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.

With one of the upcoming events at my FLGS, there was a bit of debate among the playerbase. Originally the event had a points limit of 1750 points. After some feedback from some of the more competitive players in my area, it was changed to the standard for tournaments held at the FLGS, 1850 points. Personally, I was fine with either points limit, so I was a bit confused as to the debate.

From what I understand, 1750 is more common in Europe while 1850 is more common in the USA. 1850 also allows certain armies to bring more of their signature units thanks to the 100 points difference.

So is there a specific reason as to why tournaments have set their points limits at 1750 or 1850?

Usually comes down to time constraints vs allowing people to bring a decent sized army. I've not found a huge difference between 1750 and 1850 but every extra point you add means the game will go longer.

this can lead to games having to be called at turn 4 or earlier and i personally hate that.

Considering the current state of the rules, I've come to believe that in current 40k, the lesser, the better.

If I were tasked with organising a tournament, I'd probably go for 1500 points. I understand less than that could leave many players without options against certain kinds of cheese. But I certainly wouldn't go higher either. The game becomes too long and too tedious for my taste nowadays, playing at higher points.

I think it's mostly due to time constraints. Much more than 1,850 per side and the games will tend to go on for a very long time. 1500-1850 seems to be the sweet spot for games that aren't too long, whilst still lasting a decent amount of time.

1500 does limit some ally and formations cheese since it becomes difficult to fit in all the pieces needed to make that work.

The ITC is 1850pts general and that's generally the competitive scene these days, so it's good to stay consistent with their rules for most players who like being competitive.

Basically, while it might not change the game massively, it makes it far more relevant in the face of the main tournament organization out there currently.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Usually comes down to time constraints vs allowing people to bring a decent sized army. I've not found a huge difference between 1750 and 1850 but every extra point you add means the game will go longer.

this can lead to games having to be called at turn 4 or earlier and i personally hate that.

Time difference between 1750 and 1850 is minimal. There's a bit of a sweet spot around that points level where damage output seems to balance out any extra time required to handle the extra units for most armies. Bigger than 1850 and you do start to run into some more serious time constraints, although these days even that is going to be counterbalanced somewhat if the meta includes a lot of D-weapons, I would expect.

The higher pointed your FLGSs value for their tournament, the worse certain factions will do (Like CSM) when pitted against things like SMs, Tau, Eldar and IG.

Point for point you get more tactical prowess out of your models, no matter the faction as a general at smaller point games than you will in games above 1500. Mostly because by that point value you can Ally in a very large amount of game breaking models for rather small point values.