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.

 xeen wrote:
Ummmmm, where are people getting this idea that 2001 points would be 18 command points?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

It won't let me load the pic, but on this article it seems pretty clear from the chart that you don't get 18 command points until 3000 points.

So you read the table as:
0-499 points 0 command points
500-999 points 3 command points
1000-1999 points 6 command points
2000-2999 points 12 command points
3000+ 18 command points

That is an interesting interpretation for sure.

Based on the above article and the connected https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/ article, I myself will be looking for TOs who run 2000 point games with 12 command points, played on a 44"x60" table, using the recommended amount of terrain, 3 detachments allowed, rounds lasting 3 hours, strike force match play missions only.

Now, if that turns out to be rubbish for balance because GW were talking the usual codswallop about playtesting their game, I'll start looking out for TOs running house rules again.

 LunarSol wrote:
Until we see the new point values, its hard to even say what 2000 points really means anyway. Regardless, there's absolutely no reason to try and beat the system by playing 2001 when you haven't even seen what the system looks like at 2000.

Yup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm telling you playtesters have said the game is deisnged around the new minimums. See if any of the us super events are run on anything other than 44x60 (hint, they wont be) and guess who runs those events? The guys playtesting. 60x44 and 2k is where theyve focussed the playtesting sround.

You cannplay on bigger boards. But its really now designed for the minimums.

The board size for playtesters was adopted for tournament for single reason: More tables to tournament. Which means more players. Which means $$$$$$$$$$.

It's not about balance but $$$$$$$$.

For GW it was making kill team board multiples work. For tournament organizers it's $$$$$$$$$. For neither it's about balance.

Also just a reminder that Frontline Gaming (the organizers of ITC) also make game mats and immediately announced they would be making new mats in the new sizes.

Why, I am sure that had nothing to do with their input on the matter...

EightFoldPath wrote:

 xeen wrote:
Ummmmm, where are people getting this idea that 2001 points would be 18 command points?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

It won't let me load the pic, but on this article it seems pretty clear from the chart that you don't get 18 command points until 3000 points.

So you read the table as:
0-499 points 0 command points
500-999 points 3 command points
1000-1999 points 6 command points
2000-2999 points 12 command points
3000+ 18 command points

That is an interesting interpretation for sure.

Based on the above article and the connected https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/ article, I myself will be looking for TOs who run 2000 point games with 12 command points, played on a 44"x60" table, using the recommended amount of terrain, 3 detachments allowed, rounds lasting 3 hours, strike force match play missions only.

Now, if that turns out to be rubbish for balance because GW were talking the usual codswallop about playtesting their game, I'll start looking out for TOs running house rules again.

And confirmation(warning: large image):

Now that I think about it, 2001 points are straight out simply because almost no one has a 7.5' board to play on.

Which I just realized was already pointed out so ignore me....

 LunarSol wrote:
Now that I think about it, 2001 points are straight out simply because almost no one has a 7.5' board to play on.

Which I just realized was already pointed out so ignore me....

Correct me if I'm wrong but the intent is a 2000+1 isn't it? basically a 2k game on a 2k table but with the extra CP and detachments.

Dudeface wrote:


Correct me if I'm wrong but the intent is a 2000+1 isn't it? basically a 2k game on a 2k table but with the extra CP and detachments.

The intent is legalize cheating: getting +6 CPs without increasing the table size.

But some people (mostly dudes that play gunlines) would be ok with the regular huge table of 2001+ points formats, that woulnd't be cheating but certainly unpractical.

God I hope not. I already think 2000 is too high (9th helps a bit with this though). This stinks of trying to game the system


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Competitive players: “We want balance!”
Also competitive players: “To hell with balance!”

Yeah pretty much. This is ridiculous. Right up there with arguing by RAW *only* Battle Ready counts for the +10 VP for a painted army or trying to argue that you can't shoot assault weapons if you advanced because of the wording.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Also just a reminder that Frontline Gaming (the organizers of ITC) also make game mats and immediately announced they would be making new mats in the new sizes.

Why, I am sure that had nothing to do with their input on the matter...

Everyone knows they're money-grubbing dirtbags. They've ruined this game for years just to make a dollar.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Also just a reminder that Frontline Gaming (the organizers of ITC) also make game mats and immediately announced they would be making new mats in the new sizes.

Why, I am sure that had nothing to do with their input on the matter...

Everyone knows they're money-grubbing dirtbags. They've ruined this game for years just to make a dollar.

FLG is basically the GW Ministry of Propaganda. Not at all surprised that they are immediately going to make and standardize the new sizes for ITC games knowing what that means.

Everyone knows they're money-grubbing dirtbags. They've ruined this game for years just to make a dollar.

And everyone keeps them relevant and keeps the machine turning by standing in line to play the next version of the game with those new table sizes and those new mats and ITC standards. If one follows the game and keep pouring their money into it, one gets what they deserve. We talk about bad balance, we talk about all the things that never get fixed, and then we shrug and buy the new edition and keep on keeping on.

Going back to 1750 should be fine. It used to be the standard and with the point hikes most armies will stay about the same.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Going back to 1750 should be fine. It used to be the standard and with the point hikes most armies will stay about the same.

I'd much prefer 1750 become the standard. But it will likely stay 2000.

This 2001 horsegak can die in a fire though. JFC.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Going back to 1750 should be fine. It used to be the standard and with the point hikes most armies will stay about the same.

That's not how math works. If you go down in points and models go up in points, armies get smaller. Judging by what we've seen from TTT that'd be about 1400 points equivalent to 8th.

ERJAK wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Going back to 1750 should be fine. It used to be the standard and with the point hikes most armies will stay about the same.

That's not how math works. If you go down in points and models go up in points, armies get smaller. Judging by what we've seen from TTT that'd be about 1400 points equivalent to 8th.

I worded that wrongly. Sorry about that.


A 1750pt list you make today would come out close to 2k points in 9th is what I meant.



But yeah, 1750 used to be the tourney standard so going back to it would be fine.

I'm all for lowering tournaments to curb some of the BS lists

High points formats in tournaments simply don't make any sense. Why insisting on playing 2000 points while strict time limitations that end game top of turn 3 (at most) are necessary?

Why not playing 1250-1500 points games with the same time limitations? This way most of the games should come to their regular end.

It's one of the reasons why I haven't been insterested in tournaments since 5th, when in my area the standard was 1500 and games tipycally didn't end because time was up.

12 CPs plus 1/turn also suit better smaller lists, at least for orks which are really starved at 2000 points with the new detachments system, but probably not only them as 12 CPs plus 1/turn is the designed CP pool also for 1001 pts armies, which is half the size of 2000 points lists.