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.

This is in response to a few threads about tournament formats. Generally, with the increase to playing time of 6th edition 40k (and particularly set up time), less people are managing to complete their games at tournaments. Games that finish early can skew scores, and a too-short time limit can be abused more easily by slow players.

Since 6ed is reducing the costs of most units across the board, reducing tournament point values from their current 1850 would seem to solve the problem - the games would be quicker and be more likely to complete naturally. It would also be easier for people to collect and paint an army in time.

On the other hand, people get less toys to use in their armies.

So, would you attend tournaments at lower points limits if it meant that you completed / got to play more games?



.

I said 1850, but I'd be willing to try 1650-1750 points levels to see what's up.

I prefer 1850 for GTs. I can count on one hand tourney games I've had end by time getting called. 1850 is enough to give us a large spread of armies, fit in whatever toys people like, but not silly stuff like double FOC.

Really, I'm cool with any points level. I do prefer 1500 for one-day local tournies to keep things moving.

I'm cool with whatever man.. gimme dem points... 500... 5000... its all gravy...

I can still get my games done on time. I'd rather have higher point games at tournaments, personally.

I prefer small games anyway. 1250/1500 is much more appealing to me than 1850+, the fact that it helps things stay on schedule better is just a nice bonus.

1500-1750 is the optimal range for 6th edition IMO-- in particular, listbuilding becomes much more interesting at 1500.

I think that an issue with this question is one of familiarity. 1850 has been a standard for quite a long time in my area, so not only is that what people have the models for, it's also their frame of reference. If you tell a person with experience playing 1850 to play at 1500, it feels like they are "losing" 350 points. If you tell a person who normally plays 1500 to play 1850, they are "gaining" points instead. I'm sure a psychology major can correct me, but my bet is that people are less willing to "lose" points than "gain" them.

Yes, it's true they are actually gaining or losing nothing as the whole format is different and a list will often be built from scratch instead of entirely made up of entries from a prior list, but it is what it is. Dropping points values from a norm will always be met with more resistance than raising them in my opinion. That said, if a few big tourneys simply ran 1500 point events for a while then the mind set would start to change.

In the past, there was a good argument for 5th edition games to be 2000 points because the really efficient units of the time like long fangs got maxed within the first 1500 points. This left 500 points to go into some of the less efficient choices, which helped both army variety and codex balance. Variety was improved because once the mathematically best force org slots got filled players had points in the less efficient slots to personalize their force with that would not take away from their overall power. Balance was improved because if a codex had a clear lead with some force org slots over another army, when points pushed the better army out of the most efficient slots the well rounded books with fewer standout units had a chance to catch up.

Obvious example: in 5th edition at 1000 points a space wolf list could get 4 good hq units, 15 missile launchers and 2 troops to sit home with. It would be enough to table many, many opponents unless they brought some very specific counters. At 2000 points, that force was still limited to 4 hq units, already had max missiles in the cheapest slot, and so was forced to spend on troops, elites and fast attack units. Those units were not bad, but also not nearly as efficient.

So back to the OP, what has changed from 5th to 6th that would invalidate this lesson about larger point games being better for balance and variety? In one word, ALLIES. With allies, you effectively have many extra slots for another armies most efficient units, meaning in 6th edition you never run out of efficient unit slots of a particular type. Per the main rule book at 2000 in 6th, what was once considered a fairer 5th edition point limit, you now get 2 force org slots, really driving home the most efficient units. Put in plain terms, you can build really really unbalanced lists at all points levels now, so unbalanced lists are simply part of the game now. As a quick example, you can spam 3 rip tides at 1000 points, and you can get even more at 1850, and even more at 2000 and every 180 points after that.

What does this all lead to? Basically, because we are spoiled for efficient force org slots, point values can no longer be used to establish balance in a tournament environment without changing the 6th Ed rule set with restrictions like no allies or heavy composition scoring. This means that we can play almost any sized games we want and still get the same fidelity with results. Thus 1500 versus 1850, either way you will have similar unbalanced forces, meaning the only true difference should be how long the game takes to play.

The good news in all of this? Since every army has access to allies, variety is maintained at 5th edition levels. Sure you may see lots of demons, tau or eldar for example, but within those armies will be different, yet still unbalanced, builds. One list may have 5 flying monsters, another may have 60 seekers. One may have 4 riptides, another 12 broadsides. One 7 wave serpents, another all warlock bikes.

So in summary: I feel people will not want to play lower point games because they feel like they are losing something, but in 6th edition variety and balance are not changed by playing smaller point games like was the case in 5th Ed. Thus, smaller games, with their quicker play times, lower model investment for new players and slightly reduced painting component seem a great fit for tournament games.

The bigger the points limit the better IMO. I've always enjoyed games where you could field more stuff and I generally always finish my games-some times even with an hour to spare :/.

I know that everyone has their own preferences and so on but tournament play is a timed event by nature so people should strive to get things done faster.

I would not play in a 1500 point tournament... Almost like combat patrol in my opinion.

Well if at 1500pt I can field my whole ork army and still finish on time then anyone should be able. Learn to speed move, learn to speed roll, don't be a dick, simple as that.

1500 points forces you to make serious compromises in list building. It's been my favorite points value for 4 editions running...

1850 Is my vote for minimum! armies start to become more unique at that level as people add in their own styles and get creative.

1500!!! That is the logistically best time limit for tournaments as it makes for a leisurely pace and shorter day. However, most tournament players always push for more points to make what they perceive to be stronger lists.

 Overlord Zerrtin wrote:
1850 Is my vote for minimum! armies start to become more unique at that level as people add in their own styles and get creative.

Sadly not in my experince.


1500 is proving to be a right ball ache to decide on a list for, which is proving to be a good challenge!, I have a 1500pt tourny next month, just finished a 1750 tourny last weekend, and a 1650 in November so these point levels are being very useful for me as the 1650 is the big un so a good training ground.

MikeFox wrote:Well if at 1500pt I can field my whole ork army and still finish on time then anyone should be able. Learn to speed move, learn to speed roll, don't be a dick, simple as that.

Sometimes even at the higher points levels you'll run into people who are just "being a dick".

NuggzTheNinja wrote:1500 points forces you to make serious compromises in list building. It's been my favorite points value for 4 editions running...

While I enjoy the higher point games I also have come to enjoy 1500 ever since Game Empire Pasadena has started running events at 1500 due to the onset of 6th and it being both slower and less familiar to players. We kept it at 1500 because the pace of codex release has made unfamiliarity with rules a persistent time management issue.

Reece! Run 1500 at one of your events. Lord knows you run enough of them Just be certain it is one of the ones I can actually attend.

We set the points limit for MechaniCon 2012 at 1500. This was because we expected lots of extra book references due to the new version of the game. Looking over the comment cards, most players liked it a lot. Also, some feedback we have gotten from this year's registered players still like 1500.

We set Mech 13's points at 1850 to let players use the same army at many events. Dropping back down to 1500 next year will be one of the questions added to this year's comment card.

With that being said, I love that there are events that offer many different rules, number of rounds and points. I do not want an "Independent Tournament" unification but it is great if there are a few that have similarities.

I think 1750 is a nice point level whether it be tournaments or casual play.

1500 also plays at a great pace, but can limit more elite armies. The extra 250 pt buffer enabled even the most elite armies to have decent scoring ability and much needed AA.

Personally, I think 800 point games are fun if you're runing a really big tourney (you know, a few core units and a couple of tactical options). But for a small tourney in which you've got lots of time, I prefer 1500, 1750, or 2000, for the simple reason of having a nice, round number to build your army to. 1500 can have an army based around a tactical, while higher develops that. If you want a really good tourney, apocalypse is already an option although it isn't that ideal.

I think Variety is the Key. If you host multiple events then host one at 1500, then another at 1850, then another at 2000.

This weekend at BFS was insightful. 1999+1 points level, nearly every game finished. I personally finished every game with 50+ minutes to spare. Three hour rounds. Curious.

Curious Mike, how much time was their between rounds at the BFS and how much time was there between posting pairings and the start of the round?

Honestly, I like the idea of 3 hours but for where it isn't possible I'm becoming a fan of dropping the point values slightly. 1750-1500.

15 Minutes between rounds, 45 minutes for Lunch

posted a little data at
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/550182.page regarding the BFS. We played 1999 +1

I'd be less inclined to go to a 1750 pt tournament, and would probably never go to a 1500 pt tournament. I also barely ever go to 2000 pt tournaments but thats due to rarity of those more than anything. I play 1850 pt GTs 3-4 times a year, mostly out of familiarity/personal preference. I would say that if one event out of the 3-4 I go to were to increase pts, I wouldnt mind, whereas if one decreased I may look to an alternate event. I wouldnt stop going to tournaments alltogether however if all of the events I typically go to decreased/increased pts. Also I find that most tournament games I play end naturally, with time being called being the exception to the rule more often than not. I've been playing in GTs since 4th edition, and 1850 has been relatively standard throughout that timeframe (6-7 years), so the small number of games being called due to time may stem from experience and the acquired ability to speedplay. I've only attended 4 6th edition GTs and I'll say that this edition 'feels' slower, but in an unquantifiable term IE not slow enough to be of major detriment.

 Reecius wrote:
1500!!! That is the logistically best time limit for tournaments as it makes for a leisurely pace and shorter day. However, most tournament players always push for more points to make what they perceive to be stronger lists.

I'm with Reecius.

I can play a fun game at 1500. Less models means that games will naturally go faster.
Why? Well, your not rolling as many dice, moving as many models, etc...

I prefer games of 1500, though I've never played a tournament lower than 1750 (and that was in 2005). I play 2000 casually most of the time because it's what others want to play. I reserve 2500+ casual games for select people, who I am good friends with and know that we will be able to play quickly but can joke around and not worry about time.

If everyone played 1500 on casual gaming days at the store, I'd be able to play 5-6 games all day. Since I can only go to the store every other weekend, that would be a big plus. I am trying to run a tournament soon, and it will be 1500.

I tend to think you should select a points level that works for the time allocations and your player base. Commentary that infers people are idiots if they think 1500 isn't enough for a TAC environment is not very helpful to a case.

BFS this past weekend set at 2000 and nearly every game finished with 3 hours per round, and I never felt a frenetic pace going on at any table ... I personally finished every game with almost an hour to spare, but hey ... great for me ... I got to take my opponents for a beer after games before the next rounds.

I agree with Tironum's post in a lot of ways ... instead of inferring people are idiots for wanting a higher points level than 1500, or inferring that it's the ONLY functional points level for a tournament ... try instead to make your event work as well as you can for its attendees, and appreciate that there's a wide variety of options to attend. Plus, with 1850 still being mostly the norm, there's also a "standard" of sorts for those who don't want to have to constantly tweak their list for the next event. Everyone gets to be happy!

The only thing that gets rough is if a TO runs an event at a certain size and points limit, and comes out of it going WELL WHAT I DID WAS PERFECT. An event always bears honest self-critique in the aftermath if you want it to get better.

MVBrandt wrote:
I tend to think you should select a points level that works for the time allocations and your player base. Commentary that infers people are idiots if they think 1500 isn't enough for a TAC environment is not very helpful to a case.

BFS this past weekend set at 2000 and nearly every game finished with 3 hours per round, and I never felt a frenetic pace going on at any table ... I personally finished every game with almost an hour to spare, but hey ... great for me ... I got to take my opponents for a beer after games before the next rounds.

I agree with Tironum's post in a lot of ways ... instead of inferring people are idiots for wanting a higher points level than 1500, or inferring that it's the ONLY functional points level for a tournament ... try instead to make your event work as well as you can for its attendees, and appreciate that there's a wide variety of options to attend. Plus, with 1850 still being mostly the norm, there's also a "standard" of sorts for those who don't want to have to constantly tweak their list for the next event. Everyone gets to be happy!

The only thing that gets rough is if a TO runs an event at a certain size and points limit, and comes out of it going WELL WHAT I DID WAS PERFECT. An event always bears honest self-critique in the aftermath if you want it to get better.

I agree with pretty much all of this except the notion that there are a wide variety of events to attend. There is a glut of tournaments (especially GTs) in the 1850-2000 pt range. Even 1500 RTTs are relatively hard to come by.

So while I agree there's no right answer in every situation, I somewhat sympathize with people trying to vocally advocate for 1500. Because right now there are relatively far fewer options for people who would like to play at this level (for whatever reason).

I enjoy a variety of game styles myself. I have played in, and enjoyed, games from 200 point Kill Team events through 2500 point 'Ard Boys.

The variation allows different armies to shine that otherwise get lost in typical 1850-2k scene.