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've been seeing a lot of lists around 1850 points; is this the new standard for mid point games? Should I be aiming to achieve this number for my first list?


Cheers,
Uberpollo

Yup.

In my day, it was 1500pts for a standard list.

Now it's 1850.

Really the number is merely an arbitrary consensus that most players agree upon is a good points limit for most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I should add that if you're brand new to WH40k, you should start out smaller, instead of at 1850pts, and play games intended for newbies who are still learning.

And if your opponent knows you're new, and they proceed to play hard and stomp your army into the ground in a way where you just want to quit and never play ever again, most of us agree that person is a complete jackass who is only ruining the game. You met one guy who's a jerk, just remember who he or she is, and never play against them again.

It is standard tournament points, so that's why you see a lot of it.

It's standard, but I prefer 1200-1500 personally.

uberpollo wrote:
I've been seeing a lot of lists around 1850 points; is this the new standard for mid point games? Should I be aiming to achieve this number for my first list?


Cheers,
Uberpollo

1850 makes sense as an eventual goal (or 2000 with a 150 point sideboard - e.g. a Flyer or fun unit you can drop from the list without fundamentally changing it).

For starting out, work in blocks of 500 - 500 is enough for small skirmishes, 1000 is a pretty standard game size at many stores and groups, 1500 is about as big as is comfortable on a 6'x4' table without getting cramped.

Or you can grow more organically - start by painting up a few units of whatever the standard troop for your army is (Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, etc.) and a commander then gradually add in more specialized units to see what works for you.

 Pouncey wrote:
Yup.

In my day, it was 1500pts for a standard list.

Now it's 1850.

Really the number is merely an arbitrary consensus that most players agree upon is a good points limit for most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I should add that if you're brand new to WH40k, you should start out smaller, instead of at 1850pts, and play games intended for newbies who are still learning.

And if your opponent knows you're new, and they proceed to play hard and stomp your army into the ground in a way where you just want to quit and never play ever again, most of us agree that person is a complete jackass who is only ruining the game. You met one guy who's a jerk, just remember who he or she is, and never play against them again.

Ah yes 5th edition I remember those days well, having sat out the last 2 editions I've been trying to play catch up with the new rule book. Psychic phase is very different then what I remember. What pts value would you recommend for first games back on the block.

Cheers,
Uberpollo


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:


1850 makes sense as an eventual goal (or 2000 with a 150 point sideboard - e.g. a Flyer or fun unit you can drop from the list without fundamentally changing it).

For starting out, work in blocks of 500 - 500 is enough for small skirmishes, 1000 is a pretty standard game size at many stores and groups, 1500 is about as big as is comfortable on a 6'x4' table without getting cramped.

Or you can grow more organically - start by painting up a few units of whatever the standard troop for your army is (Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, etc.) and a commander then gradually add in more specialized units to see what works for you.

Got it so just 3 of the getting started eldar should do the trick (running a windrider battlehost). Does anyone know if that battlehost is relaunching at some point soon?

When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?

Because the TOs and their tournament celebrities discovered TauDar, and it was best at 1850...it was efficient enough to take riptides and wave serpents without any real "fat" in the list (by 6th edition standards). Both Eldar and Tau players felt entitled to a good edition because Tau had been bad since 4th and Eldar were so used to being top-tier that their lower power level in 5th insulted them. At 1850 most armies simply couldn't take enough tools to deal with what TauDar brought to the table; the extra 150 gave Tyranids options but TauDar had to start taking less "efficient" choices. So, everyone went to 1850 and it's stuck. Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

Wow... that's hard core cynical.

My personal favourite level has, and continues to be, 1500 points. 1850 lets you take your lean, cut down 1500 point list and add a couple toys to it. Or re-jig your 1500 point list a bit and add a Knight. Something like that. I found the 1500 standard to 1850 standard fairly organic, but the truth is I only ever make 1500 point lists and then add a couple of toys to it.

But I've never been a tourney player. Competitive, but not official tournaments. Just like-minded guys that wanted to play their A or B game... but never F game, if you follow. Even our "fluffy" lists were cohesive, playable lists.


Just starting? I'd aim to get to 1000 points as quickly as reasonable. I find games below that to be off. You just can't build much beyond your core units and one or two toys. 1500 gives you a "strong" army, but it will have an exploitable weakness. I find that fun, to have a sub-game of exploiting my opponent's weakness while defending my own, while attempting to achieve the mission goals.

I generally find that by 1850 points, you can close up the "gaps" in your list, and that for whatever reason, tactical game play diminishes. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it is my experience. It's still fun, and having the extra points lets you whip out a unit you might not find points for in a 1500 point game, but I do find it less "competitive" and more loose... which might be your cup of tea.

1850 is popular, locally, but if I suggest 1500 points, I usually get a "Sure!" and both parties seem to enjoy it better.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Wow... that's hard core cynical.

I think cynicism is really just being willing to look past the facade of why people say they do things, and trying to understand the reasons they actually do things but simply lie about because the lie will be more acceptable yet still result in getting the thing they want.

You ever misrepresent the truth in a way that you're not really lying, but you're phrasing the truth in a way that gets people to do what you want them to? A cynic just looks beyond what you said and tries to figure out your actual motivation.

 greyknight12 wrote:
When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?

Because the TOs and their tournament celebrities discovered TauDar, and it was best at 1850...it was efficient enough to take riptides and wave serpents without any real "fat" in the list (by 6th edition standards). Both Eldar and Tau players felt entitled to a good edition because Tau had been bad since 4th and Eldar were so used to being top-tier that their lower power level in 5th insulted them. At 1850 most armies simply couldn't take enough tools to deal with what TauDar brought to the table; the extra 150 gave Tyranids options but TauDar had to start taking less "efficient" choices. So, everyone went to 1850 and it's stuck. Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

I don't remember anyone playing 2000 points in 6ed because people didn't like the idea of double FoC be legal

 greyknight12 wrote:
When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?
Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

Damn\ I think I'll build to both then...

 CrownAxe wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?

Because the TOs and their tournament celebrities discovered TauDar, and it was best at 1850...it was efficient enough to take riptides and wave serpents without any real "fat" in the list (by 6th edition standards). Both Eldar and Tau players felt entitled to a good edition because Tau had been bad since 4th and Eldar were so used to being top-tier that their lower power level in 5th insulted them. At 1850 most armies simply couldn't take enough tools to deal with what TauDar brought to the table; the extra 150 gave Tyranids options but TauDar had to start taking less "efficient" choices. So, everyone went to 1850 and it's stuck. Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

I don't remember anyone playing 2000 points in 6ed because people didn't like the idea of double FoC be legal

People didn't play 2000pts at all in 6e, it was simply the standard at the beginning because people hadn't adjusted to 6e yet.

And in 5e, "double FoC" wasn't a thing you could do at all.

Man I remember when I used to play mostly 1500's I forget what brought on higher stuff than that.

When I used to play at Black Diamond Games back in Cali, 1500 was our number... during end of 4th and then maybe into 5th... or maybe it was after the start of 5th ed... we bumped up to 1750... then we cemented to 1850... It was so thrilling to fit a bit more with that extra 250-350 points! More marines in more Razorbacks! ...that die just as much!

uberpollo wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
When 6th came out 2000 points was still the standard that I saw most often, then suddenly it went to 1850. Why?
Now you see talk of 1500 under the guise of "shortening the game", but in reality it's because the top-tier armies (and the players who play them) can max out their FMCs, scatbikes, and free transports with little to no need to take filler units...unlike other armies which need to be more well-rounded and can only do so at higher points values.

So to answer the OP: 1850 is the current standard, with some 1500 tournaments floating around.

Damn\ I think I'll build to both then...

Of course. There's nothing that says you have to use the same units for only one list.

I mean, if you build your models without obvious squad markers, there's no reason you have to build your models for only one unit, and getting them confused is easy to avoid if you simply avoid playing them in ways where you forget what unit they belong to. Generally this only means avoiding any multi-combats where two similar units in your own army are involved, and even then, they have to be so similar you can use the same model for both units. You might get two units of Seekers confused, you won't get a unit of Seekers and a unit of Daemonettes confused. Getting a unit of Assault Marines confused with a unit of Vanguard Veterans is also difficult given how ornate the Veterans are.

1500 points in general, I think, is better as a basis for a more balanced ruleset. The more points that are allowed, the more power in scale some armies that enjoy freebies (or undercosted units) are able to get.

Armies like the Gladius Strike Force, War Convocation and Eldar heavily benefit from an increased game size, whereas armies like Chaos Space Marines and Grey Knights get limited use out of it.

In a lower point game taking superheavies and singular expensive units also becomes more punishing as they make up a larger chunk of a players list, as these days tournament lists can take out a WK/IK easily. Often tournaments are also heavy on objective play, and taking something that costs almost the third of your army affects the lists ability to hold objectives as 3-4 normal units worth of points are in a single unit.

But it depends on the ruleset. Personally I think rulesets with kill points in every scenario and non-hybrid missions (maelstrom and eternal war simultaneously) are just bad. They promote deathstar -style play to deny kill points, and don't punish playing 2 Riptidewings and 2 Stormsurges as the objectives to be held aren't numerous enough to punish a player for lacking the units to hold them.

In friendly games we play at the 1850 pt levels.
But for tournaments, its too much. Here 1650 pts seems to be better.

I played 2k in fantasy. I hated it. I don't care about the game length, I hated the turn length. People tune out waiting to do something. It was originally 1500 in 40k, which I liked a lot better, which also had fewer phases and other tedious bs. (Calculating to hit and armour reductions in fantasy was a fething painful passive aggressive chore.) now with LOWs, fliers, allies, and formations I do like that each army has a little more flavor generally, the extra points are offset by the high costs of those units. Shooting phase can get a little bloated sometimes, and I wish we took out all the extra fething movement phases in every other phase in the game. Seriously, movement is the biggest fething time consumer and now it's fething all the time. Why is running in the shooting phase? Move 6, stop roll, move more. Declare before moving and just add the d6 for feth sakes. One move. Forfeit shooting. Same fething outcome and you don't have to move that unit of 20 orks again jfc. Hell, declare run and/or charge in the movement phase. Move once 6"+3d6. Game time has now been cut in by two thirds. You're welcome.

What was the original question? Oh ya 1850 is good. Build a 2000 point list then make it 1850. All my best lists were made that way.

I have never played a 1850 pts game in my life, usually 1500 or 2000.

 godardc wrote:
I have never played a 1850 pts game in my life, usually 1500 or 2000.

1850 seems to be a very American thing. 1000, 1500, or 2000 are the point sizes I mostly play to, with 1500 being a standard size for an evening's game, and 1000 being for a quicker game.

Personally I prefer 1000 points for games just as it plays so much faster and there is less room for people to bring really silly units.

Standard tournament, so makes sense for people to gradually move to it to practice lists and such.

Its a poopy number to be honest, that is only used because of a conservative tournament player base.

1850 isn't really fit for tournament play any more. I know most tournaments use it but its too big of an army for most events resulting in a high rate of unfinished games.
For casual pick up games its isn't much better since it invites players just pick up their tournament list as a practice instead of showing up with a fun casual list.

If I played 7th edition, I'd play 1411 points. Not a point over or under.

 wuestenfux wrote:
In friendly games we play at the 1850 pt levels.
But for tournaments, its too much. Here 1650 pts seems to be better.

This seems to be quite common. I think ITC were considering dropping to 1650 (maybe still are) at some point - which I think would be a good idea. 1850 seems too big if you're trying to run events with 100+ players over the space of a weekend.

 Elbows wrote:
If I played 7th edition, I'd play 1411 points. Not a point over or under.

Why 1411 exactly? I must say I prefer 1620 points as the new standard

 slip wrote:
I played 2k in fantasy. I hated it. I don't care about the game length, I hated the turn length. People tune out waiting to do something. It was originally 1500 in 40k, which I liked a lot better, which also had fewer phases and other tedious bs. (Calculating to hit and armour reductions in fantasy was a fething painful passive aggressive chore.) now with LOWs, fliers, allies, and formations I do like that each army has a little more flavor generally, the extra points are offset by the high costs of those units. Shooting phase can get a little bloated sometimes, and I wish we took out all the extra fething movement phases in every other phase in the game. Seriously, movement is the biggest fething time consumer and now it's fething all the time. Why is running in the shooting phase? Move 6, stop roll, move more. Declare before moving and just add the d6 for feth sakes. One move. Forfeit shooting. Same fething outcome and you don't have to move that unit of 20 orks again jfc. Hell, declare run and/or charge in the movement phase. Move once 6"+3d6. Game time has now been cut in by two thirds. You're welcome.

What was the original question? Oh ya 1850 is good. Build a 2000 point list then make it 1850. All my best lists were made that way.

2000 is an odd size in Fantasy since it was the bare minimum to unlock Lords in 6/7 (when I was active). Many people I played with preferred 1,999 point games - allows more focus on troops while locking out the absurd special characters.

 Verviedi wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If I played 7th edition, I'd play 1411 points. Not a point over or under.

Why 1411 exactly? I must say I prefer 1620 points as the new standard

You should try 420pts. Your Vindicare can 360-noscope while eating Doritos, drinking Mountain Dew, and blowing his reggae airhorn.

Funnily enough, my Stormsurge loadout is exactly 420 points...

 Asmodai wrote:

 slip wrote:
I played 2k in fantasy. I hated it. I don't care about the game length, I hated the turn length. People tune out waiting to do something. It was originally 1500 in 40k, which I liked a lot better, which also had fewer phases and other tedious bs. (Calculating to hit and armour reductions in fantasy was a fething painful passive aggressive chore.) now with LOWs, fliers, allies, and formations I do like that each army has a little more flavor generally, the extra points are offset by the high costs of those units. Shooting phase can get a little bloated sometimes, and I wish we took out all the extra fething movement phases in every other phase in the game. Seriously, movement is the biggest fething time consumer and now it's fething all the time. Why is running in the shooting phase? Move 6, stop roll, move more. Declare before moving and just add the d6 for feth sakes. One move. Forfeit shooting. Same fething outcome and you don't have to move that unit of 20 orks again jfc. Hell, declare run and/or charge in the movement phase. Move once 6"+3d6. Game time has now been cut in by two thirds. You're welcome.

What was the original question? Oh ya 1850 is good. Build a 2000 point list then make it 1850. All my best lists were made that way.

2000 is an odd size in Fantasy since it was the bare minimum to unlock Lords in 6/7 (when I was active). Many people I played with preferred 1,999 point games - allows more focus on troops while locking out the absurd special characters.

I think I'd prefer 1999. I played a few at 1500 myself, just borrowing from 40k. But ultimately you needed a lord if you wanted a badass dragon, demon, or wizard so I think that's why it stuck. Probably a leftover from 5th Ed hero hammer, but 6th at 2k wasn't horrifically broken. At least not because of lord choices, more because of steam tanks and ratling guns but I digress...

In the end, I find myself playing a lot of 500 point games pretty consistently over every edition and game. Quick, easy, fun. I've never seen anyone meltdown over one. Pick a smaller board and you're good to go.

 BBAP wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If I played 7th edition, I'd play 1411 points. Not a point over or under.

Why 1411 exactly? I must say I prefer 1620 points as the new standard

You should try 420pts. Your Vindicare can 360-noscope while eating Doritos, drinking Mountain Dew, and blowing his reggae airhorn.

*Quick-scope. And I haven't finished my Vindicare training.

1850 was the standard game size as far back as I can remember. When did it drop down?

When some players started to field more than that in 1850 -> free rhino's etc.