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.

Drager wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

Do you play with no terrain or movement? There's a lot more to 40k than that. Also by unforseen I assume he meant prior to you seeing the list...

What does the terrain have to do with it? You can either move into a position to shoot that unit or you cant. If you cant shoot all your guns at something else. Its like in MTG where you always attack if you can without loss. Well... The enemy cant counter until after youve removed as many models as possible. So remove as many models as possible?

If its in list building then its not tactics. Its strategy. And gameplay skill isnt a factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

My 2 current armies are Tau and Nids.

And THERE'S the issue - ofc you're gonna think 1250pt games are swell and dandy when your Battalions can cost less than some people's Troop choices, and "hard choices" consist of picking which unit gets the special weapon.

Good job reading my list. Warriors are about 26 ppm. 2 units of 6 at 2k. How cheap are my troops?

 Lance845 wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

Do you play with no terrain or movement? There's a lot more to 40k than that. Also by unforseen I assume he meant prior to you seeing the list...

What does the terrain have to do with it? You can either move into a position to shoot that unit or you cant. If you cant shoot all your guns at something else. Its like in MTG where you always attack if you can without loss. Well... The enemy cant counter until after youve removed as many models as possible. So remove as many models as possible?

If you do that and expose your unit to being able to be wiped in return then that's not necessarily the best move. Oh wait, suddenly theres a meaningful decision to make.

Good job reading my list. Warriors are about 26 ppm. 2 units of 6 at 2k. How cheap are my troops?

Good job reading my sentence. The operative word was CAN. You can fill the troop requirements with 99pts of Ripper Swarms and still have 1151pts to take whatever you feel like, whereas some armies can't even take ONE Troop choice for 100+ points.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

Good job reading my list. Warriors are about 26 ppm. 2 units of 6 at 2k. How cheap are my troops?

Good job reading my sentence. The operative word was CAN. You can fill the troop requirements with 99pts of Ripper Swarms and still have 1151pts to take whatever you feel like, whereas some armies can't even take ONE Troop choice for 100+ points.

Yes. The fact that i COULD take 99 points of ripper swams is very important to my opinions on 1250-1500 point games. I really enjoy that point range for the option.

Lets ignore that i am equally capable of doing that in a 2k point game and having 1901 points to grab whatever else i want.

Lets ignore that (in all likely hood) nobody here has ever once faced a nid army in 8th with pure minimum ripper troops.

What was your actual point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

Do you play with no terrain or movement? There's a lot more to 40k than that. Also by unforseen I assume he meant prior to you seeing the list...

What does the terrain have to do with it? You can either move into a position to shoot that unit or you cant. If you cant shoot all your guns at something else. Its like in MTG where you always attack if you can without loss. Well... The enemy cant counter until after youve removed as many models as possible. So remove as many models as possible?

If you do that and expose your unit to being able to be wiped in return then that's not necessarily the best move. Oh wait, suddenly theres a meaningful decision to make.

If you are capable of moving out and shooting them, then on their turn in all likelyhood they are capable of moving and shooting you. Ever hear of action economy? The basic concept is the side that can do the most meaningful actions on their turn will win. Its first turn advantage writ large and a little more complicated. Every model you take from them reduces their action economy. If you think its better to wait for them to come take models from you then enjoy your poor decisions.

What was your actual point again?

That there is too much of a disparity in 8th edition for such low-point games to be fair between codecies. All off these much-mentioned "difficult choices" for Tyranids and Tau basically comes down to only being able to kit out to most of your troops, instead of an actual difficult choice.

Shrug, I can fit my Kytan, Magnus and Mortarion in a 1500pt list. So...I'm good with going down to a smaller point value. And yes, I'm playing them because I LIKE the big stuff. They just look cooler on the table (IMO).

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

What was your actual point again?

That there is too much of a disparity in 8th edition for such low-point games to be fair between codecies. All off these much-mentioned "difficult choices" for Tyranids and Tau basically comes down to only being able to kit out to most of your troops, instead of an actual difficult choice.

My troop is like 52 PPM :(

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

The GW GT can determine the standard when it's not a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event.

When the people who create the game have a format for their own events, it is something that people should at least try out.

And just because something is not ITC, doesn't make it "a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event."

GW only went to 1750 in the first place because an Ork player slow played his way to the Grand Prize and GW's TOs had no idea how to handle it.

The event is a joke.

 Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

The GW GT can determine the standard when it's not a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event.

When the people who create the game have a format for their own events, it is something that people should at least try out.

And just because something is not ITC, doesn't make it "a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event."

He never said the fact that it's not ITC makes it fluff bunny. It's fluff bunny cause your score isn't determined entirely by gameplay (art and points are mixed, for example). At least, that'd be my guess

 Lance845 wrote:

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

1) If you honestly believe there is not countering you must just play & play against some basic gunline armies with no movement &/or anything else.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) it's not that you failed to read the list because pregame you likely would not see their list B) no they didn't cheat if played well they lured you into a trap C) Ad hominem attacks don't make your points correct.

No its just the nature of the game. 40k has some amount of strategic depth in that there are plenty of ways to build a list and make a plan.

But 40k has all the tactical depth of a game of tic tac toe. Once you get the basic understanding to optimize your damage each turn its just doing that over and over.

Some game types can throw wrenches in that by mixing up objectives with cards or whatever. But there is a reason that stuff is never really discussed. Its pretty much always a better play to remove models and try to stack action economy in your favor.

 Lance845 wrote:
No its just the nature of the game. 40k has some amount of strategic depth in that there are plenty of ways to build a list and make a plan.

But 40k has all the tactical depth of a game of tic tac toe. Once you get the basic understanding to optimize your damage each turn its just doing that over and over.

Some game types can throw wrenches in that by mixing up objectives with cards or whatever. But there is a reason that stuff is never really discussed. Its pretty much always a better play to remove models and try to stack action economy in your favor.

By the way you're describing things, horde armies, and MSU forces should always triumph over lists with low model counts, yes?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
No its just the nature of the game. 40k has some amount of strategic depth in that there are plenty of ways to build a list and make a plan.

But 40k has all the tactical depth of a game of tic tac toe. Once you get the basic understanding to optimize your damage each turn its just doing that over and over.

Some game types can throw wrenches in that by mixing up objectives with cards or whatever. But there is a reason that stuff is never really discussed. Its pretty much always a better play to remove models and try to stack action economy in your favor.

By the way you're describing things, horde armies, and MSU forces should always triumph over lists with low model counts, yes?

It depends on more then that, but the gist of what you are saying plays a fairly major part (except really the MSU part... depending. MSU saves you from morale but you no longer need it to split fire so it's less of a factor now then it was in 7th). And it's panned out to be true. Harlequins, SM, Custodes and other low model count armies have major issues against cheap chaff with lots of shots. This forum is filled day after day with posts about how badly elite armies are doing in 8th. SM had to have a round of beta rules built just to support their base gun to give them any kind of ability to keep up.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Do you play with no terrain or movement? There's a lot more to 40k than that. Also by unforseen I assume he meant prior to you seeing the list...

What does the terrain have to do with it? You can either move into a position to shoot that unit or you cant. If you cant shoot all your guns at something else. Its like in MTG where you always attack if you can without loss. Well... The enemy cant counter until after youve removed as many models as possible. So remove as many models as possible?

If you do that and expose your unit to being able to be wiped in return then that's not necessarily the best move. Oh wait, suddenly theres a meaningful decision to make.

If you are capable of moving out and shooting them, then on their turn in all likelyhood they are capable of moving and shooting you. Ever hear of action economy? The basic concept is the side that can do the most meaningful actions on their turn will win. Its first turn advantage writ large and a little more complicated. Every model you take from them reduces their action economy. If you think its better to wait for them to come take models from you then enjoy your poor decisions.

Your first sentence is rarely true, as angles and variant movement rates exist. It is far harder to get around an obstacle to see something behind it when you are further away than when you are close it, especially if that obstacle has multiple sides (like, say, a ruin). Further, if that unit is holding an objective it's generally better to keep it alive. If that unit has a shorter range than your opponent's long-range guns then it is often better to hide it until a higher value target is closer, or move from cover to cover when available. Not doing so is a poor use of your action economy as you trade a tiny penalty to theirs for a much larger penalty to yours.

I can see you understand the basic concept of action economy, but I think you need to take a little more time to consider the nuance, there is a lot more to it than you have commented on and some of your points show a lack of understanding of finer detail. I'm not talking about doing nothing in your turn (although there is the occasional time when this is the correct choice), but rather choosing not to shoot when it would be a bad trade or create an opportunity cost elsewhere. I have won games without removing a single enemy model from the table and I've lost games where I've tabled my opponent. It is often the best choice to remove enemy models, but not always and being able to tell the difference between these situations separates good players from OK ones.

Two quick examples where it is better to wait:

Orks vs Aeldari
Aeldari go first and have a unit of Guardians in a ruin out of LoS of the enemy Lootaz. They could move+advance and kill a few grots on the enemy frontline, it's better to wait until the big mob of boyz is closer.

Anything vs Aynthing
A unit is out of LoS on an objective that you need to hold and repositioning to shoot it would cause the opponent to take a penalty to hit. Stay still, don't risk the points.

Just finished my first ever non-speculative 1500 (actually 1496) points list. Can't wait to have my first proper sized game of 40k. Just need to finish some painting first.

Just a general point about some of the horribly weird arguments being made here. Yes a nids army will have more bodies and more points to spend on upgrades at 1.25k. Nids will have more bodies and points to spend on upgrades at 2K. Explain why there is a difference in this please?

If it's regards the capacity to complete a brigade/battalion cheaper than other armies troops, are those 99pt rippers really killing your army single handedly? If they build bare bones detachments what are they spending the CP on that makes the CP so useful?

There is no requirement to taking a battalion or brigade and if at 1.25k your army functions better without 150+ pt troops units, don't take them. These are the choices that people are referring to. At 2k you get your detachments, you get your heavy hitters, you get your chaff, your CP, your area denial, your deepstrikers and the only point to contend with is how you use them. Playing at smaller points introduces greater opportunity costs at list building stage, rather than just once you have all the toys included.

Audustum wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

The GW GT can determine the standard when it's not a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event.

When the people who create the game have a format for their own events, it is something that people should at least try out.

And just because something is not ITC, doesn't make it "a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event."

He never said the fact that it's not ITC makes it fluff bunny. It's fluff bunny cause your score isn't determined entirely by gameplay (art and points are mixed, for example). At least, that'd be my guess

Pretty much the competitive mindset of "winning is all that should matter" when that's never been the case in 40k until recently anyway. Painting, Sportsmanship and Comp *SHOULD* be part of the overall winning so you pick the person who best represents the hobby, not whoever can netlist the hardest; that's why you also have "Best General" for the person who wins all their games, but if they aren't a pleasant person to play against or did the bare minimum in painting, they shouldn't be the overall champion.

Custards can in fact play at 750, but only with an outrider detachment.

Termy captain/w axe and miser, warlord/w impregnable mind and oblitarium

pallas grav x2
venetari squad (3guys) with miser

calidius grav tank

748 points


Not sure how competitive it is as I don't play at that points range, but it seems decently mobile and workable.

Here's the Tyranid army I used back in 3rd Edition.

Hive Tyrant (Scything Talons, Venom Cannon, Warp Field, Warp Blast)
3 Tyrant Guard
3 Lictors
6 Warriors (Scything Talons, 5 Deathspitters, Venom Cannon)
16 Termagants
16 Termagants
16 Hormagaunts
16 Hormagaunts
6 Ripper Swarms
12 Genestealers
12 Gargoyles
Carnifex (Scything Talons, Barbed Strangler)
3 Zoanthropes (Warp Blast)

In 3rd Ed, that comes to 1998pts. That was the standard size of game and it worked well.

Under 8th Ed, the same set of units is now worth 1338pts. Even with piling on the biomorphs and weapon options that didn't exist in 3rd, I would struggle to break 1500pts.

The game doesn't, in my experience, resolve any faster on a per-model basis than it did in 3rd. Assault isn't the mess it once was and templates are gone, but instead we have stratagems, rerolls, and the preponderance of one-off special abilities slowing it down. Plus we're still playing on the same size of tables, with either the same unit footprints or somewhat larger. So playing at 2000pts now means a longer game on a more densely-packed board than it used to.

To bring this all back to the thread topic, I've been playing at 1500pts with my friends, because that's the size of game we've always played, on the size of board we've always played with, and takes about as long to play as it always has.

So to talk about the standard 'still' being 2000pts is somewhat misleading- the number on paper might be the same, but the size of game it represents has steadily crept upwards. 40K is perfectly playable at lower points levels than 2000pts, and IMO having more room to breathe on the table makes for a better experience. Whether TOs can be convinced of that, well, that's another matter.

Well it does benefit some verse others. Just playing at your ideal points limit isn't great for the game. For instance people say the game is so lethal that you have to play 2k to get to use your stuff, but at 2k ive found more stuff is shot at me. My unit in reserve is also less useful at 2k vs smaller games.

Necrons shine at 1k to 1500 because 2k is so easy to negate their army trait and delete an entire unit a turn.

As players we should have give and be able to be flexible enough to bounce around the points limits without complaint.

For me personally it all has to do with my mood and who is in the store? Do I want more than 1 game? then 1k to 1500. Do I want to use a lot more stuff and try out combos? 2k +