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.

With the addition of two FOC in games of 2000 points or more I think we will begin to see a lot of tournaments scaling down the points values to avoid mega cheese armies that take forever to play.


I can see 1850 becoming the most popular point value. It will allow players with standard 1500 points lists to add 350 points of allies, fortifications, or just some more non essential toys, while still being a manageable game that wont take forever to play.


What do you think?

I think it will stay at 1750 or there about but games workshop will try to put it towards 2000 - 2500 to sell more models.

- ironhandstraken

Most tournaments hereabouts are between 1500 and 1850. I don't see that changing.

You don't think the temptation of adding terrain or an ally will push the points up a bit?

Probably not, unless the game becomes significantly faster. I think part of the decision of what points to run comes down to how much time they have for the event. You could raise it, but you'd likely have to raise the set time for each round otherwise you could probably see a lot more unfinished games ended due to time out.

I very much doubt that tournaments will include allies, given that they mostly never have in any of the previous editions.

Besides which, it's the higher points limit that goes the furthest towards making the Allies rules unbalanced. For smaller games, they're going to be more self-limiting due to the points constraints from compulsory units.

I think one of the goals with 6th was to speed up some areas of the game a bit, since wound allocation changed so you can't have 10 wounds on 10 paladins so easily (at least 3~4 would die) so that is about... 30~40 shots less? (I know it is something silly like each paladin can put out 10 shots a phase)

It is a bit easier to kill things like vehicles and models, vehicles with their glancing to death, BS1 firing when being charged could kill some models along with the I10 hit from jump infantry and the change in wound allocation.

fortifications taking up around 50~200 points (so less stuff moving, shooting, and assaulting)

Unless you do something like a 360 gretchen I have a feeling there will still be a lot of vehicles moving around but not as much as it was before.

I have a feeling tourny play wont change with 6th ed. If you look at WHFB 8th ed. you'll notice the game was made to run on a 3,000 point scale however most tourny play stayed around 1750 - 2000 points. I see the same thing happening with 40k 6th ed. I expect to see the standard game set up for 2,000-2,500 vs 1,500 - 2,000 however I see tourny play staying about the same as it is now.

Here's the thing, you should LIKE the addition of new force org charts, as this helps older codexes more. The new codexes are usually pretty balanced between different FOC slots, and have good troops, so they don't have nearly the same problems fitting what they want in. Old codexes like Tau, Tyranids and Eldar though are usually badly stressed aroudn the Elite and Heavy choices, and have hard decisions to make on what they can take.

So a second detachment really helps the old, second tier codexes. Let's face it, GK can already take 6 psyflemen if they want, or make purifiers, paladins and henchmen troops. They don't care.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Here's the thing, you should LIKE the addition of new force org charts, as this helps older codexes more. The new codexes are usually pretty balanced between different FOC slots, and have good troops, so they don't have nearly the same problems fitting what they want in. Old codexes like Tau, Tyranids and Eldar though are usually badly stressed aroudn the Elite and Heavy choices, and have hard decisions to make on what they can take.

So a second detachment really helps the old, second tier codexes. Let's face it, GK can already take 6 psyflemen if they want, or make purifiers, paladins and henchmen troops. They don't care.

I don't think that's true for Eldar.

Our biggest weakness is our complete lack of any decent troop choice. And, a troop choice isn't cheap for Eldar.

So, by forcing us to take a second FOC, you're forcing us to take extra troop choices (I don't usually have 4 at 2000 points), which really hurts.

Yeah, allowing a 3rd Farseer is kinda nice, but it's not worth having to take another overpriced troop choice.

2k pts will be a huge turn off.

6x Long fang squads ? No thanks.

6 squads of 2x Vendetta's..

Nob bikers and Eldar seer council running side by side.

18x Broadsides that shoot different targets...

List goes on

Grakmar wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Here's the thing, you should LIKE the addition of new force org charts, as this helps older codexes more. The new codexes are usually pretty balanced between different FOC slots, and have good troops, so they don't have nearly the same problems fitting what they want in. Old codexes like Tau, Tyranids and Eldar though are usually badly stressed aroudn the Elite and Heavy choices, and have hard decisions to make on what they can take.

So a second detachment really helps the old, second tier codexes. Let's face it, GK can already take 6 psyflemen if they want, or make purifiers, paladins and henchmen troops. They don't care.

I don't think that's true for Eldar.

Our biggest weakness is our complete lack of any decent troop choice. And, a troop choice isn't cheap for Eldar.

So, by forcing us to take a second FOC, you're forcing us to take extra troop choices (I don't usually have 4 at 2000 points), which really hurts.

Yeah, allowing a 3rd Farseer is kinda nice, but it's not worth having to take another overpriced troop choice.

Pathfinders aren't all that costly, and can be bought in small units. Their sniping ability just got a boost too

I think the rules are going to favor larger games because of speed of play(and the ease in which units can get killed)

Competitivly, tournaments under 2k will probably just add games to the tournament. a 3 game tournament is now a 5 game tournament and so on.

Over 2k, tournaments might make the games bigger. So instead of 2500 it becomes 3000.



I think its going to be a very positive change for the game for established gamers. You can finally get your entire collection out on the field.

Spyder68 wrote:Eldar seer council running side by side.

You can do that now.

No one does, because that unit costs ~400 points.

4 Seer Councils = win

Grakmar wrote:

Spyder68 wrote:Eldar seer council running side by side.

You can do that now.

No one does, because that unit costs ~400 points.

It would help if you quoted the entire line, and not just what you wanted to make it look different.

From the chart thats listed... Eldar can allie with orks unless there is something i missed.

Grey Templar wrote:4 Seer Councils = win

Ummmm...... no... Have you looked at the new rules for witchblades?.... Terrible.

2250

Clthomps wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:4 Seer Councils = win

Ummmm...... no... Have you looked at the new rules for witchblades?.... Terrible.

Oh, no. What did they do to witchblades?

1999 (avoid the broken FoC chart)

Ascalam wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Here's the thing, you should LIKE the addition of new force org charts, as this helps older codexes more. The new codexes are usually pretty balanced between different FOC slots, and have good troops, so they don't have nearly the same problems fitting what they want in. Old codexes like Tau, Tyranids and Eldar though are usually badly stressed aroudn the Elite and Heavy choices, and have hard decisions to make on what they can take.

So a second detachment really helps the old, second tier codexes. Let's face it, GK can already take 6 psyflemen if they want, or make purifiers, paladins and henchmen troops. They don't care.

I don't think that's true for Eldar.

Our biggest weakness is our complete lack of any decent troop choice. And, a troop choice isn't cheap for Eldar.

So, by forcing us to take a second FOC, you're forcing us to take extra troop choices (I don't usually have 4 at 2000 points), which really hurts.

Yeah, allowing a 3rd Farseer is kinda nice, but it's not worth having to take another overpriced troop choice.

Pathfinders aren't all that costly, and can be bought in small units. Their sniping ability just got a boost too

You think 20+ points for a model that fires 1 shot, has paltry armour, and the 1 shot isn't even THAT good? No, pathfinders are not worth their points.

spyguyyoda wrote:

Clthomps wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:4 Seer Councils = win

Ummmm...... no... Have you looked at the new rules for witchblades?.... Terrible.

Oh, no. What did they do to witchblades?

They didn't mess with the witchblades?! O.o

What did they do

Von Chogg

Von Chogg wrote:

Ascalam wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:Here's the thing, you should LIKE the addition of new force org charts, as this helps older codexes more. The new codexes are usually pretty balanced between different FOC slots, and have good troops, so they don't have nearly the same problems fitting what they want in. Old codexes like Tau, Tyranids and Eldar though are usually badly stressed aroudn the Elite and Heavy choices, and have hard decisions to make on what they can take.

So a second detachment really helps the old, second tier codexes. Let's face it, GK can already take 6 psyflemen if they want, or make purifiers, paladins and henchmen troops. They don't care.

I don't think that's true for Eldar.

Our biggest weakness is our complete lack of any decent troop choice. And, a troop choice isn't cheap for Eldar.

So, by forcing us to take a second FOC, you're forcing us to take extra troop choices (I don't usually have 4 at 2000 points), which really hurts.

Yeah, allowing a 3rd Farseer is kinda nice, but it's not worth having to take another overpriced troop choice.

Pathfinders aren't all that costly, and can be bought in small units. Their sniping ability just got a boost too

You think 20+ points for a model that fires 1 shot, has paltry armour, and the 1 shot isn't even THAT good? No, pathfinders are not worth their points.

spyguyyoda wrote:

Clthomps wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:4 Seer Councils = win

Ummmm...... no... Have you looked at the new rules for witchblades?.... Terrible.

Oh, no. What did they do to witchblades?

They didn't mess with the witchblades?! O.o

What did they do

Von Chogg

When that model can pick its target in a unit on a roll of 6 and is AP 1 on a roll of 6, yes i consider that points well spent, especially if you plonk them in a nice bastion or similar and snipe squad sarges and so forth from miles away.

If you don't like them, fine, but they are anything but useless.

As to the witchblade thing- there you have a totally legitimate right to complain.

1975 will be the new point cost system

Talamare wrote:1975 will be the new point cost system

Excellent year too!

1850 seems to remain constant.

2K-2500. The new foc slot and allies will bring a points shift so gw can sell more models. It goes along with their "make whats good last edition suck so people will have to fix their now subpar armies to buy new product (flyers)" strategy.

2k will be good for nids - 2 hq, 4 troops and SIX elites!

6 Elite Tau

Because I want 6 Battlesuit Teams...

Time to buy more Battlesuits

6 elite? Fast attack get an extra 3 slots too? If so I'd totally run 6- 12 vendettas. That would please me now that chimeras are a point sink with the hull points rules.

michaelcycle wrote:2K-2500. The new foc slot and allies will bring a points shift so gw can sell more models. It goes along with their "make whats good last edition suck so people will have to fix their now subpar armies to buy new product (flyers)" strategy.

Given that GW don't run their own events any more, why would their sales goals have any effect on tournament points limits?