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 can already hear people crying foul on this.

I sat out all of 4th and 5th edition but remember playing in 2nd and 3rd edition a lot. While the game was very different (necrons were new and tau didn't exist at the time), I recall the types of games that I used to play back then. I never played tournaments nor thought about the idea much at all. We played 1200-1500pts max and was almost always play until someone was tabled or conceded.

Fast forward to today and we're looking at 1750-1850pts being common across tournaments and objective based missions that rely more on the last turn or two of the game than the entire game as a whole. Listening to podcasts and reading on the tournament focused blogs/forums, I keep hearing people complain about combos and deathstars that are upwards of 800pts and also games not able to finish within the 2.5hr timeframe imposed. Now, every army can complete a game within 2.5hrs - that's not the point; however, what I'm wondering is if 1850 is too many points.

Is the game be more balanced (relative to the new tau and eldar brokenness) at 1200 or 1500? Taking a massive combo is still possible at that range; however, you're now limited on what else you can take; the percentages get adjusted.

Just a thought I had and while the greater tournament scene will continue to run 1850, I'm wondering if all of their conversation about comp and other limitations associated with the dominate armies and combos could be addressed by simply scaling back the points.

2K Point games are fairly common, almost the standard. As far as "balancing" goes? Depends on the armies involved. Some play better at higher points, others at lower.

Odd here the norm is 1500 . all games cap at 1999pts , there are some tournaments that play 1750 , but they are few .

May simply depend on the local scene and what the norm is for there, rather than asking the internet-at-large.

Pretty much anywhere I've lived in the US 1850pt is the standard for tournaments so people usually gravitate towards that.

For pickup games I'm usually seeing people play 2K so everyone can bring their fun units and toys.

 Psienesis wrote:
May simply depend on the local scene and what the norm is for there, rather than asking the internet-at-large.

True but you look at some of the major GTs and, like you said, most are 1750/1850. Local metas will of course run tournaments at various point ranges and restrictions but others also try to match the GT standards as practice and in hopes of aspiring to reach that level. So in a way, I'm still curious as a whole since I have seen a lot of people post on Dakka that fall into this latter category.

When I say 2k, I should actually specify that it's most-often 1999+1, which limits you to the one FOC... in the few shops around here that run games, there's a lot of big armies on tables.

My local runs 2000 Pts, double FOC allowed, Stronghold assault allowed.

We're running a 2500 pt escalation tournament next month.

For home play i usually end up at 1500-1850.

1500-1999+1 is the normal here and a few times more

We run most games 500-1500 points. Sometimes we go bigger but we find the game is more tactical/fair and so on at 500 points. But when we want to show off armies we happily play up to 3000 and more depending on the armies.

Regarding tournaments not finishing, that's a real problem. 2 hours for a 1500 point game is reasonable. However With the constant point reduction that codexes keep doing 2 hours for an 1850 is just crazy. I wouldn't bother playing in a tournament under those time constraints. It just wouldn't be fun.

The majority of games in my area tend to be 3k. Go big or go home.

1850-2k is just about right, it allows scope for balanced armies (well, as balanced as 40k armies can get) , playable in 2-2 1/2 h, and just about enough stuff that not every game ends in a whitewash. 1500 is too few, post 2k too large.

I typically cannot find a game that is anything other than 1999+1.

However at home when the wife and I play its 2700ish or so. I am sure that is not the norm in many places.

Where I play it's all 1999 or 2K

 Unholyllama wrote:
I can already hear people crying foul on this.

I sat out all of 4th and 5th edition but remember playing in 2nd and 3rd edition a lot. While the game was very different (necrons were new and tau didn't exist at the time), I recall the types of games that I used to play back then. I never played tournaments nor thought about the idea much at all. We played 1200-1500pts max and was almost always play until someone was tabled or conceded.

Fast forward to today and we're looking at 1750-1850pts being common across tournaments and objective based missions that rely more on the last turn or two of the game than the entire game as a whole. Listening to podcasts and reading on the tournament focused blogs/forums, I keep hearing people complain about combos and deathstars that are upwards of 800pts and also games not able to finish within the 2.5hr timeframe imposed. Now, every army can complete a game within 2.5hrs - that's not the point; however, what I'm wondering is if 1850 is too many points.

Is the game be more balanced (relative to the new tau and eldar brokenness) at 1200 or 1500? Taking a massive combo is still possible at that range; however, you're now limited on what else you can take; the percentages get adjusted.

Just a thought I had and while the greater tournament scene will continue to run 1850, I'm wondering if all of their conversation about comp and other limitations associated with the dominate armies and combos could be addressed by simply scaling back the points.

At 1850 I thoroughly feel like I can take 'all the toys', while lower levels make me actually choose what to include.

So yeah, prefer lower points

1850 is my club's go-to. You get enough space for cool toys, enough room to play it on, and it's not quite at "how the hell do I fill my points out" levels.

I play any points level from 200-pt KT games all the way to 15,000 point Apoc games. Too much higher and I start having to field both armies together, which becomes difficult.

Usually I just say to my opponent "Hey, what point's level do you want to play?" and (as long as it isn't something weird) whip out one of my pre-prepared lists.

My club plays to 1500 usually.
But our local charity tournament is doubles, at 875 each, or 1750 per team. These usually end at turn 3 though, due to taking an hour per turn. We only get our venue for 4 hours a week.

So someone who has a 1500 meta should answer his question as to the strength of the regular Tournament winners at lower points values, this wasn't a survey.

I'll do it for you though - they are generally even stronger. You can still fit 3 riptide or your screamer star at 1500 points (and lower), you have less of the other lesser OP stuff in your army and your opponent has less models to deal with the OP core. There are some exceptions, some builds need all their points to work well, but it's never anything drastic. So no it doesn't really shake up the OP meta at all. I think you were actually going in the wrong direction, 1999 points would be more balanced, but of course time is an issue, so I think 1750-1850 is a good middleground for Tourneys. I think I personally enjoy 1500 more though for non-tourney games, its faster and more cutthroat and relies more heavily on list building and it's definitely a lot of fun, with the downside of the usual overpowered suspects being pretty much incontestable of course, but hey you can pick your fights at your FLGS.

I'm from a mostly 1500 meta.

In earlier editions, we often saw 2k tournies.
Currently, i'm seeing 1850. The only issue I have is that it makes for a long day. I'd say that it your going to lower the points , lower it to like 1k so you could get in 4 or 5 games instead of 3. but 1850 isnt bad.

I rather like 1850. Above that, the games take too long. Less than that, you can only take 1 cool toy!

I think that any game above 1500 is a pretty big game, and at that level of point it leads to imprudent points expenditure for some. 1000-1500pts fight to the death is a solid amount, which allows for flexibility in list making. Also, one must consider that at 2000 points, the standard 4'x4' board, or even the 6'x4', has its deployment zones cramped, something which is a greater problem with larger armies.

Well, in our RTTs we have a time limit of 150 minutes (or 2 and a half hour). We prefer smaller pt limits, like 1650 to 1750 pts, since our experience tells us that at larger pt limits, say 1850 or more, the time limit can often not be met.

We play 2.5k games. At larger points some of the weaker armies start to shine (GK, non-Tzeentch daemons, CSM, Orks) and once set up, games rarely exceed 3hrs. Double force org isn't the boogeyman people fear it to be. I've never understood the 1999+1 issue. What list do you think you're avoiding with that?

We normally play ay 1k5, it help keeps the game from being taking ages & lets people who don't have a huge amount of models to play.

GW is dropping all the points on units in a effort to get people to buy more stuff but personally the gaming table is getting pretty bloated.

I think at smaller points values, list building & in-game tactics are more important than spam the latest hotness.

I personally think that 1500 is probably the best points value to play at if you're looking for some semblance of balance. It's high enough that you can actually run a few of your toys, as in more than just a small handful of non-troop, non-HQ units, but it's still low enough that you can't run a super-powered death star without sacrificing something else. Once you start getting up to 1850, 2000 points, you're really getting to the point where taking that death star isn't cutting into your troops - and depending on the army, even some of your big guns.

For instance, with my Space Wolves, I occasionally run a deathstar that I call the Wolf Court, which is four Wolf Lords on wolfback, each of them loaded up with gear (shields and some kind of power weapon, plus runic armor). The whole thing runs me around 900 points, but it's hard to kill and it can just fly across the board. Now, at 2000 points, that's fine - I can still load my list with 3-4 10-man squads of Grey Hunters in drop pods, plus a handful of Long Fangs. But at 1500, well, that leaves me just 600 points for troops, and the way I typically run my Grey Hunters has them at 205. I might be able to just barely squeak out three squads, and that's if I drop some upgrades somewhere - plus it leaves me with no support, and my entire army is in four units.

Although I do enjoy playing at 2000+ for fun games (because really, who doesn't like to fill out their FOC with everything they've got?), I really think that 1500 strikes a fine balance between being large enough to bring some more elite units while still being small enough to dissuade people from running super killy death squads.

I personally don't like to play over 1500 points in 40k. I find once you get over that there is to many fliers and tanks and skimmers and junk and the board just gets clogged up.

1250 is my favorite to play because you can get some vehicles and stuff in and I find the game to be the most balanced.

I like the 1250/1500 range myself. You have to pick which toys to bring, and mobility becomes more important, I think...

1850 is actually my favourite points level. I can always make a decent list at that points barrier, shared with a base 1000pts.