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.

Obviously doesn't exist. There is no perfect solution. However, unless I'm missing something, I think this would massively hurt Seer Councils, Screamer Councils, Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures, Riptide Spam, FMC spam, and other lists that could be viewed as problematic.

What if the standard size for a 40k game became 750-1000 points?

Thinking about the pro's and con's:

+ Deathstars would take a big hit. If you can afford the deathstar at all, you'll be left with almost no support and extremely light troops. Superheavies would deal with the same problem.

+ Games would go much faster. I personally enjoy games that take longer, but this would probably help the tournament scene.

+ If 750 pts was the norm, the game would be much cheaper for newer players. ($200 could easily build a good army)

+ There would be more list variety. At such low points, you can't fit all of the good units into your army.

+ Just about every list would have a clear weakness. No 750 point list is resilient, has good anti-tank, good anti-MC, good anti-infantry, AND good scoring units.

- This would discourage the use of expensive units. A single Daemon Prince would make up 1/3 of your army. On the other hand, he would feel really badass. Not many things could fight him at 750 pts.

- There would still be balance issues. You can still fit 3 Riptides in 750 (although they would have no support and 2 minimum troops).

I'm clearly missing a bunch but what are your thoughts? Would this be something worth trying?

And how would you bring this about, the only thing determining the 'standard' size is what an area's players feel is the 'right' size for them.

Siphen wrote:
+ Just about every list would have a clear weakness. No 750 point list is resilient, has good anti-tank, good anti-MC, good anti-infantry, AND good scoring units.

This is not a good thing. If no list can cover all possible threats then the game becomes a slightly more complicated rock/paper/scissors match where the outcome of the game is decided by which type of list you're facing. If you get lucky and face one you're prepared for, you might win. If you happen to face the threat you weren't prepared for you lose without any real chance of fighting back. So why even bother playing the game?

- This would discourage the use of expensive units. A single Daemon Prince would make up 1/3 of your army. On the other hand, he would feel really badass. Not many things could fight him at 750 pts.

This is not a good thing. If the "standard" game size rules out a lot of units then people aren't going to be happy with it. People want to use their cool toys, and not just in unbalanced lists which consist of one major unit and token support.

750 pts is a great entry level, game between friends point level. This tends to be the escalation league "sweet spot" in my experience. It also is a great place to teach people as the games are short (well should be if there wasn't so much teaching).

It is however horribly unbalanced. Every game unless agreed upon before hand becomes rock, paper, leman russ...except for IG armies who can take 1 leman russ, 1 vendetta, 6 scoring troops, and an HQ and still have 160 pts remaining. Most armies struggle to include even a single counter to every unit/vehicle type even at 1000 pts.

You also completely eliminate several army archetypes from existing such as deathwing.

If you are so concerned about death stars just house rule 2++ rerollables to be 2++/4++. Not sure why FMC is listed with the others...poor FMCs.

I played in a 750 only one time , when I started gaming . My first game was against a GK cotez army with 6 las plas and psybecks with 6x3henchman and some paladins . Can't remember my second , but my third was against a SW with 2 mini GH in razorbacks , 3 units of LF with razorbacks and terminators with cyclons for the LF squads . That tought me that playing under 1500 pts does not make good w40k games.

I am 100% for this.

I have been playing 500, 750 and 1000 points for a while and they are fast, enjoyable and fun. It solves a lot of balance problems too... or exacerbate them, depending on the rules.

Rules for 500 pts / 750 pts:
1) No flyers.
2) No fortifications
3) No allies.
4) No named characters
5) Not a single unit over 200 points, including dedicated transports.
6) No famous mega-combos utterly broken.
7) Bring about 2000 / 2500 points worth of models and take 500/750 points of them after seeing what your enemy brought.

Pros:
1) Fast and furious. If you get used to this, a 2000 points will bore you to death every single time your opponent moves.
2) You can try lots of different things.
3) If the match is unfair, at least it is short.

Cons:
1) Some options must be left behind.

A variant allowing flyers, named characters and stronger stuff is like this: you build one unit from your 2000/2500 points pool. Then it is the enemy´s turn to build one unit. And so on. So if your enemy takes Scissors you can add a little Rock, and vice versa.

My group usually plays 750, 1000, 1250 - rarely 1500+ games. The time required for a match tends to go up very fast once you increase the points even a little bit and we prefer having several games vs different opponents if we manage to set a game date.

That said small games have some problems too. Armies with expensive HQ/troops choices will be unable to bring anything else to spice it up with while others can just take minimum squads and some very cheap HQ and still pack in a killy choice or two. Armies/players with little choice will also be vulnerable (well, more vulnerable) to tailored lists since it's pretty obvious what they'll have to bring. But if you can keep the playing field level small games are good - as said you have time for more and get more practice in setting it up and playing.

I like that concept. My games are usually 1000 points, and I've seen that when playing such, you must leave some units behind, make hard decisions and play more carefully (since losing a single unit hurts more).

The chaotic feeling at 1500-2000 seems epic, but sometimes I like things simple. 1 HQ, 2-3 Troops and a sinlge flanking/supporting speciality are all that I need to have an intresting game!

But on the other hand, a "standard game level" is really hard to create on a larger scale. Maybe with group of friends you can agree things like "only 750-1250 games" or "no flyers".

I once witnessed a 500pt game of Necrons vs Chaos that included a Winged Daemon Prince of Nurgle with Nurgle's Rot. It wasn't pretty.

While I don't like that it limits what armies are available (armies with good troops become stronger the lower the points.)

I think that if you wanted to make low points work competitively you would need to go the Warmahordes route, where all players bring multiple (2 or 3) lists, look at their opponents lists and choose their army. This would help to some extent to curb the R-P-S nature of that points level because people would be less likely to run an army if their opponent might field the hard counter.

That said I still prefer larger games as you see more variety in general.