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 have exclusively played crusade since the edition change and don't see myself changing that. I have really enjoyed the 50 PL games and scenarios even though I have yet to win a game. The matches are close and the narrative for my army fits with the outcomes. 50 PL is roughly 1k points depending on codex so that's what I voted. I really look forward to the new Chaos Marine codex's crusade rules if Space Wolves are anything to go by. I hope the legions get their own agendas and battle honors.

I'd actually be willing to try 1.000 point games but nobody here wants to play that. I think I'd agree with Jidmah that 1.500 points feels weird for some armies with expensive units, feels like you just can't hold it all and the missions are not designed for it. Might be fun for some people but I'm not sure it is for me.

ccs wrote:

And whatever the pts, smaller boards greatly detract from my enjoyment of this game.
Things didn't get any slower.
Ranges didn't decrease.
No reason to be closer together.

This statemement implies that ranges and move speeds were perfectly tuned ona 6x4 board, which definitely wasn’t the case.

There was no delicate balance that was upset there. And in practice it just mean a lot of dead space was removed from the board making close range units more relevant making the game more tactical.

I tend to play 1500 to 1750 as that is what most local players prefer. I would rather play 2000 points plus as I like to play as many units as I can. Makes it more interesting.

At the back end of 8th, 1500, 1750 and anything inbetween were good point levels and made for nicely balanced games. I didn't like 2000 back then, armies were too big.

But with the advent of 9th, everything got more expensive again so 2000 is the sweet spot.

I directly quoted you because you made the comments that prompted my response.... is this real life right now?

anyway, I like 1k too. It’s definitely a different game but I feel like 1.5k gives more flexibility but waters down the lethality allowing for the most freedom in strategy and builds.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

ccs wrote:

And whatever the pts, smaller boards greatly detract from my enjoyment of this game.
Things didn't get any slower.
Ranges didn't decrease.
No reason to be closer together.

This statemement implies that ranges and move speeds were perfectly tuned ona 6x4 board, which definitely wasn’t the case.

There was no delicate balance that was upset there. And in practice it just mean a lot of dead space was removed from the board making close range units more relevant making the game more tactical.

I've come to really like 6' x 5' boards, especially for 40K.

It depends on my opponent and how familiar I am with my list. I'm generally a fairly fast player and can do 1.5 - 2k within 2 hours, but if my opponent isnt' familiar or doesn't fast roll then I'd much prefer smaller games.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

ccs wrote:

And whatever the pts, smaller boards greatly detract from my enjoyment of this game.
Things didn't get any slower.
Ranges didn't decrease.
No reason to be closer together.

This statemement implies that ranges and move speeds were perfectly tuned ona 6x4 board, which definitely wasn’t the case.

There was no delicate balance that was upset there. And in practice it just mean a lot of dead space was removed from the board making close range units more relevant making the game more tactical.

Implies nothing of the sort.
If the ranges/speeds felt too great on a 6x4, guess what? Keeping them the same but shrinking the board isn't an improvement.

Nor did I argue that balance was upset. (only the delusional think there's balance in 40k. Me? I haven't seen balance in this game yet here in the 21st century....)

But whatever your opinion on tactical, relevant, etc, it doesn't change the fact that the smaller the board the less enjoyment I get out it.

ccs wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

ccs wrote:

And whatever the pts, smaller boards greatly detract from my enjoyment of this game.
Things didn't get any slower.
Ranges didn't decrease.
No reason to be closer together.

This statemement implies that ranges and move speeds were perfectly tuned ona 6x4 board, which definitely wasn’t the case.

There was no delicate balance that was upset there. And in practice it just mean a lot of dead space was removed from the board making close range units more relevant making the game more tactical.

Implies nothing of the sort.
If the ranges/speeds felt too great on a 6x4, guess what? Keeping them the same but shrinking the board isn't an improvement.

Nor did I argue that balance was upset. (only the delusional think there's balance in 40k. Me? I haven't seen balance in this game yet here in the 21st century....)

But whatever your opinion on tactical, relevant, etc, it doesn't change the fact that the smaller the board the less enjoyment I get out it.

Fair enough good points

 Just Tony wrote:

I've come to really like 6' x 5' boards, especially for 40K.

While I wouldn't mind playing 40k on a 6x5 board, that's an odd size.
It'd A) require more work, B) be rather inconvenient space &/or storage wise (6x4 table surrounded by a couple of fat guys takes up enough room ), C) wouldn't work that well for non-40k uses - like board games or minis games in smaller scales (15mm & down).

 Lance845 wrote:
No I meant you. Me too, but also you. And no, at 2k I get to bring all the toys for the cookie cutter. At 1500 I need to trim the fat so to speak and there are not clear places to do so. It does force more interesting choices.

That's BS, the only reason why it seems like there are 'choices' at 1500 is that it doesn't get played as much and isn't solved like the 2k level is. If 1500 were to become standard it would boil down the same as 2k does.

That's wrong. There's only so many things you can fit at lower pts. 2k is objectively more generous than 1.5k let alone 1k. You have to make much harder choices in what to cut.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
That's wrong. There's only so many things you can fit at lower pts. 2k is objectively more generous than 1.5k let alone 1k. You have to make much harder choices in what to cut.

Not really. In any list, there will be something that is objectively the best unit to cut for your current meta. Going from 1.5k to 2k just lets you take more 'second-best choice' type units. There's a reason why TCGs specify a minimum deck size but rarely specify a maximum deck size beyond, can be reasonably shuffled by hand, and why nearly ever single skilled player will run exactly that minimum number of cards outside of meta specific outliers.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

ccs wrote:

And whatever the pts, smaller boards greatly detract from my enjoyment of this game.
Things didn't get any slower.
Ranges didn't decrease.
No reason to be closer together.

This statemement implies that ranges and move speeds were perfectly tuned ona 6x4 board, which definitely wasn’t the case.

There was no delicate balance that was upset there. And in practice it just mean a lot of dead space was removed from the board making close range units more relevant making the game more tactical.

No, the statement implies that the tables are too small.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Not really. In any list, there will be something that is objectively the best unit to cut for your current meta. Going from 1.5k to 2k just lets you take more 'second-best choice' type units. There's a reason why TCGs specify a minimum deck size but rarely specify a maximum deck size beyond, can be reasonably shuffled by hand, and why nearly ever single skilled player will run exactly that minimum number of cards outside of meta specific outliers.

I don't think TCGs can be compared like that.

Speaking from my own limited experience, adding more similar cards to your deck would not make it stronger, it would make it more of the same. Adding a different, powerful playstyle to your deck would diversify it, but the chance that you draw that specific card you need to pull off the combo gets lower as well.

Edit: And you can't use all of the cards in your deck at once, compared to another unit on the field.

In 40k you don't have that luck factor and can decide exactly what you have on the table. The treshold where you would have to add "filler units" just to qualify for your set point limit is higher than 2000, even with the rule of 3.
Being limited to 1000 or 1500 usually leaves your army lacking in some fields, as covering all bases equally is too pricey.

Are there armies which are actually limited by going down to 1500? If so, which ones?

Sure, you lose redundancy, but as lethality goes down as well, so you usually still have everything you need if you want to.

1000 and 2000 points, but I mostly play 2000 due to the avid ITC crowd in my group.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Speaking from my own limited experience, adding more similar cards to your deck would not make it stronger, it would make it more of the same. Adding a different, powerful playstyle to your deck would diversify it, but the chance that you draw that specific card you need to pull off the combo gets lower as well.

I think what he might be that when you play 2k points your anti-tank choice might be a pair of land raiders with terminators inside, while 1500 doesn't leave space for such silly antics as you need to cram all essential parts of your strategy into less points.

Despite having tons of experience with competitive TCG gaming, I can't tell how that is related though.

ccs wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

I've come to really like 6' x 5' boards, especially for 40K.

While I wouldn't mind playing 40k on a 6x5 board, that's an odd size.
It'd A) require more work, B) be rather inconvenient space &/or storage wise (6x4 table surrounded by a couple of fat guys takes up enough room ), C) wouldn't work that well for non-40k uses - like board games or minis games in smaller scales (15mm & down).

A: It's literally two folding tables together. Drape with cloth of your choice, 18" deployment zones, and you're off to the races. Very little work


B: As it collapses down to basically nothing it requires no dedicated play area. Set up in a bigger room in the house, tear down when you're done, collapsed tables can literally fit in the closet, and the wife has nothing g to gripe about.

C: People were playing Epic and Warmaster on those size tables at my club in Ft. Wayne, so I'd say it'd work fine.

The cool part about the wider table is a deeper deployment zone allows for a little more tactical depth, AND can let a canny player leave enough space between armies to allow shooting armies more shots before armies close. It may also be why my views of 3rd Edition 40K and 6th Edition WFB are more positive than some.

 Jidmah wrote:
Are there armies which are actually limited by going down to 1500? If so, which ones?

Sure, you lose redundancy, but as lethality goes down as well, so you usually still have everything you need if you want to.

With Marines I struggle bringing enough boots on the ground to be able to hold three objectives and engage the enemy in a meaningful way.
I usually run infantry only at 1000p, which makes Gravis units an extra juicy target for anti-tank weaponry. At 1500 I bring one vehicle, which is a Drop Pod

I prefer smaller games so I like to run between 250 and 1k points. 1.5k feels pretty expansive to me but 2k just invites player types I prefer to avoid. I'm really looking forward to playing some Crusade campaigns. There are certainly some armies that fair better at smaller points but most often it's a matter of opponent choice and whether you even HAVE a choice. I like IG, Orks, Eldar and Tyranids for Micro games and up but prefer 1-1.5k for my CSM.

So if you live in the Denver area and these sound like your kind of games/experiments, hit me up!

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see the point of a game where I have lost before it started because I could not "take all comers". If I wanted to play a game of rock-paper-scissors, I would do that and not waste hours of my life on a game that was decided on deployment.

And not lets not forget that to play the sailor game, you do not need an investment of around 1000$.

Depends on the stakes

Yeah, but it's not just about losing the game, a game won at deployment sucks just as much. Few games are less interesting when than when a daemon engine-heavy DG lists runs into an army that has just one predator dedicated to anti-tank. Blow up that predator, win game...

Its the FOC/Det chart. 1500 for a lot of armies will be too large for a Patrol, and too small for a Battalion. The cap of 3 Troops, 2 Elites causes a lot of issues for things like Command Squads, "hordes" etc. Too many prototypical/fluffy/etc looks are straddling a fence at 1500 Patrol vs Battalion.