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.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I don't understand the one army to fit them all argument at all. There are more than one size of games that can be played and for those unable to afford more than a certain amount of models, playing with a bit less is only a good thing because now they too have choices available. You can shuffle your list around from time to time unlike before, when what you had was all you had.

Eh? Playing at a different points level has been an option since the Rogue Trader army lists. Not sure what the 'unlike before' is in reference to.

Regarding Karol's statement above, where the Polish folks apparently are stuck with one list that must never change.

Ah. More a local quirk thing. Nothing to be done unless they collectively agree.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Your reasoning doesn't even make sense

People bought an 8th 2000pts list want to us the army they bought. If the 8th ed 2000pts lists cost around 2200pts for multiple factions, more then a few people decided they want to play 2200 or 2250pts.

Plus people don't like the fact that some people maybe able to play the game with a smaller point investment.

Well lefting 200ish points of models at home is better than being forcing to buy another 200ish points of models because things got a discount instead of hike in points values or new formats were something like 2250 (with 8th points values) instead of 2000, right?

Having 1-2 spared units also helps to fuel the interest in the hobby since changing lists, even if just a bit, is healthy. Not to mention units' efficiency changes from time to time, so having some alternative if something got nerfed pretty hard should be a good thing.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I don't understand the one army to fit them all argument at all. There are more than one size of games that can be played and for those unable to afford more than a certain amount of models, playing with a bit less is only a good thing because now they too have choices available. You can shuffle your list around from time to time unlike before, when what you had was all you had.

Eh? Playing at a different points level has been an option since the Rogue Trader army lists. Not sure what the 'unlike before' is in reference to.

Regarding Karol's statement above, where the Polish folks apparently are stuck with one list that must never change.

I don't think it's a case of "Must never change", more of "They don't WANT to change."

Wich is a perfectly valid way to play. 2k pts won't allow that? Then set the pts cap higher.
And if doing so results in drag because of increased CP? Declare a cap on CP. (heck, one of the local groups played all of 8th with a "No Strat" house rule. Worked fine.)

When I was playing 8th it was only ever 1000 points. Can't see that changing. Certainly not to 2500 pts. 40k is just too slow of a game. Honestly I preferred kill team over regular 40k, but it seems as though GW is abandoning that after issuing their mistake filled "annual."

I mean everyone will be after a couple stops on the CA train.

A 2000 pts-list in 7th was no longer 2000 pts in 8th.
Likewise, a 2000-pts list in 8th will no longer be 2000 pts in 9th.

I don't understand the "I bought a 2000 pts army, so I want to use my 2000 pts army"-mentality. It's not like you lost your models, they're still there, available for play. Change your list now and then and you'll be able to continue to use them without raising the pts-cap.

Personally I'm in the (I assume majority) group of players who own way more models than they normally can play with in a single game, simply for the sake of variety.

Not counting tournaments, I can pretty much only play with the same list 2 times in a row before I get tired of it (regardless of if said list netted me wins or losses) and have to change something up, perhaps the entire list.

I prefer games with more models but not Apocalypse level. I'll play the games at 1500 to start with but probably up the points up to get more of the game type I want.

only if the person I'm playing with has some experience and a solid grasp of his rules.

I am not sitting around for a cumulative hour and a half while someone has to look up every single thing in their army for a 2500 or more point game... again.

stratigo wrote:
only if the person I'm playing with has some experience and a solid grasp of his rules.

I am not sitting around for a cumulative hour and a half while someone has to look up every single thing in their army for a 2500 or more point game... again.

right, nothing is more mind numbing.

I was already almost always playing 2500 point games. More toys = more fun!

So Now I suppose 3k games.

Honestly size of army does not really slow things down to much. Yes you need to roll more dice BUT as a result you kill more - by turn 3 you are probably working with the same size armies.

Aeri wrote:
As the points increased for everybody to make games "faster" (meaning: smaller) my gaming group decided to increase our games to 2500p.
We simply didn't want to have smaller games as the scale of the battles greatly helps with immersion, different tactics and just using the models you spend so much time painting.

With 2.500p we will also not be scaling down the boards as it would become too cluttered.
We will be using more than average terrain though to help assault armies. Lots of large LOS blocking buildings.

How are you reacting to the points changes and the smaller scale gw is trying to make?

Not scaling down the boards? Just how big of a board do you play on now? A 4x6 is below the minimum sized board for 2500 points.

I won't know until my gang can start playing games again, but I expect to aim for more 1000 points games rather than 2000 points games.

We're likely going from 1750 in 8th to 2000, which seems to work out as roughly the same. If anything, 2k in 9th seems to be more like 1650-1700ish in 8th, depending on the army. We'll probably see how it goes and maybe drop back to 1750 depending how we feel.

We'll likely stick to a 6x4 board, just for convenience since that's the size of all our boards but I'll probably try some games on the new smaller board just to try them out.

1,500-1,750 for me in 9th. I shouldn't be able to bring everything in my collection, and it would be nice to have to make meaningful list building decisions rather than having the points to bring everything I want.

If GW's intent was to fix their balance issues by convincing people to downsize, then they have failed miserably. Establishing a table minimum even confused people as they seem to think that THAT is the only size "allowed" now, and has prompted people to declare "I'll do what I want", which was always an option in the first place.