GW drops GT army size to 1750 points - thoughts?

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.

**techsoldaten**

Mmmm.... I have a radical idea for how to improve the speed of play. Would love to know what everyone thinks.

Tournaments pair people for the first round ahead of time. Players have to speak to one another on the phone.

Any players who don't talk this way sacrifice any points they would have earned in the first round.

Instead of some impersonal match where you are just hosing a stranger, suddenly you are playing someone you know, who is part of a community you care about.

I think that would make it a lot harder to play magnificently bad games. The increased communication would ensure players know who to watch out for in future tournaments, and organizers could take steps to deny certain people from being stupidly large lists.

Would be a lot easier than technical approaches to the problem.

**iGuy91**

I can dig it. Tournaments were 1750 in 6th, and it seemed to work well.

Time to look at revamping my lists to work at 1750, assuming ITC follows suit.

**Audustum**

iGuy91 wrote:
I can dig it. Tournaments were 1750 in 6th, and it seemed to work well.

Time to look at revamping my lists to work at 1750, assuming ITC follows suit.

Unit point costs were also VERY different in 6th. Most units cost more in 8th than they did in 7th, for example. People did the comparisons when the Indices came out.

**Breng77**

And then people took all the stuff that got cheaper....so armies still got bigger. Especially in model count.

**Bharring**

My 1500pt list in 8th had to add a tank and filler to flesh out a 1250 list in 7th. To get it back to 1500, it adds a crazy amount of stuff.

And the stuff it faces also gets more doods too.

**Breng77**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Cutting points doesn't have much effect on the speed of play?

In what way is it not exactly proportionate to the number of models and dice you have to roll, which would correlate exactly to the points value used?

No, I don't think so.

People have played slow games with elite armies that have low model counts and don't have as many dice to roll. There's a GW dice app for armies that have lots of dice to roll that significantly speeds up that process yet people still don't finish games.

Unless there is a mechanical reason not to play slow, people will slow play when it suits their army. Only penalising/stopping slow play somehow (docking VPs, fixing time per turn) will stop that.
LunarSol wrote:
What can be one rounded changes rather signficantly as points drop. Model durability generally matters more as points get lower.

Again I'm not so sure. I agree that durability is more important at lower points and that units operate differently with more space on the table but I'm not convinced it will significantly change the meta, in which skew lists currently thrive. Whether we play at 1500, 1750 or 2000 points, if you take a list that is "horde" and I don't have enough "anti-horde" I will be at a disadvantage. Taking a skew list almost always gives you an advantage against a list that is more rounded and hence I can't see the incentive not to take one regardless of points?

Dropping points does help speed of play. By itself it does not solve slow play, but chess clocks on their own don't get all games to reach their natural end. Fewer models on the table allows for games to be faster. It then falls to the players to play them that way. At 2k plenty of armies cannot finish games reliably even with clocks, I think both make the best solution. Make it easier to play within the time, and have a reminder/reason to play faster.

As to the idea of a sweet spot. I like 1500 because it makes list building harder, you cannot have everything you want, so you need to scratch out advantages where you can. Does that mean skew lists can be good, sure it does, but they already are. Given that I'd rather have more table space, more meaningful list building decisions, and more finished games.

The only way to prevent skew lists is to have army building restrictions that prevent them. Currently those don't exist.

**Leo_the_Rat**

Maybe it's just that my mono-GK really are that bad but 250 points reduction means that I lose an HQ and a Troop and due to that 1CP. My basic cheap Troop choice is 105 points. My cheapest worthwhile HQ is 152 points. And those are just at baseline point cost.

Like I said maybe it's just GK but I have a hard enough time countering things with 2K point lists.

**LunarSol**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Maybe it's just that my mono-GK really are that bad but 250 points reduction means that I lose an HQ and a Troop and due to that 1CP. My basic cheap Troop choice is 105 points. My cheapest worthwhile HQ is 152 points. And those are just at baseline point cost.

Like I said maybe it's just GK but I have a hard enough time countering things with 2K point lists.

At this point I've accepted that my GKs are just bad and irrelevant enough that they should not prevent changes that improve the game as a whole even if they make the GKs more bad.

**Leo_the_Rat**

If more bad = more fun then I'm with you but in this instance more bad = no fun. I don't mind losing but I do mind not even having a slightly below average chance of winning. Anecdotally in the 2 local events I've played in I have a 1-5 record. Although at least 2 of my loses came by 3 ITC points or less and another came within 5 points.

If this rule is implemented then I guess that means I'm out of 40K until either codex GK 2.0 comes out or 9th ed (whichever comes first).

**Grimtuff**

Audustum wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Generalist units surely acquire more value. ( or specialized units lose value, your pick)

Other way around. Skew lists become more powerful the less points TAC lists have to prepare for them because you can hit critical mass faster.

So much this. Why do people seem to forget that spam and/or overpowered units becomes more impactful in smaller games as players have less to potentially deal with those things?

**koooaei**

1500 would be even better.

**babelfish**

Breng77 wrote:
The issue GW had with 8th is they made if faster to play 8th if you used armies similar to 7th....but made infantry so good that spamming 100s of models is superior in every way to running tanks etc. They also added CP giving players another point of decision which slows things down, and made re-rolls super prevalent (no more re-roll saves, but tons of re-roll hits, wounds, and FNP mechanics that are slow).

5th ed was the fastest edition I have played and that was in large part that mechanized forces were king. Moving 10 boxes around the table is much faster than 100 individual models. Now they were too powerful in 5th, however I think they have been over corrected for the past 3 editions (Hull points made them too weak, loss of fire points hurts many this edition, as does their ability to die quickly for their cost compared to infantry units.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to points drop, I like it my LGS plays 1500 points, I think it is a much tougher point level to play, and lower points makes soup much less attractive because the taxes for detachments become more meaningful.

I have to second, or maybe third this (depends on what people said lower in the thread that I haven't read yet). In 5th I ran Tervigons, had about 60 models on the table (Hive Tyrants, Tevrigons, Hive Guard, couple of big Termigant squads). In 6th and 7th I ran Flyrants, had 15 models. In 8th I'm running 100-150 models. I'm good at playing fast, and at moving large numbers of models around, but when I run into a Tyranid or Guard player, it is really hard to reach five turns.

**Nym**

2000,1750,1500... It's all the same. The problem comes from the number of models and of dice to roll. 30 Orks can get up to 150 attacks easily. Vs MEQ that's 100 hits, 50 wounds. At this stage you've already thrown 300 dice and for what result ?? 16 wounds...

GW *must* reduce the number of dice rolls at least 2 or 3 time. Remove the to-hit / to-wound rolls, make it Attack vs Defense, a single roll for attack, a single roll for defense. That's it.

**Battlesong**

LunarSol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
I think it will be interesting. but I feel that ITC will ignore it, since as mentioned the ITC crowd seem to look down on the official GTs. So this may further divide the ITC/non-ITC crowd.

If GW really wants to show they're back and in charge, they need to release their own official tournament guidelines. ITC has been an important torchbearer in dark times, but its time for the king to return as the regent to return the crown.

Exactly this. I feel that they are taking steps in that direction, but it's time to take the plunge and control their game now that they seem to get it.

**Arachnofiend**

I can't say whether or not it'll be good for list building, but I can say with some certainty it isn't going to affect slow play, especially the intentional kind you're seeing at high levels.

**Irbis**

secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

**Blndmage**

Irbis wrote:
secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

Actually, if 1,500 becomes standard for tournaments, then it opens it up to people who can't afford a 2,000 point army. You actually get more sales, as more people are playing,

The gap between tournaments and causal becomes less and thus more folks are comfortable entering in tournaments.

While many tournaments day they welcome allskill levels, the attitudes of layers that focus on tournaments does not. This might help, as it beings the two closer.

**zedsdead**

What a stupid idea..

So 250 points will make a difference with orks and AM ? bleh.. no. Does anyone think the outcome of the UKGT would have been different if the winner had 250 less Orks ? I think your really kidding yourself if you do.

What it creates is a greater disparity between Armies that dont have points efficient Troops.. Marine variants , Necrons ect now will struggle even more.

Dont like Soup lists ? these armies will be looking to add more points efficient Troops into there list building.

I see alot more single faction lists being played in Tournaments since the FAQ. with 1750.. thats going to make things worse again.

This is a choice that will make things worse.

If you want to make time efficient.. add chess clocks.

**Table**

Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

**zedsdead**

Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

**Daedalus81**

zedsdead wrote:
Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

Well, maybe. Write a list for AM first. You'll lose a fair bit in the process. You certainly won't be removing all the IS squads.

**tag8833**

tneva82 wrote:
1500 would be even better but this is preferable to 2k

<- Yes.

Cutting points for GT's was a good idea after the 1st couple codexes, and now is so blatantly obvious it's hard to see how people have been so slow to adopt it.

dosiere wrote:
Makes sense. The reality is that the hope/promise/assumption that 8th would play faster than before isn't true. In fact its often slower. Something had to give, reduced points is probably the easiest solution.

At 2,000 points at tourneys, We are playing with higher model counts, and rolling more dice than ever before. Sure, we spend a little less time arguing about rules thanks to a better rules set, and better FAQ support, but there are just too many models, and too many rolls to make the game play as fast as TO's and players would prefer.

**zedsdead**

Daedalus81 wrote:
zedsdead wrote:
Table wrote:
Doesn't this just punish elite armies as they will have even fewer bodies on the table? I'm not sure.

yup... and now you create a bodies over bullits situation. At least Elite units can dish out the pain in shooting..bullits. Reduce that and now i have a reason to take more bodies.

Well, maybe. Write a list for AM first. You'll lose a fair bit in the process. You certainly won't be removing all the IS squads.

Disappearing 250 points from my AM army is a heck of alot easier then doing it to my DA or SM lists.

**Daedalus81**

zedsdead wrote:

Disappearing 250 points from my AM army is a heck of alot easier then doing it to my DA or SM lists.

Yes, I agree, but we haven't really quantified the effects. It's more of an emotional thing to remove stuff from a list. If AM lose a basilisk and some IS squads those are both annoying things to elite armies.

Of course it really depends on what format you play, too.

**Bharring**

I find I can have all the options I need to face a 1500pt list in 1500pts of Marines. Or Tau or Eldar.

However, in a 2k list, I find I need a lot more of each skew, and that each list is much more likely to include the perfect counter. And that there's enough of each thing that the board can be saturated - so I can't bait a scary unit, then counterdeploy. Or try to isolate it and ignore it.

Going below 1k, I'm certainly limited. My CWE get more limited than my Marines at low points, but neither can be fully TAC.

It might feel like the 250 you removed from the AM list isn't much, but that's a lot of realestate that isn't covered.

As stated, I'd rather it went down to 1500, but 1750 is the right direction.

**NickTheButcher**

Nym wrote:
2000,1750,1500... It's all the same. The problem comes from the number of models and of dice to roll. 30 Orks can get up to 150 attacks easily. Vs MEQ that's 100 hits, 50 wounds. At this stage you've already thrown 300 dice and for what result ?? 16 wounds...

GW *must* reduce the number of dice rolls at least 2 or 3 time. Remove the to-hit / to-wound rolls, make it Attack vs Defense, a single roll for attack, a single roll for defense. That's it.

But I like rolling that many dice....

**wuestenfux**

Reducing the number of dice rolls would require to change the game to a large extent.

I'd opt for a pt reduction to 1500 pts.
Still playable and the game would be faster.

**Marmatag**

I don't see 250 less points making a big deal when it comes to time.

I would rather they just upped the cost of chaff models. Any model costing less than 10 points should be look at it. Does it really deserve to be as cheap as it is?

But the more I play this edition and the more it evolves, it seems that the game is dictated by 2 things: Either lots of individual models or kickass invulnerable saves. The move from APX to AP-Y, and the drop of sweeping advances, seems like a mistake.

**Bharring**

UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

**Xenomancers**

Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.