Why 2k? Average game size discussions.

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.

**Easy E**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Speaking about Bolt Action (1st ed mostly), I always felt that 1000 points was the intended level the designer had in mind. And to that effect, when I first started playing it that was what everyone went for. I liked that level of points since you have to be careful to cover all your bases (i.e. enough men, anti-armor and artillery) and simply didn't have enough points to have almost one of very unit class (recce, tank, AFO/FO, anti-tank, sniper, that kind of thing) without hurting your overall list. However, after a few months other players wanted to bump up to 1250 so, 'They could have everything they wanted.' I wasn't fan of this as I have already decided on the unit classes I didn't want and 1250 made creating a second platoon to spam unit types much more easily.

This is a great point. In addition to liking a few quicker games in a a night, I liek that you have to make tough choices and think about how yoou will need to overcome the gaps in lower point games.

**Yodhrin**

Easy E wrote:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Speaking about Bolt Action (1st ed mostly), I always felt that 1000 points was the intended level the designer had in mind. And to that effect, when I first started playing it that was what everyone went for. I liked that level of points since you have to be careful to cover all your bases (i.e. enough men, anti-armor and artillery) and simply didn't have enough points to have almost one of very unit class (recce, tank, AFO/FO, anti-tank, sniper, that kind of thing) without hurting your overall list. However, after a few months other players wanted to bump up to 1250 so, 'They could have everything they wanted.' I wasn't fan of this as I have already decided on the unit classes I didn't want and 1250 made creating a second platoon to spam unit types much more easily.

This is a great point. In addition to liking a few quicker games in a a night, I liek that you have to make tough choices and think about how yoou will need to overcome the gaps in lower point games.

Indeed, and further still sticking with smaller army sizes means you can have more variety for the same money. Some people evidently like collecting and painting hundreds of almost exactly the same models, but personally I'd rather have several 500-1500 point forces with lots of aesthetic variety than own 10,000 points of [insert colour] [insert preferred faction] most of which never leave the cupboard.

**Blackie**

2000 points is my favorite format because too many units in 8th edition got a huge price increase, especially vehicles. I like playing armies, not a small amount of soldiers plus a few superheroes or just a centerpiece model.

In fact I love the 2000 points format with armies that don't have single dudes/vehicles that cost 200+ points. I own around 20k points of stuff and my only four units that costs 200+ points are bjorn, ghazgkull, a naut and the stormwolf and I usually keep them on the shelf when it comes to play.

2000 points games played with armies that are made by a significant amount of models and have variety (not boring greentides) are actually amazing, even if 40k is still an unbalanced game.

**edbradders**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At the other end of the spectrum, skirmish games have provided some of the best gaming moments of my life.

A handful of models on each side, and the Osprey wargames series, has given me samurai defending a village from marauding bandits, musketeers fighting the Cardinal's guard, and of course, happy memories from Necromunda and Mordheim.

Larger games have also given me some of the worst gaming moments. I remember a few years back spending a lot of time painting up an imperial guard force. Probably the best painted force I ever did. And then I put my Cadians down on the table, and 2 minutes later, I was picking them up again, and I wondered why I bothered...

That was a friendly opponent, in a friendly/casual game, and the fault was probably GW's for writing gak rules.

The maxim here is that larger games do not always guarantee enjoyment.

I second this. I do enjoy the occasional large game but some of the best games I've had have been at low points levels. There is little room for redundancy so every unit must have a purpose and every decision has to be carefully considered to avoid disaster.

Ed

Oh, and this is my 1,000th post. Aren't you lucky?