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.

I see lots and lots of competitive games listed on the nets and locally as well and so many are running 1850 point games.
Is there a reason this is such a re-occurring point value?
A friend and I were discussing it and he said that the Euro guys typically play at 1500 as a cap.

Based on that he was theorizing that Americans just like to go overboard in general and that probably includes 40k?

I was guessing that it has to do with Americans liking to field huge amounts of armor vs. the Brits who still prefer infantry.

As a cultural norm anyway.

Thoughts?

1500 was an old classic standard in the US and UK, especially in the late 90s, when 3rd edition came out. Back in 2nd, points values for games frequently were in the 2000-3000pt range, as unit point costs were much higher, so you needed to play with that many points to get more than a couple of squads and a couple of tanks on the table. Once 3rd arrived, you could get 30-odd marines, plus several support vehicles, and an elite unit or two, on the table in 1500pts.

1500 was a very common size in tournaments, and the UKGT kept it up to the present day, IIRC. However, other events (in the UK and other countries) have frequently involved trying different sizes, many of them larger. The US GTs only kept it at 1500 for a couple of years, though (my first GT was Baltimore 2001, and it was 1700/2200pts, a 1200pt core list with choice to use one of two different 500pt blocks each game), and varied it from year to year.

Larger point sizes let you fit more of your toys into a game, and make the armies a bit more resiliant- less subject to being crippled because one or two units rolled badly on their saves. And any change in point size changes the list dynamics; at 1500 I can only fit the essential core units for a Chaos army, really. But at 2k I can experiment more and use different strategies.

The most common points sizes seen at events around the world for 40k are probably 1500 and 2000, with 1750 being another common and logical size. 1850 just tweaks the dynamic slightly; letting you squeeze a little more stuff in without taking as long as 2000.

I always wondered that. Where I live (UK), 1500, 2000 and 3000 are the standard game sizes, yet other places use different point limits.

Pretty interesting.

Thanks for the awesome reply Mann.
Greatly appreciated.
=)

I run games in 1000 point intervals, with the exception of the occasional 500 point game, where every unit is an independant character...

WHen I was in China I played a French guy a lot, he'd never heard of 1850 games.

I THINK it came from a GT where the games were 1500 but you could have an additional 350 for the last game or something like that. Then 1850 just stuck.

It's a random amount, but one that surprisingly works pretty well. I prefer it over 1750, but 1500/2000 are my personal favorites.

Well, if we're just making generalizations, i always figured brits/aussies just played 1500 pts because theyre all too poor to afford more models ....

I think people play a lot of 1850pt games because the Adepticon Championships are 1850pts. They got to 1850pts at Adepticon, IIRC, as a compromise between people who wanted them to be 1750pts and people who wanted 2000pts

Mannahnin wrote:
Larger point sizes let you fit more of your toys into a game, and make the armies a bit more resiliant- less subject to being crippled because one or two units rolled badly on their saves.

But more likely that you're going to lose if you don't get the first turn. As you will certainly be using your most important units before you even get to go as a zillion points removes them from the table.

Not sure I agree with losing if you don't get the first turn in larger point games. It definitely affects the dynamic...but while I definitely prefer the first turn, not getting it just means I reserve and change my tactics for the game.

Dashofpepper wrote:Not sure I agree with losing if you don't get the first turn in larger point games. It definitely affects the dynamic...but while I definitely prefer the first turn, not getting it just means I reserve and change my tactics for the game.

Yes, I was being overly simplistic.

Not all armies are equally capable of playing with the second turn in games of bloated point sizes.

1850 is bloated? o.O

Dashofpepper wrote:1850 is bloated? o.O

With apologies for the + 1 post, I really must second this.

At the Platinum Devil events we have been playing games at 500, 1,000 and 1,250.

This level creates more difficult choices for some armies, but it allows games to be finished quickly. We played seven or eight games in two short days last time.

Kilkrazy wrote:At the Platinum Devil events we have been playing games at 500, 1,000 and 1,250.

This level creates more difficult choices for some armies, but it allows games to be finished quickly. We played seven or eight games in two short days last time.

I'm honestly surprised you didn't get more than 8 games in 2 days at an average point cost of less than 1,000. It would take...what... an hour to play 1,000? Even if one of the players has the hordiest of hordes?

As soon as you take some casualties, you've lost a significant chunk of your list and there's minimal opportunity to 'make a comeback' due to players' resource pool being low.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Larger point sizes let you fit more of your toys into a game, and make the armies a bit more resiliant- less subject to being crippled because one or two units rolled badly on their saves.

But more likely that you're going to lose if you don't get the first turn. As you will certainly be using your most important units before you even get to go as a zillion points removes them from the table.

I still have to take a little bit of issue with even your more restrained rephrasing. 1850 is fine. The first turn massacre effect which Nick Rose got in the 2009 ardboyz relied on three things- a) A large-points army (like 2500+) on a too-small table (4x6 is fine up to about 2000 or so, then starts to be a bit cramped), b) An army list specifically designed for alpha strike, at the cost of other abilities, C) Inadequate terrain, and D) Opponents who didn't have the sense to properly evaluate his list and make smart use of Reserves.

That last factor was also exacerbated by a couple of other contributing factors. For one, the 2009 Ardboyz final was three rounds with 63 players. You needed to win big to have a good shot at winning overall (I came 9th with a massacre, a major, and a draw). Some opponents may have chosen not to Reserve, even after Nick won the roll for first turn, because they realized that Reserving might allow them to win, but would prevent them from winning big and getting the Massacre. So they figured better to gamble big and try to Seize the Initatitive to give themselves a chance at the Massacre win. For another, we were only a year into 5th edition and even in good, competitive play, not everyone had fully adapted their lists to take full advantage of voluntary Reserves tactics.

In regular 5th ed 40k, Alpha striking is not that big a deal, because you can still win the game on KPs or Objectives even if you take some damage early and/or have to Reserve. It was more of an issue in 4th, under the Victory Point paradigm.

Dashofpepper wrote:1850 is bloated? o.O

Absolutely.

2k is generally preferable to me. 1500-1850 is alright. 1000 is generally the minimum. 500 pts is too low unless its helping someone learn the game mechanics.

Why 1850 (as opposed to 1750) is probably tradition.

Most people like playing higher points games because they can fit more of their shiny bits from their codex in their list. I personally like 1500 points or lower, because it forces you to make real choices about your list. At 1850, you can just sort of include a bunch of different things without bothering. At lower points levels, you just can't afford it. It's sort of like having a writing assignment where you need to do an essay that's FEWER than 5 pages. As Sid Meier once said, games are fun because they force the player to make choices. The higher points you play, the less this becomes true.

Also, once you get up to 1850 (and higher), games with a horde player start running into the hours unless you're working at a frantic pace to move stuff, which isn't very fun for weekly play.

And I agree, 1000 is the minimum. Below that, certain armies just can't be competitive due to the nature of their codex.

sourclams wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:At the Platinum Devil events we have been playing games at 500, 1,000 and 1,250.

This level creates more difficult choices for some armies, but it allows games to be finished quickly. We played seven or eight games in two short days last time.

I'm honestly surprised you didn't get more than 8 games in 2 days at an average point cost of less than 1,000. It would take...what... an hour to play 1,000? Even if one of the players has the hordiest of hordes?

As soon as you take some casualties, you've lost a significant chunk of your list and there's minimal opportunity to 'make a comeback' due to players' resource pool being low.

We don't start until maybe 10:30, we knock off for lunch after a couple of games. After another couple of games we pack up and go to the pub. An hour per game is roughly the timing.



I should make it clear the first event was 1,000, and the second was an acceleration tournament with games at 500, 1,000, 1,000, 1,250, 1,000, 1,250, something like that. The average game was probably 1,000 points.

Also there was heavy snow which delayed the start.