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.

2k is only too high because units are undercosted. And units that are overcosted will be even more adversely affected by a lower point limit.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that a problem may occur due to my suspicion that GW has currently based points off of an assumption of a 2000 point game. By lowering the army size but not lowering point costs that's going to handicap a lot of "elite" armies (I play mono GK and I know it will hurt my ability to be even somewhat competitive).

I hear this argument a lot. But I also play elite armies, and if anything find lowering army size makes them more effective, not less.

Could you elaborate on why you think dropping 250 points would make elite armies less effective?

Half way to a reasonable points level. Maybe in another year we'll be at 1500.

My elite units prefer smaller point games. I have more options, there. There are fewer hard counters to them. I can more easily concentrate my forces and divide theirs. You can't concentrate or divide when the whole board is full of guys.

Bharring wrote:
My elite units prefer smaller point games. I have more options, there. There are fewer hard counters to them. I can more easily concentrate my forces and divide theirs. You can't concentrate or divide when the whole board is full of guys.

See that's exactly my experience with elite armies. So I don't get the "lower point games handicap elite armies" argument.

 Mushkilla wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that a problem may occur due to my suspicion that GW has currently based points off of an assumption of a 2000 point game. By lowering the army size but not lowering point costs that's going to handicap a lot of "elite" armies (I play mono GK and I know it will hurt my ability to be even somewhat competitive).

I hear this argument a lot. But I also play elite armies, and if anything find lowering army size makes them more effective, not less.

Could you elaborate on why you think dropping 250 points would make elite armies less effective?

A barebones minimum Custodes battalion is about 712. Throw in a near mandatory Magnifica and now I have less than 900 points to bring enough units to cover the following issues TAC lists must prepare for:

1. Ranged Anti-Tank
2. Ranged Anti-Horde
3. Screening Chaff
4. Psychic Defense
5. Objective Campers (Custodes are too expensive to leave sitting on backfield all day).
6. Anti-Air
7. More CP generation (1 battalion isn't enough)

Good luck fitting it all. You almost certainly can't (you can barely do it at 2k). So if I run into a skew list of any category I don't sufficiently load up on then it's GG probably.

Lower points also increase the power of these lists because they can just gamble on facing opponents' TAC lists having insufficient anti-skew to deal with them.

Take my Custodes battalion again as an example. With, let's say 850 points, what units can I add that would let me stop a Magnus led Thousand Sons psyker list, a Tau Y'vahra led gunline AND a list of 3 Imperial Knights?

Then perhaps you need units that can perform more than one role? You might not have as much power in any given role, but there won't be as much of whatever it counters, too.

You don't need to stop a 2k list, just a 1750 list.

A shadow sword with guard chaff? 4 Mantacores w/ Guard chaff? Lets put it this way if you cannot handle those lists at 1750, you can't handle them at 2k either because they also have 250 more points.

While it's an interesting move, not sure it's wise.

Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

This is not a question about balance, and I'm sure the question could be asked the other way - there must be some armies that do better than others at 2000 points.

What I'm thinking about is those armies that take a 500 - 1000 point detachment to protect their more elite units (i.e. SM with a Guard detachment,) and also the ones that invest a lot of points in a single, high-value unit (i.e. Thousand Sons / Death Guard.) Many of them only get away with these lists because of the points available to spend.

At 1500 points, Magnus is now 30% of the cost of a TS army (instead of 22% which he is at 2000 points.) I could see a single unit taking up a fifth of the points, but a third - that's really hard for me. Rubrics and Scarabs would need to be looked at closely because Tzaangor - fragile infantry with a punch - would be that much more valuable.

And forget about Spartans, Fire Raptors, and other high-cost units that sometimes appear in 2000 point games. I'd even have to think hard about Leviathans before taking them. Everything smaller is suddenly more efficient.

While I'm sure this move addresses issues with 'slow play' at some level, it feels like it favors armies with cheap troops specializing in volume of fire over elite armies with spectacular abilities. 8th edition has already been heading this way, and it's cost the more elite armies in a big way.

Not sure that's a good idea, long term. But would be interesting to see what happens with the meta.

I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

 techsoldaten wrote:
While it's an interesting move, not sure it's wise.

Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

This is not a question about balance, and I'm sure the question could be asked the other way - there must be some armies that do better than others at 2000 points.

What I'm thinking about is those armies that take a 500 - 1000 point detachment to protect their more elite units (i.e. SM with a Guard detachment,) and also the ones that invest a lot of points in a single, high-value unit (i.e. Thousand Sons / Death Guard.) Many of them only get away with these lists because of the points available to spend.

At 1500 points, Magnus is now 30% of the cost of a TS army (instead of 22% which he is at 2000 points.) I could see a single unit taking up a fifth of the points, but a third - that's really hard for me. Rubrics and Scarabs would need to be looked at closely because Tzaangor - fragile infantry with a punch - would be that much more valuable.

And forget about Spartans, Fire Raptors, and other high-cost units that sometimes appear in 2000 point games. I'd even have to think hard about Leviathans before taking them. Everything smaller is suddenly more efficient.

While I'm sure this move addresses issues with 'slow play' at some level, it feels like it favors armies with cheap troops specializing in volume of fire over elite armies with spectacular abilities. 8th edition has already been heading this way, and it's cost the more elite armies in a big way.

Not sure that's a good idea, long term. But would be interesting to see what happens with the meta.

My thoughts exactly. Suddenly that $200 knight I just got is a bad investment. But a pretty cool paperweight.

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

If GW released a good tournament mission pack/rules that became a standard I'd be all over it. I'm not a fan of how fragmented things are at the moment. One can hope. Apparently this is the case for AoS tournaments. At least that's what I heard.

tneva82 wrote:
1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

This!

Bharring wrote:
Then perhaps you need units that can perform more than one role? You might not have as much power in any given role, but there won't be as much of whatever it counters, too.

You don't need to stop a 2k list, just a 1750 list.

I am talking about stopping 1.75k. and no kidding I need units that can do more than one role, the problem is I can't afford them.

I wanna stop those Imperial Knights? My cheapest option is probably Neutronagers. They're like 144 each. I can either take 2 in a Battalion or 3 in a Vanguard. If I go 3 in a Vanguard I've now spent like 500+ points for them and the Dominus. So I've got about to 300 to cover all the other holes: perfect!

Maybe I should take Lascannon Devastator? I can at least add a psychic librarian with those. Except one Librarian isn't going to do jack against a Thousand Sons army. Even two won't.

Alright, alright, I'll ditch the Battalion completely and take an Outrider of 3 Jetbikes and a Bike Captain. That gives me ranged anti-Horde and some melee anti-tank that moves fast enough maybe I can fudge the ranged thing. This will only cost me...

970. Over 1,000 once you add the Magnifica. I also only have 4 CP. So I've got like 650 points to load up on psychic defense, get back field objective grabbers, get screens and find some way to deal with something like a Necron Tesseract Vault list or Mortarion Death Guard. I can totally budget it, right?

250 points means a lot to elite armies. We run VERY thin margins in TAC lists in 2k. Those margins disappear when you drop down.

So what's my alternative? Well, it's to do what everyone on this board hates. I'll just load up on nothing but bikes and make a skew list. Bikes have a max unit size of like 10. After my mandatory Captain and Magnifica I can fit like 15 bikes across my three units. Have fun dealing with that! I'm sure NO ONE will complain about skew lists like they used to in 7th.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Do some armies perform better than others at 1500 points?

Anything with non-scaling mechanics and/or limited 'good' options. Though this assumes mono-codex to some degree.
Also anything not really equipped to deal with the big megaunits like Mortarion stomping all over them, if only because you are less likely to run into him.

I only like less points if there is some limit on what units can be brought. Even at 2000 it is hard for some armies to deal with all the vairable threats in the game. There are Titanic units, Flyers, vehicles, mass cheap infantry, elite infantry, multi-wound infantry, deep strike units, psyker powers, etc. Limiting even more what can be brought just makes the game more rock paper scissor. Personally my opinion is the game is not designed for quick tournament play.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
It's good to change things up. Personally I hope that my local tournaments adopt this, while the non tournament games do not. I would very much like a distinction between what is someones tournament list, or someones casual list.

Speak as someone in your local community, I heartily agree. We have quite a few casual vs tourney players.
Having different points standards for each would really help set the tone.

-

I'm looking forward to seeing if ny local meta picks this up. Presumably if ITC does, we will. It's possible we'll do both and I'll just have two lists ready to go.

Maybe, at 1750, instead of bringing CC anti-horde and ranged anti-horde, bring anti-horde that is one or perhaps both in the same choice?

Maybe, at 1750, instead of bringing anti-tank CC units, anti-tank ranged units, anti-MC CC units, and anti-MC ranged units, you could take some ranged or CC unit that was good vs Tanks and MC? Good enough at both, but not necessarily the optimal solution?

Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Feels like a reaction the slow-play winner at the recent GT. Personally I don't think cutting points has much effect on the speed of play but there we are.

Interested as to why some people believe that 1750 or 1500 or any other particular number really is the "sweet spot". People will still spam the most effective units as long as they are able to. Players will still make skew lists that determine the meta, counter meta and counter-counter meta builds.

I really don't think it makes much of a difference, except perhaps when considering those truly beastly, expensive units ala Primarchs, Tesseract Vaults etc

What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

GW is not the king and never has been. There is a reason they moved away from competitive tournaments a long time ago.

Tournaments are problematic. Companies like GW are built to act like cheerleaders for their products, not provide showcases for the most vexing and frustrating problems that exist with their wares.

While I personally frown upon ITC and wish it would go away, I recognize it's an important effort to address the structural defects that exist with GW games. The problem is, it's not universal - there are other systems used by other events, mostly due to the preferences of tournament organizers (which are heavily influenced by region and locality.) But people latch onto it as though it's a silver bullet that solves so many problems.

What I would prefer to see is a universal system adopted by all conference organizers and a strong commitment to incrementally improve it over time based on data collected during tournaments. Keep track of the armies / factions / detachments / units / options being used, the outcomes of specific matches, the historical records of various players, etc. That could lead to a more 'fair' system for competition that people could 'enjoy' (depending on how many OP units GW has released in the last 6 months.)

But there are times it feels like tournament organizers are all doing their own thing and have no real interest in collaborating to make a better system. Things are certainly better now than they were 5 years ago, but with things like Best Coast Pairings - which hides data behind paywalls - and London GT - which uses rules that have little to do with other tournaments - I don't see us getting there anytime soon.

Spoletta wrote:
Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

Other way around. Skew lists become more powerful the less points TAC lists have to prepare for them because you can hit critical mass faster.

the_scotsman wrote:
Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

No, I don't think so.

People have played slow games with elite armies that have low model counts and don't have as many dice to roll. There's a GW dice app for armies that have lots of dice to roll that significantly speeds up that process yet people still don't finish games.

Unless there is a mechanical reason not to play slow, people will slow play when it suits their army. Only penalising/stopping slow play somehow (docking VPs, fixing time per turn) will stop that.

 LunarSol wrote:
What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Again I'm not so sure. I agree that durability is more important at lower points and that units operate differently with more space on the table but I'm not convinced it will significantly change the meta, in which skew lists currently thrive. Whether we play at 1500, 1750 or 2000 points, if you take a list that is "horde" and I don't have enough "anti-horde" I will be at a disadvantage. Taking a skew list almost always gives you an advantage against a list that is more rounded and hence I can't see the incentive not to take one regardless of points?

Neet.... lets see how it plays out.

also chess clocks

*runs for cover*

Skew lists right now are an exception, not the rule, and they surely are not winning tournaments.

What is winning tournaments are well structured lists with all the bases covered.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

GW is not the king and never has been. There is a reason they moved away from competitive tournaments a long time ago.

Gaming does not have to be a singular kingdom. GW can very much should be the ruler of the lands they oversee.