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.

The General's Disapproval : Equilibrium Play in 40k



In fewer words, what I have noticed is the biggest problem with normal 40k play is the large army sizes. Now, I am not wagging a finger at people with large armies on their shelves (I myself have a modest 5,000pts of Imperial Guard), but that most everyone wants to play with 1,750pts or greater! The first typical tournament armies I remember (clearly) was 1,500pts. This seemed to be an excellent size army for playing 40k. At 1,500pts what you take actually matters and how you play matters even more so.

Now, it later quickly moved up to 1,750pts, and then 1,850pts (where it has stayed for quite a while). The problem is, it doesn't really matter too much what you build your army with, as long as it isn't blatantly poor. I have play tested this many, many times. Around the 1,800pts marker your choice of units becomes less important, and your ability to close and overwhelm the enemy (if you are assault) or play 'keep-away' (if you are shooty) becomes the over-riding factor. The game pretty much becomes determined by turn two or three, with the remaining rounds strictly being "a hope" against luck. I would say somewhere around 60-80% of games are won or lost by that point, with the remaining depending on luck and drawn out results.

Below that 1,800pts mark, good generalship will prolong that event, and most games aren't decided until turn four (if not later!). I've seen far more turn arounds as reserves come in late in the game ("the Calvary has arrived!") at 1,500pts than at 1,850pts (exception being Control Point sniping).

I suppose my question is; is this incidental as Games Workshop encourages people to play with larger and larger armies to sell more and more product? Or is it incidental as people simply want to try and fit in as many of their killy units as possible? Or, again, intentional as people don't want to actually have to make decisions about what they play with, and just try to take as generic an army as possible...

EDIT: Thread title change...

1750-2000 pts is the sweet spot.

any lower, and your looking at 1-2 critical units per army, and an unlucky roll can destroy it.

any higher, and your allowing some armies to just spam death - units that can kill anything, or take so many of a single unit that their numbers make up for their weaknesses (av12 guard wall of doom, no side shots because the wall stretches across the table anyone?)

GW is in the models business, not the making good rules business. They want to encourage more sales, so this has resulted in not only higher points values as an average game size, but also cheaper per model points costs (and higher per model monetary costs). I agree that 1750-2000 is more or less the sweet spot, with most armies on pretty equal grounds. Some armies scale really poorly above 2K and 1500 or below. None of this is likely to change. If anything, they will continue to cheapen points costs and increase game sales. Notice their primary expansions are things like Apocalypse and Spearhead, which encourage larger games. You're going to have a generation of new gamers who can't remember 1000 point games except as a novelty, and GW is perfectly fine with that.

As the man above me said. GW is into selling models and so the bigger games the better!!! But I will agree with you in that the 1500 pt level seems to be about perfect point level. As you said. Things are alot more important. Once you get above that it does seem to just be more about throwing more models at the other guy then it is anything else. Since after about 1500pts the table starts to get really clogged with models and there really isnt such a thing as movment anymore. Its just every one run forward and smach each other which really isnt to mentally engaging if you ask me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will also add in that at lower point games those SC that EVERYONE loves to use are not nearly as helpful since that one guy uses up so much of there points which I think is another reason why people dont like lower point games. Lower point games are harder to break so it makes things fair and alot of players arent having fun if they dont have the unfair advantage.

After reading the first lines of the above two posters, I skipped them. I wholly agree with Honersstodnt

Too low, and single rolls can determine the outcome of the game. Too many points, and what the OP described is what occurs.

With 1,600-1,850; games aren't determined by single batches of dice, everything seems to flow better. Every turn something swings, though not too much.

I've been playing 15 years, since 2nd edition, and I've only just attended my first 1,500pt tournament last week. I've been playing in GW GT's since '01 and they started at 1,750. So I've never seen this golden age of 1,500pts in the US that the OP seems to have seen. I like 1,500 cause it's different but based on playing almost every army in the game and lots of tourney play I have to say that 1,750-2k is the sweetspot. And closer to 2k for that sweetspot as it allows a lot more builds than lower point values do.

1500 makes you make more difficult decisions on what to include in your army, but I think that 1750-2k makes you make more decisions tactially. This of course is dependent on a reasonable board size w/ appropriate terrain.

Well, firstly, I never said there was a "Golden Age" or that was what GW did for their tournaments, just that those were the first tournaments I remember clearly.

The higher the points you're allowed will, of course, increase the number of builds you can have, as you have a greater number of units to take. The problem with this, in my view, is that it allows armies to have multiple 'core' sections, meaning you're more closely playing as two armies, rather than as one army. While some people obviously prefer the 1,750+pts games, I have distinctly noticed that these games tend to have far few tactics, just more units to move.

At 1,500pts what you take matters. Taking an expensive, single purpose unit that only does one job but does it extremely well, means the army will be weaker in the areas that unit does not perform. This also means that where you put them during the game is important. Having multiples of these units, or units to take up the missing elements (as you will have in larger games), means placement will tend to be less relevant.

It is not a matter of 'options' or 'choices,' it is a matter of availability. Taking three Russes makes up a much larger chunk of an army at 1,500pts than at 1,750pts, meaning going against an army with good anti-armor really hurts.

As an example, my typical Guard list (which has served me very well for the past seven years at the 1,750pts level) has seen very, very few changes, even from codex edition to codex edition. My list isn't even that specialized. It is a mixture of light platoons, two or three heavy weapons squads, specialist Veteran/Armored Fist squads with Chimeras (now Valkyries), and a couple of Russes and Hell Hounds. It has no real strengths or weaknesses and is rather bland. But it has done very well and confounds my opponents (I even have terrible luck with my dice!).

Now, when I step down to the 1,500pts lists, that is when I have to make decisions, and my lists have changed drastically at that level. No armor support occasionally, or I remove the Hell Hounds, or fewer platoons and no special characters (more bare bones). And what I do matters much more. Previously, I would set up my line and sit with 75% of my army, moving units later in the game to take objectives. Pretty much the same, extremely simple tactics over and over.

Smaller games? No such luck. One change in my opponents deployment dictates dramatic changes in my actions/deployment. My strategies must be much more precise, and my abysmal luck hurts much more. Yes, skill is far more important, and a bad or good roll of the dice can spell disaster or victory very quickly. That means a much more dynamic and interesting game, rather than a setup then grind like the larger games.

As said before, larger games tend to be determined by turn two or three, while smaller games can turn quickly much later in the game.

I like the much smaller, non-tourney games in the 500-750 point range. Every model matters, every shot counts, every decision is crucial. And back when I started playing, a good game was 10 Marines against 25 Orks. That was what, 1987?

Wow, I'm getting old.

I prefer 1,850 - 2,000 myself. I can field a nice Ork horde plus plenty of supporting assets. I really don't like going below 1,000 points, because ever since second edition, the game has become gradually more simplistic with fewer options. At 2,000 points, your army becomes a character and you have enough room to tailor it how you want.

gazelle wrote:I like the much smaller, non-tourney games in the 500-750 point range. Every model matters, every shot counts, every decision is crucial. And back when I started playing, a good game was 10 Marines against 25 Orks. That was what, 1987?

Wow, I'm getting old.

Yeah, one roll that goes awry can turn the whole battle south though. /shrug

Playing in larger points certainly doesn't make it like two different armies. You simply have more in a army.

@ Inq._Syph. : I didn't say "different" armies, just two of them. If you have enough in one army to make two (or close enough), then you have two armies.

@ gazelle : Yeah, you can make huge armies with "character," but 95% of the time it's the same character people are making, and that's the problem. Most Space Marine armies I see are the same one of a handful, with small accents that are different (a meltagun here, and lascannon there), same goes for IG, Eldar, Ork, Tau, Necron, and all the others. They will have the same core as most others, the same troops, support, etc... as most other lists. Why? Well because it's easy to take that aggregate to help diffuse your other decisions or encountering things your accents don't handle so well, so you don't have to rely on tactics, rather than rely on your build to win your game.

I like the 1500 point range myself. IMO, people who prefer the higher point games tend to be powergamers/list gamers. They want to build lists that overwhelm as opposed to playing a game of precision. I see this complaint about one bad roll can ruin a lower point game and I just shake my head. One bad roll can change/ruin any game, even with redundancy. In the lower point games the onus is upon only being in Range/LoS when you want to strike and to do so in a manner that cripples your opponents ability to retaliate.

Lower point games are a duel of wits because the game was designed to be played at those point levels on the Standard 6'x4' Game board. The larger point games are like a child slamming two toy cars head-in into one another because the standard game board is too small for the 2000 point level.

If you want to understand the difference, Use the Apoc rule about only being able to deploy half of your army in a 2000 point game. It leans the game back towards fitting the board and moving for position becomes a larger part of the game. I've thought about doing a poll on whether people would like to see this as a standard deployment option in the 6th ed BRB when it comes out in a few years.

1,500 to 1850 is my preference...and on the practical side at 2000 pts games will last long if 2 horde armies plal versus each other....

2,000 pts with spearhead is just fine...spearhead games tend to play faster too...

In my own experience, Ive found that large games just stagnate. Turns take so long that the game just doesnt move & is less fun for it.

Also, as has been said, large armies are exceptionally unwieldy on regular sized tables, & the game becomes one of point & click rather than manouvring to gain the advantage. I like Focusedfire's analogy of larger games being like a child slamming two toy cars together.

I don't see any as being 'better' or a 'problem' compared to the others.

I'll use a comparison that might mystify some people here (especially the Americans), but I compare the size of a game to styles of playing Cricket.

In Cricket you have three main international types of game:

1. Twenty20
2. 1-Day Match
3. Test Match.

Starting back to front, Test Matches have been around the longest. Two innings a side, played over 5 days. You need a healthy mix of good batsmen who can stay on the pitch for long periods of time and get runs without risking wickets, and good bowlers who can uproot the same sort of batsmen on the other side - all the while having a general level of competence when it comes to fielding.

1-Day Matches are limited overs - you only get to bowl the ball 30 times (50 overs) and then you have to switch. That means you have a different style of batter - one who can score quicker than in a test match. Longevity isn't as big a deal as scoring more runs is more important. Your bowlers need to be able to change the pace and keep things moving, never let the batsmen get a rhythm going and keep the pressure up to get them out. Plus you can only use each of your bowlers for 10 overs, so you need at least 5 dedicated batsmen on your team (rather than 4 and a few part-timer bowlers). Your fielding also has to be meaner, more aggressive as getting the other team all out before they've finished their 50 overs gives you a pretty good advantage.

And then Twenty20 is an even more extreme version of a 1-Day match as you've only got 20 overs (120 balls) to get a score. The risks you take with batsmen are greater, as you must score off every ball otherwise you're wasting time. The bowlers, who can now only bowl 4 overs each, need to make their impact felt, but it's not so much about how many batsmen you get out, but run economy - they're going to score no matter what, so try and make sure that they score very little for every wicket you get.


If you take a team geared for the 'long haul' Test Match into a Twenty20 match against a specialised 20Twenty team, they're going to get creamed. They won't be in the same mindset to take the risks needed with the bat, and their bowlers won't have enough time to build up the rhythm you need for such a fast game.

The same works in reverse. A Twenty20 team playing a test match will see its innings go by very quickly, as they take needless risks and play stupid shots that will only see them returning to the pavilion with a very low score.


Different points levels of 40K function in the same way. There are certain units that you don't take in smaller games that you do take in larger games. There are certain units that have advantages in smaller games that lose that advantage once the game expands. Neither is superior to one another, they just require different styles of play.

I've always liked that about 40K. I would always approach a 1250 point list differently to a 2550 point list because you it is rare that you can take a 1250 point list and then just start adding units until you get to 2550 and call it a 'good list'. Each points level needs to be treated as a different style of game, and played in that manner.

Assuming you're playing competitively that is. If you're not, then who cares.

Well, I always used to play virtually every game size except 1500.
My reasoning(sp?) was that 1750+ gave you room for that much more, and 1000 or less you didn't need to take the extra space.
But recently I played a 1.5k game with my Crimson Fists against my mate who was playing Orks for the first time (he'd got very bored of having his necrons trashed). Unfortunately, it was Dawn of War, so I got virtually no turns of shooting before the charge hit me, and there were five objectives to claim.
At the end of it, though, I did manage to pull of a win, but just barely, because it came down to Pedro Kantor + 1 marine with a powerfist vs a warboss and a nob, between two objectives. I won, and I had another unit nearby, and at the end I won 3-1. But where I'm going with this is, I had to redo my list about 3-4 times, and I had to think about the game/deployment/tactics MUCH more.

1500 is my new general pt level.


edit: And special characters are useful in low pt games like 1500. Especially when he's in the middle of your force, giving all of your units within 12 inches +1 attack against your ork foe.

Most all tournaments were 1500 points here, 4th ed. You could get enough fun stuff in . 5th ed saw a general upscale to 1750, as it generally let you get a couple of extra troops choices in without losing the fun stuff you had before.

The complaint about high force levels is partly due to playing the same missions on the same size table.

Larger forces should be playing on a larger table, probably with more objectives.

I prefer the 1500 point game. Not being able to simply spam duplicate units means that more care has to be taken not only with what you choose to field, but how you choose to field it.

I think as the point level of the game increases, the difference in power level between the codexes is more noticeable too. Most codexes can put together a decent 1500 points. Some have trouble scaling higher than that, they run out of decent things to take. Others, especially some of the newer ones) scale higher far easier.

That’s funny. I usually agree with Red, but I think I’m on the other side of this one. IME not all armies function at as close parity at 1500, as do at 1750 or 1850. The lower the point size, the more rock/paper/scissors situations I tend to see, as with the 40k force org chart you can still take 3 heavy support (for example) whether the game size is 1k, 1500, or 2k. So for example back in 4th edition, in the Age of the HoloFalcon and Nidzilla, said Holofalcons and Nidzilla builds were more abusive and powerful at lower points values; ones where they still had access to their trick, but enemies didn’t have as many guns to deal with them. And the same principle holds true for Battlewagons now.

I LIKE low point games, and I do enjoy the different builds and thinking they force on the player. You need to make some very different decisions in a 1k or a 1500 build than a 2k build, I certainly agree. But I strongly disagree that this means a 1750 game has less tactics than a 1500pt game, unless you’re playing on a 4x4 table. No game of 40k plays properly on a too-small table, or with too little terrain. Bear in mind that I think some of the criticisms people have leveled at 2k games do hold more true at Ard Boyz points levels like 2500; at that size you’re really starting to overcrowd the 4x6 table in many cases, and a lot of stores also struggle to properly-terrain their tables for big events like that, exacerbating the issue. A lot of those games would be much better and more interesting on a 4x8 with a bunch of terrain.

What I suspect the OP may be experiencing is that the 1850 game has become stale for him simply because he’s played it too much, become overly familiar and practiced with his (and his friends’) builds at that size, and it has become too predictable and routine. His force is a well-honed sword at that particular size, and he has grown bored with it. That’s totally understandable, but doesn’t mean that point size is particularly degenerate or less tactical. Just that he is enjoying the change of pace and new problems he has to solve with having fewer resources (points) to use.

I suppose I'm a "glass half full" type of guy, but I think if I were making this post I might have titled it something like "The General's Revelation", and talked about my newfound joy in having switched things up recently; as opposed to my ennui with how I HAD been playing. It's always worth also bearing in mind that your local environment is not "how 40k is", except near you. For example, remember that in England 1500 is still the dominant point size, and the English GW GTs have been 1500 for three editions (11 years) now. I'm sure there are guys on that side of the pond who have grown equally bored with the builds at 1500pts, and someone over there has recently had a revelation about the new possibilities and tactical dimensions that have opened up to him now that he's recently started playing 1750 games.

I appologise that i haven't read all the thread or even most of it but from what i have read, I prefer a range of different points games tourneys IMHO should be small in points 1000-1500 to allow small fast skirmishes but i do enjoy the occasional weekend long 36-48 hour games where you throw everything at your opponant.

@ Mannahnin : I, uh.... don't know where you got all that from about me, but it's just about all wrong.... I've been playing for over ten years now (1997/1998) and although I skipped out almost entirely on 4th Edition (seriously, that made me quit for then entire edition, coming back only a few months before 5th was released and made the game playable again), but since I returned, well I've played enough games at most all the points levels (1k+) to have a pretty good grasp of the dynamics of the game.

What I have found is that below 1,500pts the ceiling gets a little too low for many of the armies to play well with fixed lists (tournament style) and above 1,500pts the game starts to bland out quicker. That is to say it occurs on a relativistic scaling, the changes not really becoming noticeable for about +/- 250pts. With customized lists (friendly games) you can play reasonably well at most any points level.

In fact, I am specifically saying, that with tournament styled lists, the higher the points, the less actual tactics. That is not a revelation for a new style of play, nor a confusion or stagnation in the game (the FLGS I go to have a pretty good turnover of new and old players). I am not saying that 1,500pts is the only way to play, nay, you can play 40k however you like. It is my opinion of the game, that I would rather see more skill on the table rather than in writing the lists.

gazelle wrote:I like the much smaller, non-tourney games in the 500-750 point range. Every model matters, every shot counts, every decision is crucial. And back when I started playing, a good game was 10 Marines against 25 Orks. That was what, 1987?

Wow, I'm getting old.

Hahaha you've been playing for as long as I have lived, that's sort of scary
For me anything between 1000 and 2000 works, each 500 pt increment changes the game a bit but I like it like that, just write different lists for each point level instead of having an army you can change for different point matches (I find this doesn't work that well, maybe I just can't write a good list like that though). I don't like anything above 2000, mainly because my store only plays on 6x4s and 4x4s and you simply need more space for >2000 point games, if I had a home gaming group were we were making tables I could probably play >2000 games as I would have a bigger table.

yournamehere wrote:

gazelle wrote:I like the much smaller, non-tourney games in the 500-750 point range. Every model matters, every shot counts, every decision is crucial. And back when I started playing, a good game was 10 Marines against 25 Orks. That was what, 1987?

Wow, I'm getting old.

Hahaha you've been playing for as long as I have lived, that's sort of scary
For me anything between 1000 and 2000 works, each 500 pt increment changes the game a bit but I like it like that, just write different lists for each point level instead of having an army you can change for different point matches (I find this doesn't work that well, maybe I just can't write a good list like that though). I don't like anything above 2000, mainly because my store only plays on 6x4s and 4x4s and you simply need more space for >2000 point games, if I had a home gaming group were we were making tables I could probably play >2000 games as I would have a bigger table.

Floorhammer ahoy!

Oh floorhammer, even I have played my fair share of that (specifically garage floorhammer).

1 solution where everyone will be happy is to simply hold tourneys with different point sizes. Locally we have a tourney roughly once every 2 months, and the pointages vary from 1500 to 2000, depending on the TO. Heck recently we did a modified spearhead tourney, and the pointage was 1513 (!!!), with a bonus if your list was exactly 1513! Crazy TO's, but all who joined managed to scrape together 1513 pts..(for BA players, now that's a reason to get searchlights...).

Skinnattittar wrote:@ Inq._Syph. : I didn't say "different" armies, just two of them. If you have enough in one army to make two (or close enough), then you have two armies.

Nope. Synergy is one of the most important factors in 40k list building.

Every time I play floorhammer at least two flight stands snap.

Locally, my store always played 1,000-1500 point games, and for me, that's how I like to play. Makes the game fast yet still exciting enough to be interesting to play, in my opinion. 'Course, if I was being objective, I'd say that it depends on the kind of game people want to play, and how they like their armies to be built.