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 had a game the other day against a tyranid player just a 1250 pt game as I didn't have time for a larger one. I had my crons with me- no I didn't go decurion or any fancy formations, just bound CAD while the other guy went unbound with a lot of big beasties on the field. This isn't a battle report so I'll spare the details.
After our game, he said that he found smaller games restricting and that the game'd have been different at 1500pts.

Does anyone else find small point games restricting? I'm primarily a SOB player, so I don't notice any difference regardless the points; but I was curious as to whether other armies feel a difference in performance in lower and higher point games?

Well, I see smaller games as more fun because they're restricting!

It's actually very interesting trying to squeeze what you want into smaller point levels, because going 1000+ you can get just about anything on the table and then you have all of your resources - but in smaller games you really have to choose what you're taking and how you play them.

But then large games are fun because there is more dakka. And more dakka is always good.

I'll agree with TMWNP, small games are fun in part because you can't simply bring everything, you have to make choices.

Although, to be honest, saying the tyranid player in the OP found smaller games restricting whilst playing Unbound, and complaining about a 250 point difference... Wow, just wow.

I think 1000pts with actually balanced armies (no 500pt unit Death Star gak) is actually the most fun way to play.

Then again I play all armies that happen to not have a derpcurion yet so I can't just plug my models into a pre built 2k list to gain special rules stuffed into my every orifice that invalidate every army that doesn't have one. I feel like if I had that 1000pts would sound way too hard.

1000 to 1250 pts is usually where I sit comfortably. Still leaves room on the table for maneuver

I played an 800 point game against GK last Monday and it was really fun.

The smaller games restrict what can be brought and neuter the cheese formations by denying them the points they need to function. Smaller games are really fun.... Even if I did fit three tanks in to it

Of course smaller games are restricting. Doesn't make them any less fun. I like games of any size. My DE are over 10k pts, so I'm down for anything.

I enjoy making armies around 1250pts. Makes me really streamline what I bring, and I have a nice 465pt Knight Crusader now to bump up lists to 1850 when I need to. But a 1250 list has everything needed to really get a game in and still have room for tactical choices. At 1850 there's a bit more charge forward and assault' but when there's more space, there's a good chance units just won't get that close so players can make deliberate decision on Objectives, what to commit where and when, and reacting to opponent's reactions.

But it does mean some models just get left behind completely. Anything over 175pts is too much in a 1250pt game and I personally really like models over 175pts. Land Raiders, Terminators, Flyrants, Chapter Master Special Characters and so on.

There's a guy at my FLGS who says exactly the same thing.

He'll comment how restricting it is but then watch my other games and say how strong my 750pts is even though its just a Blood Angels Baal Strike Force.

I play a lot of small games and really enjoy them. I don't have the money to buy 1500pts outright and don't like staring at lots of unpainted models so i'll usual start with 500pts and build it up, buying, assembling, painting and test gaming 250pts at a time.

The only problem is even if you insist on bound low points lists i've had it where i run a CAD and got stuffed by arjacs shield brothers at 750, which you just don't plan for at that level.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I played an 800 point game against GK last Monday and it was really fun.

The smaller games restrict what can be brought and neuter the cheese formations by denying them the points they need to function. Smaller games are really fun.... Even if I did fit three tanks in to it

Why would you ever take 3 tanks to a low points game vs Grey Knights? That's cruel. I've struggled against just 2 at 1500 since 5th edition, and that's WITH rampant list tailoring.

Thank goodness low points stops us from bringing cheese, right?

I generally prefer 2000+ points armies, because then my Word Bearers army really starts to function properly (with big squad sizes!) and I have space for a decent LoW - nothing too crazy, something up to 500 pts.

I prefer bigger games. Small games and especially kill teams have their charm, but small imbalances become really pronounced at those levels. The fact that the wraithknight is 100ish points undercosted becomes painfully apparent when both sides only have like 750 points. Yes you can be all like "no superheavies, no broken formations, no x, no y, no z" to try and fix the game, but you either end up with a decent size errata or an ambiguous situation where you may or may not be a jerk to any given opponent.

Giant games have no such problems. Your WK is 100 points undercosted? Who cares? Drop in the bucket at 6000 points.
As the game gets bigger and bigger, it gets to be more about overall strategy, and less about taking the most competitively costed models, and less about small sample sizes of dice rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now if only the game were streamlined a bit more so that those didn't take 5 hours.

I think bigger games are better. The battles are more epic

1000-1500, bigger games take forever. It's like I don't want to spend 10 hours playing 4 turns

I've been playing 1850-2000 point games lately, but I generally prefer something around 1,000 or 1,250.

Smaller games go faster, let you focus in on a couple of cool units or actions rather than drowning in your own movement phase, and allow for more interesting displays of rock, paper, scissors than in larger games. Smaller games are also more susceptible to bad matchups (heavy bolter spam vs orks for instance) or imbalancing the game via death stars and killer units (picture a wraith knight at 1,000 points), but I'm a fan of talking to your opponent in advance to avoid bad matchups anyway.

Big games take longer, and I don't really feel like I gained anything from using up more time. It's easier to get bored as your opponent takes longer to get through his movement phase, and shooting phases take longer thus forcing you to spend more time picking up models without retaliation.

The only advantage I see to larger games is that you get to play with more of your toys at a time, but I don't always consider this to be a good thing. To avoid having a poorly-balanced list, most armies will play to one of several builds (depending on their codex). So at 1850, a tau army will probably have quite a few HYMPs and some markerlight, or else they'll have a couple riptides. Eldar are going to be packing some efficient scatter lasers in some form. Necrons are going to have a durable block of units with some sort of buff (ghost arks, triarchs, etc.) This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I find it less interesting than seeing a 1,000 point army that has defined strengths and weaknesses. The trade-offs are more apparent and exploitable, and that's not a bad thing if you've arranged a good matchup with your opponent.

Consider a 1,000 point army with a dreadnaught. That dread might actually survive all game as opposed to a 2k game where they tend to be removed pretty swiftly. You can still bring lots of stuff to deal with it, but your opponent can play smart and eliminate those threats tactfully. Similarly, you might bring a wraith lord (which is often considered subpar in larger games). After discussing this with your opponent ahead of time, he can know to bring, say, sniper scouts or the aforementioned dreadnaught to deal with it.

I know I've stayed away from bigger games- mostly because of how long they go and I find them quite exhausting at times. That and I find ny self a little lactose intolerant at times. Because I don't get to play much, I really like quick games to I can get more games/opponents/armies/variety in. I had and 1850 game with my sisters against marines the other week and after about 3 hours I was ready to jump out the window.

We get 4 hour to get a game in, including nattering, list-building, set-up and clear-up.
So, we play up to 1500 point, and usually 1000.
When we are showing someone the rules, we all bring along 400 points lists, and maybe get a couple of intro games in. These are great for trying a new unit. You cannot excel, but can get a feel for the unit's abilities without the distraction of a full game.

For gameplay, I like 1250-1500 since I can knock out a game in a couple of hours.

Large games are fun for trying out stuff and pushing plastic, but I have to make sure I've blocked off time, which can be difficult.

I like both small games and big games. As others have mentioned for small games, the fact that you're limited by the points is part of the fun. I do think small games are more likely to lead to unintentional mismatches, but those can be planned around, and even if not, at least the game will be over soon...

I play from 500 to 1850, and I have fun in any format. 500 feel like little skirmish, and it's perfect for learning the rule, 1250 is where I have most of my ''serious'' game because you have to spend time to make a good list at that point level, and the game can get really tactical. at 1850, it's still the same thing, but usually I feel it more forgiving in the list building, because you have a lot of point to round up your list.

that's my opinion of course

I quite like smaller point games but as others have mentioned balance is harder. I prefer playing kill team or zone mortalis with small points totals with tighter rules around list selection.

I prefer much bigger games, around 4k typically with at least one LoW. I've never found games around that point level to take that long, we can get in a game that side including setup in about 4 hours and we don't play that fast.

the smaller games can have drastic balance issues.

I have found at 3k there is a nice balance between power, fluff, strategy and tactics to be had.

I think the small games work very well with a zone mortalis setting or similar though.

My biggest gripe with regular 40k games at low points is one good first shooting phase can win the entire game. Whereas with larger games units can afford to be lost in order to achive objectives or whatnot.

I like games between 750-2k. 2k for larger games with more time to play, and if you are looking to play with different toys and get a large range of models going.

But 1500 and less is a much more streamlined game. and it does make the game go so much faster.

at 1000 points or less I find my orks can handle it better. space marines struggle in those low point games as they cant get enough wounds on the table, and also cant get enough dakka. But Orks seem to do really well in low point games.

I play 1500-2000pt games usually. However 1000pt or less games I've found to be more fun recently.
1 word of warning though - some armies in particular benefit massively from lower point games. I've found this with my renegades, as they CAN pretty much take everything;
-55pt units of chaos spawn? Check
-80pt MCs? Check
-Incredibly good tank killers for 70pts (3 rapiers with MT)? Check
-2 large st9 ap3 barrage blasts on tough platforms for 110pts? Check
-35pt psudo-fearless objective holders (with sigil)? Check
-20 man blobs with 4 flamers and krak nades all round for 90pts? Check
-Decent AA for various cheap points cost (with cov of tzeentch)? Check