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.

The short version: I beat a guy in a 700pt game and he spent the whole time complaining that its not enough points for a "proper game". Do you agree?

The Long Version: Like many of the people on here I love 40k, both the game and the universe. Also like many of the people on here I don't really have a lot of money to spend on the hobby so it takes me a while to build up a decent army meaning a lot of the games i play are 500-1000 points.

I went down to my local GW for a quick 700pt game on saturday and got paired up with someone who's notorious for being TFG. He used the new 1st Company Strike force (3 reserved terminators) and 3 separate attack bikes against my Blood Angels. Anyway, I tabled him turn 3 without 2 of his terminator squads arriving to which he complained that 700pts wasn't enough for a "proper game".

Do you Agree with him? What's your opinion on small point games?

Personally I like small points games, you value each unit a lot more, there's not too much to think about, it can be more about tactics than lists.

Look forward to hearing what you think.

At 700 points, some armies will be stronger than others. Also, it's hard to build a balanced list so the games can be one sided if the other guy brought rocks to play your scissors.

1. I brought 6 meltaguns! The other guy has 100 orcs.
2. I brought 6 flamers! The other guy brought 12 killakans.
3. I brought no anti-air! The other guy brought 4 fliers.

1500 to 1850 is where I like to play.

As a side note, if he brought 2 terminator squads in a 700 point game and put them both in reserves, he's not a very good general. Unless he was playing Dark Angels with that rule where they come in turn 1.

Personally I prefer playing around 750pts, as the game doesn't get quite so bogged down, and it seems as if it's a more fun game. Also I've noticed that fluffy themed lists don't tend to be as handicapped at lower points levels. Although obviously certain armies are much stronger at that level than others

I've played games from 500-2,000 points and enjoyed them all. Low point games play differently to high point games, each unit matters a lot more than it does in high points games and you have to think more about what you put in your army but higher point games mean more big guns and fun stuff to play with.

This just makes me want to play earlier editions, where the game was at least more appropriately scaled for smaller games- that is, games before they got to this current bloated state. I honestly don't think the experience of playing 40k has gotten more engaging from up'ing the number of vindicators you play from 1 to 3, and all the other triplicate redundancies, etc. etc.

Beyond that, 1500 is about my maximum for a game. Everything else just takes so long, and in a game that has become increasingly random, I don't see the point in dragging the affair on for more than two hours.

So long as you play with an understanding not to be "that guy", I find that the low-points games are far more interesting than large games. In a large game, I feel like everything's just about whose list was better. If one player was able to squeeze out a list that's just 10% better than an opponent (either due to having the models/funds to build said list competitively, due to having a more updated codex, or due to having more list-building skill), then at a 2000 point game that translates to 200 points that they have over their opponent. At a 500 point game that's just 50 points. At 2000 points that's enough for a heavy hitter, while at 50 points it's enough for a few more models or a couple upgrades.

At a 2000 point game, there'll be fights occurring over every objective point, and you can afford to have units that just sit back on objectives while continuing to provide all the support they need to. You can afford to sometimes just throw a unit away to score a point, because another unit is nearby to continue scoring later.

At 500 points, you'll have to pick your battles and can't afford to "throw" things away. If you take that objective, and need it for a few more turns, you better take it hard.


That said, at 2000 points you're likely to always have *something* to handle most things opponents bring out in a game (with some exceptions still).

At 500 points, you start realizing that even small units have their own ways of dealing with unexpected opponents (ever kill a flier with a Krak grenade?).


At 2000 points, everything should be legal.

At 500 points, you need to rein things in unless you're prepping for a no-holds-bar 500-point tourney where everything's allowed. I'm talking using Combat Patrol rules. They REALLY help balance things out!


Oh... and Combat Patrol doesn't make the game shorter. All that time you save not rolling as many dice is eaten up by spending a lot more time contemplating what to do with the few units you have left. I love it!

I like low points game...they can be very tactical, because you aren't getting bogged down by 822908378928902 units with special rules, since you need to fill your list, at least if following the old FOC with 2 troops and an HQ, and it doesn't leave a lot for uber expensive ones.

Fo some real fun, run something like an HQ, 2-3 Tac squads, a speeder and forget about unit coherency.

I like small games but I don't think the rules suit it terribly well any more.

I like a small game too.

Kill team is still loads of fun. Trying to figure out a campaign and experience system for it too!

I agree though it can take some effort on both players parts to make the lists balanced. Generally though if you build a TAC list you can't go wrong.

I don't think there is a "proppa" points level to play at, you can enjoy the game at all levels, if enjoyment is your goal.

 darkcloak wrote:
Generally though if you build a TAC list you can't go wrong.

As long as both players bring a TAC list it's fine. The problem is when one player brings a TAC list and the other brings a spam list that things go awry.

I like small games because I find they're still just as tactical and it lets you play multiple games in an afternoon, so you can try out different lists and combinations and if you get hammered to the ground, oh well, just set up and play another one.

 darkcloak wrote:
Kill team is still loads of fun. Trying to figure out a campaign and experience system for it too!

Kill team is actually AWESOME for small games. It eliminates all the stupid tricks, since you can only take troops, elites, and FA, and you can't take anything with more than 3 wounds or 33 combined armor. And no flyers. It's also fun to play your models as all independent models even though you take them as squads, there is no unit coherency and you control each model independently. A bunch of the rules are also modified to be better in small games.

Frankly, I think KT should be in the core rulebook.

What I'd give if GW could find some way to scale their game down some. Make a truly competetive and fast paced tournament friendly ruleset for games in the 1kish pt range. If they could do this, this game would turn around incredibly quickly.

Imagine the game was like Magic the Gathering (only 10x the price...). A new player wants to give a new army a shot, they go into a store and buy a battleforce starter for $100 which gives them a well rounded 750pt list. They could then expand that box to 1000pt and be tournament ready or build their own list from scratch.

I've actually had people ask me how much it costs to play this game and when people learn it's more than an XBone or PS4, they turn around and leave laughing.

Sub-1000 point games can be fun, but you do need to set expectations ahead of time. You're less able to build a list capable of facing all threats, and the effect of individual uber-units is amplified. Formations are not inherently bad at low points levels. A big reason to play at low points would be to use a single formation as your entire army. 40k isn't a very balanced game, but it can be frighteningly lopsided in low points games if the two armies aren't "tuned" to fight each other.

I generally think 750pts is the minimum for an interesting game using the standard list building - below that, you really ought to go unbound. At sub-500pts, you're better off playing Kill Teams.

Also: play on a 4x4 table if you're going below 1000pts. I actually prefer 4x4 tables up to 1250pts.

I only play low points games. To me, that's just the game. I can't even imagine playing larger games, let alone Apocalypse. A big reason for this is time: it's hard to commit to a large block of time for a hobby when you have a family and a full time job. I'm sure there are lots of fun toys you can fit in at 2000+ points (as others above have said), but at 500 points you really have to focus on small squad tactics, and your Warlord becomes much more important. Small games require a different mentality than large games. It sounds to me like this guy didn't plan very well and was a sore loser. I never reserve anything in small games, I need it all on the table on turn 1.

Low points games are a blast, but I like them with a few extra rules in place to stop abuse, like combat patrol.

Low point games are perfectly fine. In now way can they be considered "not proper"

Also, for 700 points I wouldnt take that many terminators. But I do agree that some armies do better at lower points than others. Space Marines struggle in low point games, whereas Orks, Imperial Guard, Tyranids and even Necrons can do very well.

I usually use low point games to get people into the game. But I've been a fan of games between 1000-1500. Easy lists without being too cheesy.

 kronk wrote:
At 700 points, some armies will be stronger than others. Also, it's hard to build a balanced list so the games can be one sided if the other guy brought rocks to play your scissors.

1. I brought 6 meltaguns! The other guy has 100 orcs.
2. I brought 6 flamers! The other guy brought 12 killakans.
3. I brought no anti-air! The other guy brought 4 fliers.

This is my thought, too.

If you have special rules for them (Kill Team, some sort of campaign/house-rules etc.) then I imagine they can work. But, it always seems to require too much effort to balance (even by the standards of 40k in general).

I also speak as someone whose HQ options are all just taxes, so spending ~15-20% of my army on a worthless character isn't exactly a good start.

Small games work best when both players tailor their lists to specifically allow for a good fight.

For example if you bring a raider, I get a pod with vets and a melta gun.

Small games suffer from getting stumped on a single unit or two is they aren't ready for it.

For small games we tend to limit vehicles to light and medium, and mostly troop choices. Even warlords we agree on a set limit of points like say 125-150 just so they still remain killable in small games.

Haven't played anything below 4000 since I restarted 40k. Gotta admit the 6x4 is a little crowded by that point, so wondering what the sweet spot is to make for the most tactical game.

Absolutely loathe 1850pts though, such an awful format that one is though at least we can take our double force orgs at it now

For those very small games, maybe build lists on the spot? First player picks a unit, second player picks a unit, first player picks a unit... something like that.

I like both kinds.

Sounds like your opponent is just butt hurt. A new codex SM player losing to BA has to come up with SOME kind of excuse for failure, because there's no WAY am I-Win codex can lose to a creep-boned army like Blood Angels.

Haters gon' hate.

This is a guy who regularly brings 3 knights against anyone who will play him. I've played against him at 750pts before and he brought a knight and 2 squads of sternguard.

If I play him, I challenge him to low points where I'm in my element and he usually can't bring his toys.

I love 500-point-odd games. Partly because under the WD codex, that was the sweet spot for Sisters to shine at... its not quite as true any more, though, heh. We can still get a crazy army in at 700 points though.

I do think low points do favour some armies more than others: for 700p points I could take

1) WraithKnight
2) 20 warp spiders

25 pts spare.

I know that is unbound. But I doubt the point of 700pts is to "get malestrom objectives", and I further doubt there is much in the game that can survive that list. Even fliers (since they eventually go off board)

I dislike low point games and appreciate super high point games a lot more. The further up in point values you go, the more strategy rules the day. Both dice luck and individual model "brokenness" start to become very tiny specks on the horizon.

You could almost treat it like epic 3.5 DnD and use their optional "statistical dice" rule, where you just assume the dice for any decently large roll turned out statistical, resolve results, and move on.

Also since people just flat out don't own the models to spam their most broken unit through their whole list in say...an 8000 point game, you see a lot of variety, as they start dusting off their terminators and dreadnoughts to fill some list space.

But if you've never tried it and you consider yourself a good general, give it a whirl. Takes much longer, but it really does become a game where the better over-arching strategy WILL win.

Inversely, a 750 point game could be decided by something like a nova charging riptide getting lucky and blowing up your land raider/fortification on turn 1, or even sooner by a spam list running into it's natural prey or hard counter.

He took a big risk leaving so much of his army in reserve. When he complained that it wasn't a proper game he was wrong. The problem is that he wanted to bring a formation that had high risk at that point cost. Had he got the other units in it would have been a much different game, but that was the risk he took.

If I have a whole evening I'll play as much as possible for the sake of the death and glory.

But I do thoroughly enjoy 500-1000 point games if I want to get a few done in a day.

IMO, 40k plays best either at low (500-1000) or very high (3000+) points levels.
At low point levels the good things are that it becomes more tactical (a single mistake can cost you the game) and that it plays more quickly, but the bad things are that it is more vulnerable to bad luck (a single bad roll can cost you the game) and that there is more risk of rock-paper-scissor because you can't bring counters to everything your opponent might bring.
At high point levels the good thing is that listbuilding no longer is really important (as whatever your opponent could possibly bring you can have a counter to) and thus the game becomes much more about positioning and tactic. It also allows you to bring units that are not effective in regular games. The bad thing of course is that such a large game will take ages.

I'd say I love smaller point games, and i'm definitely more familiar with them.

Whenever I teach new players, I always recommend playing 500 to 750 pts. It helps them appreciate their units more, learn their rules better and overall keep their attention. 40k is about endurance just as much as it is about strategy and new players burn out hard after a while when playing large games. Recently, I had a friend of mine that had inherited a space marine army and was new to 40k. He wanted to play a big game with me, around 2000 pts I think, I built a very forgiving list to fight him. Basically, something that he can beat but wont just hand him the victory. He burned out and surrendered around turn 3. By then, it had been 5 hours, and most of his field was wiped. By no means am I an expert in the BRB, but I know my rules well enough and the game well enough to keep it streamlined. Where we hit the hic-ups was I kept having to look up his rules for him since he didn't bother to study about his army or the game. I think it was just too much info to try to understand at once, so he became frustrated and gave up. I feel that if we had played a small game with only a few troops and models, He would appreciate them more and learn how to tactically use them correctly. (He assaulted some Khorne Berserkers with a Tactical Squad instead of rapid firing.)

I think the FLGS I played at when I first started playing handled it the best. We had a weekly escalation league. Started at 400 pts and went up 50 pts every week. There were very set rules on CAD. 1 HQ and 1 Troop were required until 750pts was reached, in which standard CAD was then in effect. No flyers were allowed until 750 pts were reached. No single model over 125 pts was allowed until 750 pts was reached. (This was back when a Lash of Submission Prince cost 130 pts.) Until 750 pts, no armor could exceed 12, so if a vehicle had a higher armor on one of its sides, it was reduced to 12. There was also the gentlemen's agreements in place to fix exploits to the rules provided. For example, Doom of Malan'tai was perfectly legal under league restrictions but wasn't played because it had no business in any game under 750 pts, so he never was fielded till then. All these restrictions made the game very friendly to newcomers while staying flexible to veterans. The low points values were easier on new player wallets, gave the vets time paint up their armies and try new thing, and didn't take longer than an hour. FLGS also made fun campaign missions for the holidays like "catch the turkey" for thanksgiving, which was basically the relic where it would run 2d6 randomly a turn via a scatter die. Most importantly,the low point values taught people to play the game AND enjoy it.

Bigger games have their advantages, but something is just more entertaining about watching a small game play through. Swarm armies feel bigger and elite armies feel more elite. If you don't believe me, just put 400 pts of orks next to 400 pts of marines. If this guy you played couldn't get his act together for a 700 pts army, and then complain about it, He's probably not worth playing in a 1850 pt game either.

TLDR: Small point games are good, Whether your teaching new players or honing your skills, you're gonna have a good time.

400-500 point kill team missions are a lot of fun, but you need to play by kill team rules in order to have a decent game.

IMHO, YMMV, OMGWTFBBQ, and so on.