concerned about it, then yeah 40K isn't a game for you. It's never been any different. Even strict games like Magic the Gathering have massive different audiences who do or do not play certain ways.

Failing that, your last refuge is a single-style game on PC maybe?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I've played WFB games from 500 point minibattles to a 14,000 point epic, and had a blast in all of them. For me, it's not the point level that makes or breaks the game, but the other player being a decent player - less from a skill standpoint than from a 'don't be a jerk' standpoint...

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






 Elbows wrote:
Gotta disagree with you Loki. Look at any game - and not just tabletop games, there are massive sub-groups in all of them. The game producer is going to cast as wide a net as possible, and appeal to as many different styles of play as posisble in order to maximize profit.

If you're that concerned about it, then yeah 40K isn't a game for you. It's never been any different. Even strict games like Magic the Gathering have massive different audiences who do or do not play certain ways.

Failing that, your last refuge is a single-style game on PC maybe?


I haven't run across this in Malifaux or Infinity yet. I already don't play CCGs so that's more reason to not go near them.

Both are well balanced enough through both model rules and scenario design that you don't face anything where after setting up you just think 'might as well pack up now' (though neither are perfect, mind), and the fact that both games have a default game size (300pts/6swc or 50ss), as well as tournament packs widely accepted as the standard by the community, that you can show up with what you want to use that day, know what you're playing and playing against, and know that you can win.

I do not miss the days where I unpack my 1500pts of Tyranids, find out we're actually playing 2000pts and need to adjust my list with some spare models I brought, then spend 45 minutes setting up, look across the table, and sigh in resignation that I'll just be slowly packing them away again as my opponent has fun.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/22 02:14:08


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

tneva82 wrote:

Board shouldn't be squads shoulder to shoulder all the way. The more crowded it is the less there is room to manouver thus removing strategy. 2nd and 6'x4' board was just nice. These days boards are way overpopulated as model count has increased, model footprint has increased yet board sizes have stayed same.


I tottaly agree.

Model count, model size (base & overall) and terrain have all encroached on the tabletop, making the 6x4 not ideal for 2kish pts. I think 2250 on 8x4 would probably have the best look to it. enuff models to fill it out but not too big to look crowded. The extra foot at the ends essentially lengthens the centre allowing for good LOS blocking terrain with room to negotiate and maneuver.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






 -Loki- wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Gotta disagree with you Loki. Look at any game - and not just tabletop games, there are massive sub-groups in all of them. The game producer is going to cast as wide a net as possible, and appeal to as many different styles of play as posisble in order to maximize profit.

If you're that concerned about it, then yeah 40K isn't a game for you. It's never been any different. Even strict games like Magic the Gathering have massive different audiences who do or do not play certain ways.

Failing that, your last refuge is a single-style game on PC maybe?


I haven't run across this in Malifaux or Infinity yet. I already don't play CCGs so that's more reason to not go near them.

Both are well balanced enough through both model rules and scenario design that you don't face anything where after setting up you just think 'might as well pack up now' (though neither are perfect, mind), and the fact that both games have a default game size (300pts/6swc or 50ss), as well as tournament packs widely accepted as the standard by the community, that you can show up with what you want to use that day, know what you're playing and playing against, and know that you can win.

I do not miss the days where I unpack my 1500pts of Tyranids, find out we're actually playing 2000pts and need to adjust my list with some spare models I brought, then spend 45 minutes setting up, look across the table, and sigh in resignation that I'll just be slowly packing them away again as my opponent has fun.


Why didn't you say that you only had 1500 points before beginning the game? You've only got yourself to blame there.

I found Warmachine got really boring when all of a sudden everyone was only playing 500 points, single-warcaster games because that was the tournament standard. Same with Infinity to an extent; we used to occasionally play 400-point games to use TAGS and expensive HI troopers, but that got harder and harder to arrange, unfortunately.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Loki,

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but those would be just that; exceptions. I won't argue that 90% of games are better balanced than GW properties (GW's never produced a quality balanced game...ever if I recall). Admittedly most games aren't as big as 40K with regard to factions, scope of models and units - but I think you'll find large divides in the majority of other games.

I understand people complaining about 40K being imbalanced and poorly written, I agree. However I don't understand the expectation of people (particularly those who've played the game for a long time) to not understand that fact. I do believe people searching for a streamlined and balanced 40K game for tournaments are borderline sadists. It'll never happen, so I don't see much point in complaining about it. As you said, there are some other games which are far more balanced/tournament friendly.
   
Made in au
Norn Queen






edit - you know what, I don't even have a dog in this hunt anymore. I really should stop posting about this game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/22 21:50:51


 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





United States

Am I the only person who remembers 1850 being the tourney standard for many places around 5th edition?

Since 3rd, I've seen the general, slow trend of, 1500 => 1850 => 2000, for today's games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/23 04:20:19


Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" 
   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

 BuFFo wrote:
Am I the only person who remembers 1850 being the tourney standard for many places around 5th edition?

Since 3rd, I've seen the general, slow trend of, 1500 => 1850 => 2000, for today's games.


Oh Yeah. That was weird, wasn't it?

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

here it was 1500, 1750, 1850 from 3rd to 5th
main reason was that people wanted to get their big stuff in.

1500+Land Raider after Rhino Rush was killed
1750+ another unit to score because new missions (and min troop did not work)

main problem is still that there is no official tournament standard from GW

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




We play 1750, which isn't too far off 1500 from 7th edition, depending on your vehicle/infantry ratio. I've played games at 1500 and 2k too and I've usually found that 2k is just a little too much, allowing armies to take basically everything they want, while also usually getting a bonus CP or 2 from extra detachments.

I think tournaments would probably benefit form reducing their points to 1500-1750. I think that's the level where you still have to make decisions about what to include and can't just take everything you want. You can more comfortably complete a full game in the allotted time too. I also think varying the points limits at different tournaments would be interesting. The homogeneity of always playing the same armies at the same points limit with the same missions might promote uniformity but it leads to a dull meta IMO.
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Western Kentucky

I think for tournaments at bare minimum they need to go to 1500-1750 tops. This insistence on 2000pts and trying get full games in 2 1/2 hours is just insane and is basically telling certain armies to not show up.

I remember lots of 1750 and 1850 in 5th, it started creeping toward 2k toward the end. That was why there was a huge outcry when 6th dropped, GW allowed you to double your force org. Hilariously the community was outraged and we had 1999+1 to prevent people running double force org, how the times change huh?

As it sits, 2k is just too big for major tournament play. Infantry guard, green tide, and other horde lists cannot be played in a traditional sense because we just don't have time to complete a fair game. This leads to an abundance of elite armies and unfairly punishes hordes. I've noticed in a lot of ITC games I've played, I usually win, but not until turn 5 or 6, turns I'd never dream of seeing in a tournament, especially if an opponent slowplayed. This encourages fast elite armies that win in the first few turns but could never last past turn 4.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 -Loki- wrote:
The whole 'likeminded people' thing has been going on forever. I don't see how people can't find a problem with needing to find a niche within the niche of the game itself to enjoy it. If I want to play a game of 40k that's fun, the requirement for that should be 'find someone who plays 40k'. Not 'find someone who plays 40k at X points level and doesn't use Y unit types and doesn't have Z playstyle'.


Nice in theory, not workable in about any game including chess and go.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





Speaking about Bolt Action (1st ed mostly), I always felt that 1000 points was the intended level the designer had in mind. And to that effect, when I first started playing it that was what everyone went for. I liked that level of points since you have to be careful to cover all your bases (i.e. enough men, anti-armor and artillery) and simply didn't have enough points to have almost one of very unit class (recce, tank, AFO/FO, anti-tank, sniper, that kind of thing) without hurting your overall list. However, after a few months other players wanted to bump up to 1250 so, 'They could have everything they wanted.' I wasn't fan of this as I have already decided on the unit classes I didn't want and 1250 made creating a second platoon to spam unit types much more easily.

Before that, had the same thing happen playing Dust Tactics: Battlefield. Originally we started at 100 points (again where I felt the designers were aiming) then moved to 150 so other players could fit everything into their lists. We might have even jumped up to 175-200 too. I can't remember anymore. This made it much easier to get the units for Dust's formations while keeping the unit the player already liked or even having a second or third formation.

So I think a lot of bumping up of total list points has to do with. like mentioned, players having bigger collection being able to use more of it. However, I also think in many cases it is done so they don't have make tough choices in what goes in and what stays out. This helps specialized lists cover the gaps created otherwise or makes it easier to more readily spam otherwise restricted unit selections.

One of the things I liked about the original Deadzone was 75 pt hard limit. Sure, it got bumped up to 100 for special games, but those often involved 2-4 additional mats to play. The designer recognized that their is only so much space in an 8x8 square area than at most have 3 cubes up. I never liked 2nd edition's change where it was entirely possible to run out of deployment space (easily with Plague Zombies) at the standard point level.

Not to say I don't like playing at different point levels, I do on occasion, but that doesn't easily work in the pick-up game world. I just don't like the ever swelling max points thing every game seems to do. I might have a bunch of stuff, but I have them as options not as more stuff to put on the table.
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: