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 remember the discussions we had to move from 1750 to 1850, and the main argument always was

"I have bought x times this one expensive model and it doesn't fit a well rounded list, so please increase the point level so I can use all of them"

for the same reason people now don't want to go back to smaller games.
they want to use all of their expensive models and I guess we will rather see 2500 to 3000 point tournaments in 9th than any lower point level no matter what GW suggests or the rules will say

Players don't like hard choices. They don't like to fell limited. They want to take everything. No sacrifices. Thats "anti-fun" as many people would call it.

 Galas wrote:
Players don't like hard choices. They don't like to fell limited. They want to take everything. No sacrifices. Thats "anti-fun" as many people would call it.

Which totally goes against the goal of a tournament, which should reward the guy that makes the best decisions under pressure.

But truthfully I think the more competitive crowd would just deal with it and adapt, and honestly would make the best of it. Imagine how much better flowing a 1500 point tournies would be. With less models you get less gun-lines because there is actually room to spread out again. But that is something that falls in the players lap, the issue with making everything too cheap is you lose all the granularity in the design space which means you struggle to balance units against each other.

My biggest issue with 1850 is that it is so.....uneven. I mean, yes technically it is an 'even' number, but why not just add the 150pts and make it a nice round 2000pts? 150 is nothing, like 1 maybe 2 units.

I like the progression of points in increments of 250 or 500 like this:
500 - just starting or playing a special, small ops mission
1000 - still learning/building my force
1250 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1500 - pretty much got the game down and is a nice casual level
1750 - heading into more competitive levels and wanting to add more toys
2000 - final, polished list built will all the toys. Can be competitive or casual, but "feels" like a full army

1850 is just...why?

-

 Galef wrote:
My biggest issue with 1850 is that it is so.....uneven. I mean, yes technically it is an 'even' number, but why not just add the 150pts and make it a nice round 2000pts? 150 is nothing, like 1 maybe 2 units.

I like the progression of points in increments of 250 or 500 like this:
500 - just starting or playing a special, small ops mission
1000 - still learning/building my force
1250 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1500 - pretty much got the game down and is a nice casual level
1750 - heading into more competitive levels and wanting to add more toys
2000 - final, polished list built will all the toys. Can be competitive or casual, but "feels" like a full army

1850 is just...why?

-

Labels are arbitrary. Could just as easily be ...


500 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1000 - fully fledged, tight competitive army
1500 - casual army with lots of extra flab to avoid hard choices
2000 - Apocalypse and/or playing two armies simultaneously.

1750 feels like a more interesting point total to me just because I end up feeling as though I can't account for everything with it, meaning I'm choosing between screening or anti-tank or a melee presence, etc.

At 2000 I generally find that the trade offs are significantly less impactful.

That said I still like playing 2k.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Galef wrote:
My biggest issue with 1850 is that it is so.....uneven. I mean, yes technically it is an 'even' number, but why not just add the 150pts and make it a nice round 2000pts? 150 is nothing, like 1 maybe 2 units.

I like the progression of points in increments of 250 or 500 like this:
500 - just starting or playing a special, small ops mission
1000 - still learning/building my force
1250 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1500 - pretty much got the game down and is a nice casual level
1750 - heading into more competitive levels and wanting to add more toys
2000 - final, polished list built will all the toys. Can be competitive or casual, but "feels" like a full army

1850 is just...why?

-

Labels are arbitrary. Could just as easily be ...


500 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1000 - fully fledged, tight competitive army
1500 - casual army with lots of extra flab to avoid hard choices
2000 - Apocalypse and/or playing two armies simultaneously.

Label them what you will, the core concept is the same. Increments of 250 or 500 just make sense

I think the only reason 1850 became popular is back when you organized your army into a single FOC, people often played 1500-2000 with some 1750 thrown in as the compromise level between the 2.
But then you could take a 2nd FOC at 2000pts, which spawned the infamous 1999+1 points limts nonsense. 1850 seemed like the way to be under 2000m but without being as low as 1750 or something ridiculous like 1999+1

"Back in my day" side note, I find it assuming that there was a time in 40K in which everyone was limited to 1 FOC with only allowed 2 HQ max, 6 Troop max, and 3 Elite/Fast/Heavy MAX, then when we were allowed 2 FOCs at 2000pts, people seemed to go out of their way to limit that back to 1 FOC.

But now we can have several detachments and way more that 3 max of any battlefield roll, yet some people complain about the Ro3, which was basically the standard for over a decade AND with fewer choices. With so many more options and available detachments, Ro3 should super easy, but people want to spam for some reason

-

This is why I use power levels. No worries about any of it and all this drama about 1 point here or there.

No one cares that you guys play 1438 point level maelstrom basementhammer games. This is now pages and pages of totally off topic rambling.

 Virules wrote:
No one cares that you guys play 1438 point level maelstrom basementhammer games. This is now pages and pages of totally off topic rambling.

If something goes for "pages and pages", clearly some people actually do care.

But I agree we need to steer this back on topic. The point was that if everyones' armies are now ~250-500pts cheaper than they were at the start of 8E because CA is intent on just making things cheaper, then the standard game size should no longer be 2000, but 1500-1750.
But that won't happen because people want to keep bringing their toys that GW keeps getting them to buy by making everything cheaper.

While I am glad for 11ppm Chaos Marines and 12ppm Tacticals, I'd much rather live in a world in which both of those were 15-16ppm with 2Ws and AP-1 Bolters as standard.
That would allow for a greater granularity between other basic Troops without having to resort to bucket-loads of extra rules

-

 Galef wrote:

 Virules wrote:
No one cares that you guys play 1438 point level maelstrom basementhammer games. This is now pages and pages of totally off topic rambling.

If something goes for "pages and pages", clearly some people actually do care.

But I agree we need to steer this back on topic. The point was that if everyones' armies are now ~250-500pts cheaper than they were at the start of 8E because CA is intent on just making things cheaper, then the standard game size should no longer be 2000, but 1500-1750.
But that won't happen because people want to keep bringing their toys that GW keeps getting them to buy by making everything cheaper.

While I am glad for 11ppm Chaos Marines and 12ppm Tacticals, I'd much rather live in a world in which both of those were 15-16ppm with 2Ws and AP-1 Bolters as standard.
That would allow for a greater granularity between other basic Troops without having to resort to bucket-loads of extra rules

-

True, however, in the case of CSM, you'd still revert back to Cultists due to CP generation and how that is important for CSM.

 Galef wrote:
My biggest issue with 1850 is that it is so.....uneven. I mean, yes technically it is an 'even' number, but why not just add the 150pts and make it a nice round 2000pts? 150 is nothing, like 1 maybe 2 units.

I like the progression of points in increments of 250 or 500 like this:
500 - just starting or playing a special, small ops mission
1000 - still learning/building my force
1250 - got my "core" list and building up my knowledge
1500 - pretty much got the game down and is a nice casual level
1750 - heading into more competitive levels and wanting to add more toys
2000 - final, polished list built will all the toys. Can be competitive or casual, but "feels" like a full army

1850 is just...why?

-

For whatever reason 1750 really bothers me, like, as a number. 1800 is much cleaner to my brain. 1850 is mental nonsense though.

I always found it strange that points was a goal instead of a means to an end. If you look at ITC actions, they have made some heavy weight choices to keep the game at 2k points by increasing round length and adding chess clocks. It's not like they are protecting some standard, 2k points after this CA will be about 30% larger than 2k points at the beginning of 8th. If the combination of rules bloat and point creep continues, eventually three hour rounds will not be long enough, at which point I guess ITC will just institute 4 hour rounds. I kid, mostly, the ITC guys are not dumb, they are at least as aware of these factors, and a new ITC season seems like a wonderful time to announce a new standard points value for ITC run events.

Maybe I'm not ITCs target demo because I find three hour rounds to be awful. All of the interesting stuff happens in the first hour, and then you and your opponent spend two hours farming VP. Also imagine taking a thousand+ dollar vacation to beautiful San Diego, and not being able to do any tourist stuff because you are spending 10+ hours a day standing in a convention hall.

so at what page should I go back to find talk about CA being two books now

bfdhud wrote:
so at what page should I go back to find talk about CA being two books now

Same product, same price. The books are separated by function. Points in one, missions and new stuff in the other.

bfdhud wrote:
so at what page should I go back to find talk about CA being two books now

No need - the summary is that you get one hardcover and one softcover for the price of the previous CAs. Some people with printing background added that it takes less time to print softcovers so point adjustment might be a little more up to date, but still not new enough to react to Codexevastator Doctrine.

Sterling191 wrote:

bfdhud wrote:
so at what page should I go back to find talk about CA being two books now

Same product, same price. The books are separated by function. Points in one, missions and new stuff in the other.

Are there any indications what the '...and stuff' actually is?

The seem to be selling a points booklet and an empty hardback cover for all the talk its generated.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Virules wrote:
No one cares that you guys play 1438 point level maelstrom basementhammer games. This is now pages and pages of totally off topic rambling.

If something goes for "pages and pages", clearly some people actually do care.

But I agree we need to steer this back on topic. The point was that if everyones' armies are now ~250-500pts cheaper than they were at the start of 8E because CA is intent on just making things cheaper, then the standard game size should no longer be 2000, but 1500-1750.
But that won't happen because people want to keep bringing their toys that GW keeps getting them to buy by making everything cheaper.

While I am glad for 11ppm Chaos Marines and 12ppm Tacticals, I'd much rather live in a world in which both of those were 15-16ppm with 2Ws and AP-1 Bolters as standard.
That would allow for a greater granularity between other basic Troops without having to resort to bucket-loads of extra rules

-

True, however, in the case of CSM, you'd still revert back to Cultists due to CP generation and how that is important for CSM.

No you wouldn't, assuming Cultists stay at 5 PPM, CSM are more points-efficient at generating CP than Cultists, at 165/8 to the Cultists' 150/5. That's 20.625 points per CP to 30 points per CP. Even with 4 point Cultists they're worse for CP, at 24 points per CP.

Voss wrote:

is there any indications what the '...and stuff' actually is?

The seem to be selling a points booklet and an empty hardback cover for all the talk its generated.

That I dont have an answer for. New missions are confirmed, but not how many, nor any indication what the equivalent of the Sisters and Chaos Knight beta-dexes will be this year.

Something I have been wondering about whether we could fix the CP chaff problem with larger minimum unit sizes.
If you had to take units of 20 cultists or guardsmen, there would be a real decision to be made between them and the more elite troops - while they are more efficient, a unit of 5 CSM or scions would put less pressure on the rest of the list.

Sterling191 wrote:

bfdhud wrote:
so at what page should I go back to find talk about CA being two books now

Same product, same price. The books are separated by function. Points in one, missions and new stuff in the other.

Same as the last Generals handbook for AOS

 Galef wrote:

 Virules wrote:
No one cares that you guys play 1438 point level maelstrom basementhammer games. This is now pages and pages of totally off topic rambling.

If something goes for "pages and pages", clearly some people actually do care.

But I agree we need to steer this back on topic. The point was that if everyones' armies are now ~250-500pts cheaper than they were at the start of 8E because CA is intent on just making things cheaper, then the standard game size should no longer be 2000, but 1500-1750.
But that won't happen because people want to keep bringing their toys that GW keeps getting them to buy by making everything cheaper.

While I am glad for 11ppm Chaos Marines and 12ppm Tacticals, I'd much rather live in a world in which both of those were 15-16ppm with 2Ws and AP-1 Bolters as standard.
That would allow for a greater granularity between other basic Troops without having to resort to bucket-loads of extra rules

-

So basically you just want intercessors to be 2ppm cheaper?

(And don't give me that +1 attack, longer range crap. No one cares about their melee and tacticals special weapons options would make up for not having primaris bolters.)

 Jidmah wrote:
Something I have been wondering about whether we could fix the CP chaff problem with larger minimum unit sizes.
If you had to take units of 20 cultists or guardsmen, there would be a real decision to be made between them and the more elite troops - while they are more efficient, a unit of 5 CSM or scions would put less pressure on the rest of the list.

The issue, I think you'll find, is that GW likely views the problem as a feature. Realistically they just need to provide more varied roles so that 3 troops makes more sense as 2x10 guardsman + 5 scions instead of the all or nothing route we have now. The main issue is that what you really want to see is 10 guardsman cost the same as 5 scions AND have them be equally viable. That's a really complicated tightrope to walk.

ERJAK wrote:
So basically you just want intercessors to be 2ppm cheaper?

Kinda, but in a world in which there is no such thing as "Primaris" Marines and ALL Marines whether Tacs, Dev, Assaults, CSM, Raptors, Havocs, etc are 2W/2A base. And yes, for 2ppm cheaper because in this utopian world I am envisioning, there is no need for rules upon rules; Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault and Combat Doctrines would not exist (because with 2 base attacks and AP-1 Bolters, they wouldn't be needed)
"Primaris" would just be true-scale Marines in Mark X armour

-

 Galef wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
So basically you just want intercessors to be 2ppm cheaper?

Kinda, but in a world in which there is no such thing as "Primaris" Marines and ALL Marines whether Tacs, Dev, Assaults, CSM, Raptors, Havocs, etc are 2W/2A base. And yes, for 2ppm cheaper because in this utopian world I am envisioning, there is no need for rules upon rules; Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault and Combat Doctrines would not exist (because with 2 base attacks and AP-1 Bolters, they wouldn't be needed)
"Primaris" would just be true-scale Marines in Mark X armour

-

I like your vision.

I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Galef wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
So basically you just want intercessors to be 2ppm cheaper?

Kinda, but in a world in which there is no such thing as "Primaris" Marines and ALL Marines whether Tacs, Dev, Assaults, CSM, Raptors, Havocs, etc are 2W/2A base. And yes, for 2ppm cheaper because in this utopian world I am envisioning, there is no need for rules upon rules; Bolter Discipline, Shock Assault and Combat Doctrines would not exist (because with 2 base attacks and AP-1 Bolters, they wouldn't be needed)
"Primaris" would just be true-scale Marines in Mark X armour

I like your vision.

I like how you both want to show middle finger to people who bought more expensive models instead of clinging to old, ugly gak, and go back to single, boring monooption (bolter, bolter, or bolter) instead of having actual, interesting choices on your troops. If anything, yesterday WC photo is best reason anyone could give why belly-less dwarflets should stay W1:



Anyway, even if GW does eventually decide to shoot itself in the foot and move SM to W2, Primaris should either be moved to T5 or get 5+++, they are supposed to be significantly more durable due to new organs and even their current W2 fails to show that due to insane D2 proliferation...

 Irbis wrote:

Anyway, even if GW does eventually decide to shoot itself in the foot and move SM to W2, Primaris should either be moved to T5 or get 5+++, they are supposed to be significantly more durable due to new organs and even their current W2 fails to show that due to insane D2 proliferation...

For that very reason, Space Marines should have been S5, T5, BS/WS2+ and W2 right from the beginning

No reason why a significantly more durable, due new organs and overall genetic modification should end up the same as an Imperial Guard veteran soldier (going back when both had S/T4)

This whole thing does not work out well and if there is no significant difference between human veterans and genetic modified super soldiers (except their equipment) why should there be the same bg difference between the older and newer super soldier

 AduroT wrote:
I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

Your locals must be increadibly slow playing then, I have no problems getting through 5+ turns at a tournament at 2K.

 Imateria wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I make my locals suffer thru 1k pt tournaments. That way they actually get games finished instead of having time called on turn three.

Your locals must be increadibly slow playing then, I have no problems getting through 5+ turns at a tournament at 2K.

Think it largely comes down to what I'm playing against and that tends to be the deciding factor in a game going to time or not.