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.

 Blackie wrote:
You're thinking with 2000 points games in mind. In smaller formats a single Patrol or even Outrider/Spearhead is fine most of the times, even for orks. And you also don't need to fill every role, the Goffs greentide for example is a competitive built but it has very little anti tank.

But even considering the archetypes for 2000 points battallions: Ghaz + 90 boyz is 1050 points

That archetype also needs a second HQ and some objective grabbers, and you really want a painboy as well easily putting you past 1300, with almost no room to change up your list between games.

3 units of trukk boyz is only 465.

3 units of custodes guardians are what? 447? If you add all the other mandatory things a list needs to do (because those boyz do little outside of objective grabbing/holding), you are once again find yourself in a situation where there are only 100-200 points left after covering everything.

1500 is high enough to fit any type of list, even skew spam lists like Goffs greentides or buggies based lists.

I'm not saying that 1500 can't be done. I'm saying that 1500 is locking you into choices with almost no room for bringing something silly like a Gorkanaut or a Landraider without tossing the game. This is why 1500 points is not a fun game mode for me, there is no choice, let alone "interesting choices".

It's the elite oriented armies, including SM, that have their efficiency reduced by playing smaller games. They suffer much more than orks from having to cut 3-5 units from their 2000 points list.

That is nothing but a myth. Their models are expensive, but not their units, and they have a great number of units for every role to chose from. For below 1000 points I can get a captain, a sergeant, 3 great troop units, eradicators, eliminators and aggressors, with 500+ points to bring my choice of dreads, battle tanks, flyers and/or terminators. I can imagine why 1500 points is fun with such an army.

Having said all that...

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Oh, and an opinion on what is fun can't be "not true".

Of course, it's just that your previous post didn't really sound like an opinion even if what you said was clearly subjective.

...all of that is my personal opinion, based on my experience playing the game with my pool of opponents.
In my games 1500 points doesn't add anything of value, but takes away the option to change my lists. I also don't see that my opponent's are limited in their choices in general (some are, some are not), but I also don't go to a game knowing who or what I will face. While I won't run into a knight at 1500 (we don't do that here), it's very much possible to face something like 100 daemonettes or an imperial armored company. If I don't cover all my bases, those games are not worth playing.

Totally with OP – have always preferred a nice, manageable 1K.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
1500 points is what I considered the standard due to starting in 5th edition so I always feel that it's a bit of a sweet spot in terms of balancing armies with some tough choices internally as the points limit doesn't allow you to take an all comers list like you can in 2k games.

That being said, I like 2k games as it allows for that flexibility and as such, I prefer 2k games in 9th edition.

That's funny. Around here 1500p was what everybody played in 3rd edition. It increased to 1750 and then 1850 in 4th and 5th respectively. Afterwards it stayed at 2000 points.

2000. At that level you can bring a good core of essential units and still have points left over for some fun stuff. Lower points levels also are more susceptible to skew, 1500 generally works, but below that a skew list can be hard to deal with. Plus I play csm, and the CP you get at 1000 and below just isn't enough for csm to function right with the way our rules currently work. And I'm not talking about power and combos either, without CP most of the Legions lose their unique identities. I don't like it, but that's just how the Legions work right now.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
1500 points is what I considered the standard due to starting in 5th edition so I always feel that it's a bit of a sweet spot in terms of balancing armies with some tough choices internally as the points limit doesn't allow you to take an all comers list like you can in 2k games.

That being said, I like 2k games as it allows for that flexibility and as such, I prefer 2k games in 9th edition.

That's funny. Around here 1500p was what everybody played in 3rd edition. It increased to 1750 and then 1850 in 4th and 5th respectively. Afterwards it stayed at 2000 points.

That's a weird one, most of my 5th ed games were 1500 with the odd 1750 thrown in, but when my group went to 6th, it was always 1850 (basically to include an aegis defence line for the poor buggers without flyers). Then there was some discussion about 1999+1 points levels in 6th or 7th too, I can't remember correctly there.

Jidmah, the same restrictions you are facing so does every other army. No, you didn't happen to badluck onto the only 2 armies that face such restrictions, everyone has to cut aspects of their 2k list's competitive core or simply run the core and have absolutely no flex.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Jidmah, the same restrictions you are facing so does every other army. No, you didn't happen to badluck onto the only 2 armies that face such restrictions, everyone has to cut aspects of their 2k list's competitive core or simply run the core and have absolutely no flex.

Sorry, I'm missing your point?

I also prefer 2.000 for the same reasons as Jidmah, it allows me my usual core and a few 100 points to toy around with without being able to bring everything. Frankly is is also impossible for me to play smaller games because people here generally only start playing at around 2.500/3.000 points. I have to ask for 2.000 specifically so that people can't just bring everything and clog up the entire deployment zone with their armies.

Out of interest, what army do you play?

Me? Death Guard, but I'll admit my "core" is a bit bigger than maybe it needs to be. I like to run at least 30 Plague Marines, in 3 to 4 squads.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
For my two armies, orks and DG, 1500 is no fun - you have to bring all the mandatory choices with no space for random things I just want to bring for fun, like a naut or a pile of DG characters.

What do you define as the mandatory choices? I'd wager you're referring to an optimised competitive core, in which case that's just one style of play and even then mandatory might be a stretch.

2 HQs 3 troops, anti-tank, anti-horde and anti-primaris. The basic stuff you need to not just lose games before they start.

For DG this would be, from the top of my head:

Daemon Prince of Nurgle 200
LoC 120

7 Plague Marines 156
7 Plague Marines 156
20 Poxwalker 140

3 MBH 300

2 PBC 320

Total: 1392, with barely enough room to fit two cheap support characters if you drop some special weapons on the marines or one expensive character like the blightspawn or a caster. Boring.
An optimized competitive core around daemon troops would probably be much cheaper.

I don't see why all that is mandatory, I feel you're kind of missing the point of a lower points value is it forces you to make those sacrifices, you're trying to have a complete TAC force, which is fine but the bit you sacrifice is the fun flavour stuff. At 1.5 or less you're usually handicapping yourself in 1 area to enhance or emphasise a play style or theme. You might want a blob of spawn for example but you'd have to make room by dropping some blight haulers or swapping marines out for cultists or w/e.

Likewise your opponents are doing the same so you can't expect them to have an answer for everything in your list.

I fail to see the point of a game where I have lost before it started because I could not "take all comers". If I wanted to play a game of rock-paper-scissors, I would do that and not waste hours of my life on a game that was decided on deployment.

I voted other. In 9th, I exclusively Crusade.

Growing an army organically by playing from 25-150 PL is the only way I'm interested in playing now that I finally have that option.

I collect MANY armies, as I have many folks in my circle who like to play but can't afford to collect.

Managing 6-7 Crusades at 25PL that only grow a unit at a time is easy. Slapping down 6-7 2k armies is just a nightmare.

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point of a game where I have lost before it started because I could not "take all comers". If I wanted to play a game of rock-paper-scissors, I would do that and not waste hours of my life on a game that was decided on deployment.

Well, that's you, I personally never count a game as lost without playing it.

But I think you just like different things to some other people and thats fine.

As I only play 3rd? 2,000 isn't too unwieldy and is definitely enjoyable, but we usually go 1,500 for time constraint reasons

Dudeface wrote:
I feel you're kind of missing the point

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point

This basically sums it up lol

You might not enjoy a game where not everyone can be TAC, but you aren't being punished for your army choice, every army is making those sacrifices.

That being said I think you can be fairly TAC. The units you need to be TAC at 2k are DIFFERENT to what you need at 1k or 1.5k to be TAC and thats what you're misunderstanding from having not played it. You don't need anywhere near as much redundancy, the board is significantly less lethal and you have a heightened terrain-to-army ratio. I've played smaller games a lot and I find the people who try to approach it like it's a 2k list and bring their "mandatory core" (lol) are the ones who do the worst.

I’ve played a few games now of 500pts (25 power, really) with this:

Blood Angels

HQ
- Primaris Chaplain
- Primaris Lt w/ MC-Power Sword
TROOPS
- 5x Intercessors
ELITES
- 3x Bladeguard
FAST ATTACK
- 3x Inceptors

It’s really fun having even the 5 Intercessors feel like an important unit.
At 1k (well, 50 power) I expand it to have a Stormhawk, 5 more Intercessors and a Redemptor, I’m looking forward to playing that too.

1500 is what I advocate for, though 2k is standard and I do personally enjoy slightly larger games with more tanks in it.

I don't like games 1000 and under. They're just too small, and expensive high-power units tend to dominate the game with their life and death. Basically, you get the Lord of War effect, except instead of a Knight or Baneblade that costs 3CP, it's like a Leman Russ. I already think that Lords of War should never have been a thing, and playing 1k with like, well, anything faction defining from a Terminator Squad to a Leman Russ is like playing 2k with a Knight.

On the other hand, I think big games are also bad for the hobby. Besides the length of time to play, which is a continuous impediment to tournament play, it raises the barrier to entry since someone with less won't be able to find an opponent. [For this reason, I always make a point to play at least a game with new players who don't have big armies yet]



Going above 2k, the game is unwieldly and obviously poorly balanced. Things like the rule of 1 on psychics and stratagems become and impediment to play and enjoyment even more as the game goes beyond it's designed limits, and also, the game just sort of devolves because there's too much in not enough space. 40k boards are already too small for the armies,


Personally, I think 1500 finds a nice sweet spot between being big enough to have enough pieces to have a coherent strategy rather than "hahaha <cool unit> goes brrr." [usually], small enough to be cost accessible and quick to paint, big enough to have enough room to have different answers and offensive options, and small enough to resolve in a manageable amount of time.

i really like 1650 to 1750. I most enjoy 1500, but many of my players don't really care for that, but want to play 1850-2000. I also have some players that really like combat patrols, so as a general rule, when sunday-gameday comes around, unless anyone specified differently, we know to bring a 1650 or a 1750, and if we want to play smaller, we play smaller.

I also like the smaller points brackets, like 1250 and 750 because those make it a lot easier to get people into painting. Now that we have missions (and table sizes to boot, meaning I can get more games going with the same number of tables, which, sometimes 3 gaming tables isn't enough on a Sunday, even with rotating players out to make sure everyone gets table time) that can play on a 4X4, and built for smaller games, its been really good for us.

The crusade league I'm building to launch in January I plan to spread across multiple game sizes too, that way people can play what they want.

Bit of a tangent, but I think the game plays reasonably well at anything 750 plus, and I like those 1650 and 1500 games an awful lot.

We kinda play whatever points we pick/bring.

I played 1388 the other day cuz that's what I had WYSIWYG for my Flawless Host and my buddy made a list @ 1390.

Normally we play approx 2k. I might have 1990 and they might have 2050.

tho lately I'm interested in 1k due to armies that I have yet to pump up past that.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I feel you're kind of missing the point

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point

This basically sums it up lol

You might not enjoy a game where not everyone can be TAC, but you aren't being punished for your army choice, every army is making those sacrifices.

That being said I think you can be fairly TAC. The units you need to be TAC at 2k are DIFFERENT to what you need at 1k or 1.5k to be TAC and thats what you're misunderstanding from having not played it. You don't need anywhere near as much redundancy, the board is significantly less lethal and you have a heightened terrain-to-army ratio. I've played smaller games a lot and I find the people who try to approach it like it's a 2k list and bring their "mandatory core" (lol) are the ones who do the worst.

Ok got it, you are just randomly hating on me again. Sorry for having asked. Don't you ever get tired of wasting your time trying to gotcha me?

You're also utterly and completely wrong. Not only do you fail to understand the difference between 1k and 1.5k, but I also play plenty of 1.5k games and win most of them. I just don't enjoy them.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I want to know which point size you like to play the most.

My favourite sizes are 1000 and 1500 points. Both allow you to bring an expensive centerpiece unit without crippling your army, but at the same time you can't just take everything you want to. My experience here is that you don't have to be afraid of getting mangled too hard or get your vital unit shot off the table in the first round.

500 points feel too limited in scope and can be very unbalanced, even without intention. It is good to introduce new players, though.

2000 points I don't like as it feels you are required to have redundancy in your list. The time it takes to play a game is way longer here as well. I'd rather play 2x 1000p games on a day than a single 2000p one.
Depending on the table size you use (let's go with the suggested minimum size), the battlefield is crowded without much room for maneuvering.

Let's hear what point size you found to be most enjoyable and why

1000-1500 I find most fun. GW has made game slower and slower so smaller games compensate nicely.

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point of a game where I have lost before it started because I could not "take all comers". If I wanted to play a game of rock-paper-scissors, I would do that and not waste hours of my life on a game that was decided on deployment.

And not lets not forget that to play the sailor game, you do not need an investment of around 1000$.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


You might not enjoy a game where not everyone can be TAC, but you aren't being punished for your army choice, every army is making those sacrifices.

That being said I think you can be fairly TAC. The units you need to be TAC at 2k are DIFFERENT to what you need at 1k or 1.5k to be TAC and thats what you're misunderstanding from having not played it. You don't need anywhere near as much redundancy, the board is significantly less lethal and you have a heightened terrain-to-army ratio. I've played smaller games a lot and I find the people who try to approach it like it's a 2k list and bring their "mandatory core" (lol) are the ones who do the worst.

Not really you can split a marine infantry spam in half and it still works well. try to do the same with something like harlis, custodes or GK and it ain't going to work. It also works the other way around. The tyranid or ork player may not have the stuff that kills your stuff in his army, because it costs too much, but he can still bring a lot of models, often more then you can kill in a 1000pts game.

I mean just try GK when your army core tactic, the way it was designed by GW, involves formations of 700-800pts doing stuff in 3 or more phases per turn. It is a bit different then, I took 20xguants multiple times and if I go first I will win on objectives.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point of a game where I have lost before it started because I could not "take all comers". If I wanted to play a game of rock-paper-scissors, I would do that and not waste hours of my life on a game that was decided on deployment.

And not lets not forget that to play the sailor game, you do not need an investment of around 1000$.

Depends on the stakes

Yeah, but it's not just about losing the game, a game won at deployment sucks just as much. Few games are less interesting when than when a daemon engine-heavy DG lists runs into an army that has just one predator dedicated to anti-tank. Blow up that predator, win game...

Well, I learned from my few years here, that extrem examples of humans doing stuff are better not to be considered as a norm. Took me like 2 years plus to understand that. But yeah technicaly people game over everything including double or nothing, for their lives.

I don't even mind skews, well unless you play with one other person and the other one always wins or always loses, that much, but I do think that TAC codex are much better. It isn't even power thing, because they can be lower then the best of the best army right now. They do happen to be more resilient in the long term.

If in mid 9th the meta shifts to beat marines rules, and everyone spams 2D weapons in an efficient manner, then armies that can switch from 2W meqs to 3W meqs are going to have a definite edge over those that can't or over those that costs as if they were 2W, have 1W and have no 3W optiosn.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I feel you're kind of missing the point

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point

This basically sums it up lol

You might not enjoy a game where not everyone can be TAC, but you aren't being punished for your army choice, every army is making those sacrifices.

That being said I think you can be fairly TAC. The units you need to be TAC at 2k are DIFFERENT to what you need at 1k or 1.5k to be TAC and thats what you're misunderstanding from having not played it. You don't need anywhere near as much redundancy, the board is significantly less lethal and you have a heightened terrain-to-army ratio. I've played smaller games a lot and I find the people who try to approach it like it's a 2k list and bring their "mandatory core" (lol) are the ones who do the worst.

Ok got it, you are just randomly hating on me again. Sorry for having asked. Don't you ever get tired of wasting your time trying to gotcha me?

You're also utterly and completely wrong. Not only do you fail to understand the difference between 1k and 1.5k, but I also play plenty of 1.5k games and win most of them. I just don't enjoy them.

What the hell are you talking about? I would have made that post to literally anyone. You really aren’t someone who’s posts I even dislike, I just disagree with you on this topic. Get tired of it? I rarely even interact with you.... I think there’s a bit of a complex going on here.

I’m glad you win most your games. But the issues you describe aren’t actually issues with the points level imo, you just prefer 2k and that’s fine. Like you said in your original posts you can’t be wrong about what’s more fun. I’m just disagreeing with your perspective on how lower level points games function (and no, just because I didn’t do a detailed breakdown between the differences of 1k-1.5k doesn’t mean I don’t understand them...?). Sorry if it came off like I was targeting you or something that’s not the intent at all.

Dude, you directly addressed me.

But if that wasn't your intent, let's just leave it at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
But the issues you describe aren’t actually issues with the points level imo, you just prefer 2k and that’s fine. Like you said in your original posts you can’t be wrong about what’s more fun. I’m just disagreeing with your perspective on how lower level points games function (and no, just because I didn’t do a detailed breakdown between the differences of 1k-1.5k doesn’t mean I don’t understand them...?).

Back on topic, I initially said I like both 1k points and 2k points. 1.500 just feels like bastard of those two, where you are forced into playing a large game with all its needs in regard to board control and handling large numbers of certain units, but have less points to do so. 1000 is a lot more fun because the need to be everywhere is reduced by its missions and table size, and people going all-in on hordes or tanks actually have weaknesses to exploit, no matter what army they play.

I directly quoted you because you made the comments that prompted my response.... is this real life right now?

anyway, I like 1k too. It’s definitely a different game but I feel like 1.5k gives more flexibility but waters down the lethality allowing for the most freedom in strategy and builds.

1500 is the sweet spot for "normal" games.

The new 1000 points missions on small tables look fun though.

I like the idea of 2000 pts +
something about epic mass battles with entire collections appeals to me.

But logistically 1500 to 2000 makes for a good game.