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.

Just browsing through the army list section it seems like the majority of the lists are aiming for 2000 points - is this what everyone is experiencing in their stores/playgroups as well?

I'm guessing it is largely due to players wanting to keep using the same models from their 7th edition 1650-1850 lists and scaling them to the new point costs. I'm also noticing significantly more 1000 point lists - do you think this is just players testing out the new edition with small armies or will that trend continue as well? I personally wouldn't mind more 1000 point games, with the new rules you could play a few games back to back in an evening.

I often found 2000 to be cheese territory in 7th.

But it certainly does seem like 2000 is the new 1850.

Part of me hopes it'll settle on 2500 because I always feel like I'm unable to add one or two things I really want to my lists :((

 gossipmeng wrote:
Just browsing through the army list section it seems like the majority of the lists are aiming for 2000 points - is this what everyone is experiencing in their stores/playgroups as well?

I'm guessing it is largely due to players wanting to keep using the same models from their 7th edition 1650-1850 lists and scaling them to the new point costs. I'm also noticing significantly more 1000 point lists - do you think this is just players testing out the new edition with small armies or will that trend continue as well? I personally wouldn't mind more 1000 point games, with the new rules you could play a few games back to back in an evening.

I really hope not. The whole point of this edition was to make it faster to play. Setting the points at something dumb like 2000pts completely defeats the point of that. Especially tournaments, I was really hoping we'd go back to 1750, 1500 tops.

I'm having a hard time getting a 2000pt army with my IG as is and I have over 200 infantry models to plonk down on the table. I really don't want to have to invest in tanks just to eat up some points because I can't afford the cash to field something stupid like 300 infantry.

Partially due to how cost changes went in different directions (vehicles generally went up, infantry generally went down) it seems like different units now have different levels they're comfortable at.

Infantry work well around 500-1000, vehicles work well around 750-2000 (mixed with infantry), superheavies are more comfortable at 2000+ (otherwise a single superheavy can eat up too much of a list).

People should learn to vary their army and list from game to game instead of aiming for a point-limit that allow them to field whatever they want like a "safe space"

Wheres the fun in that?! Speaking from a competitive/tournament standpoint of course.

Game works great at low point values. 1000 happens a lot around here. Some 750 and 500 as well, but with no super characters or vehicles or things get a bit all or nothing.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I really hope not. The whole point of this edition was to make it faster to play. Setting the points at something dumb like 2000pts completely defeats the point of that. Especially tournaments, I was really hoping we'd go back to 1750, 1500 tops.

Of course point cost doesn't tell whole story. After all you can play 3k HH game faster easily than 1750 pts game of 7th ed 40k.

2000 used to be my standard. We're probably going to be upping that to 2500 or 3000.

While 1500 has merits and is a quick battle, I'd say 2000 is around the 'right' size.


Lower points make horde/cheap armies more effective in the points, while more specialist armies get punished unless using a tailored list. 2000 points I feel allows ALL armies yo have an equal shot. But, more importantly, if all tournaments are 2000, you can quickly gather a lot of data, and easily see anything that is too good/under performing, and so adjusted rules in the codex could happen quickly, under GW stance on codexes.

Just my 2 pence on point limits.

2000 points 3 detachments is the tournament standard suggested by GW and the ITC.

I'm liking 1750, but then we usually played at 1500 in 7th, which was a bit lower than what seemed to be the standard. The game seems to play pretty well at a wider range of point limits, which is a good change.

As far as tournaments are concerned I'd like to see things change a bit in 8th with more tournaments at different points values. There seems to be a desire to standardise everything, which I can understand, but I like the variety you get from varying the points limit.

 gossipmeng wrote:
I personally wouldn't mind more 1000 point games, with the new rules you could play a few games back to back in an evening.

I am all for this as well. Many clubs or player groups are already used to allocating a certain timeslot for a game. If we could magically fit in 2 or 3 faster games in the same period that would be super awesome. There is a lot of random in the game as it is, getting a re-match with a different objective was always one of my favorite ways to play. But time almost never allowed it to be done.

However, the big problem with smaller armies is that players need less models. So likely the official tournament scene will go back up in model count to satisfy GW's revenue targets.

I have always seen 2000 as the standard, and it is what I used to play the most in 5th/6th/7th.
Now it is mixed, some 1000, some 2000...
But I really enjoy 1000 pts.

2000pts was the normal level I played at in 7th, so no change for me there.

Not all armies work well at 1000 it can be tough in 8th for the more elite armies to make a rounded force.

Boise Cup, 8th's first GT, was 1850. Hope it stays as such.

1500, 1750 or occasionally 1850 was the club standard for the last few editions. Most of us are still playing small starter games and working up to get familiar with the rules but my impression so far is that the game plays a bit faster than 7th edition. Maybe 2K will become the new standard but we will have to wait and see.

GW "lets make the game player faster!"

40k players: "game plays faster, sweet lets slow it back down by playing larger games!"

 SHUPPET wrote:
GW "lets make the game player faster!"

40k players: "game plays faster, sweet lets slow it back down by playing larger games!"

That would be true if 2k games of 8th were larger than 1750 games of 7th. They aren't. Most things cost more now, so you end up with fewer units at 2k than you used to have at 1750 or 1850.

 SHUPPET wrote:
GW "lets make the game player faster!"

40k players: "game plays faster, sweet lets slow it back down by playing larger games!"

So what you are saying GW didn't fasten game by fastening rules but by reducing army size. Which itself isn't even direct correlation as evidenced by HH(7th ed) games being faster per point than 40k(7th ed).

My preference would be 1500 and not 2k, based on my dozen or so games so far. 2k was the standard around here for 7th though and it seems to be the default for 8th as well. I think it just takes too long and frankly gets a bit tedious with the ridiculous number of dice rolling around. To be fair my experience has largely been against hordish type armies where a single player turn can involve hundreds of dice being rolled altogether.

ERJAK wrote:
2000 points 3 detachments is the tournament standard suggested by GW and the ITC.

I'm aware that it's the ITC standard, but where does GW suggest it?

Most GW-hosted tournaments I've seen have been 1500.

Debilitate wrote:
Part of me hopes it'll settle on 2500 because I always feel like I'm unable to add one or two things I really want to my lists :((

That's how it should be. Game would get stale if you were using the same list in every game.

The army size should have never been something as wonky as 1850. That size makes no sense whatsoever.

We mostly played 1500 point games in 7th, unless someone wanted to play ITC, at 1850.

2000 points in 8th feels like 1500 in 7th.

Asmodai wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
2000 points 3 detachments is the tournament standard suggested by GW and the ITC.

I'm aware that it's the ITC standard, but where does GW suggest it?

Most GW-hosted tournaments I've seen have been 1500.

I think it's in the core rulebook under matched play. IIRC they have enough three increments for match size, 2 detachments at 1000 points for small, 3 at 2000 for medium and 4 at 3000 for large.

Of course tourney organizers can chose the points and detachments allowed, but...

Breng77 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
GW "lets make the game player faster!"

40k players: "game plays faster, sweet lets slow it back down by playing larger games!"

That would be true if 2k games of 8th were larger than 1750 games of 7th. They aren't. Most things cost more now, so you end up with fewer units at 2k than you used to have at 1750 or 1850.

This. With the actual points cost adjustments, unless you are a dedicated all-infantry all footslogging all the time die-hard, you aren't fielding as many models at 1500 points as you used to, and a 2000 point game is still faster than a 1500 in 7th could be.

Almost every army I play at 2k now vs 2k 7th is at most 2/3 the size
my tau are at 2500 1/2 of what they were at 3k
My chaos was maxing at 10k now they are over 13k and that not counting units they think are no longer playable (FW fed up)
My SM army was 3k with a knight and some assassins now they were more than that without them hell my storm raven unit went from about 500 to 800

I do think that 2k is going to be where most games tend to gravitate towards. Although I'm really liking the fact that the game is playing well at 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 point limits from what I've seen. It's gives a lot more options and offers different gaming experiences.

 SHUPPET wrote:
GW "lets make the game player faster!"

40k players: "game plays faster, sweet lets slow it back down by playing larger games!"

More like

GW: "Lets increase points costs to correct all these editions of points reduction and being accused of forcing players to buy more models to field the same number of points!"

40k players: "WTF I can't use all of my models! GW you damm bastards!"

A 2k game in 8th is a lot faster than an 1850 game in 7th. Plus it's nice since we can just put together a 1k list too that works for fast pick up games or 2v2.