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.

Looking through army lists in the army list forum, I've noticed nearly everything is 2000 point lists. Has 2500 just fallen out of favor? When I first started playing, in 7E, it seemed like the standard pretty much everyone played (and what my FLGS always did tournaments in)

2000 has always been the standard, you're the first I've ever seen refer to 2500 as the standard.

I rarely played anything other than 1850 in 7th, 1750 in 6th and 1500 before that, going to 2000 was a start of 8th thing.

I love 2500 and wish more people would do it. Especially in 8th; the increased lethality means you've GOT to have more units on the board to endure.

But, sadly, 2500 isn't comfortable with most people because of board space (which is true; if stuff doesn't get deleted quickly, then it all very rapidly becomes a huge mess of nonsense just piling forwards because there is no space to maneuver).

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Looking through army lists in the army list forum, I've noticed nearly everything is 2000 point lists. Has 2500 just fallen out of favor? When I first started playing, in 7E, it seemed like the standard pretty much everyone played (and what my FLGS always did tournaments in)

The standard in 7th edition was 1850 points, the 2500 points was (and still is) a huge format. Now the standard is set around 2000 points since several stuff became more expensive. Still lesser units than in 7th but with the return of the hordes games are not extremely short, and the 2000 points format is a good compromise between time and model count. But the real equivalent of the 7th edition 1850 points games is the 2500 points format in 8th edition: if you try to use the same lists at 1850 points you made in 7th with the current points costs you'll end up with 2500 points lists, but a 2500 points game in 8th edition takes too much time on average.

 Blackie wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Looking through army lists in the army list forum, I've noticed nearly everything is 2000 point lists. Has 2500 just fallen out of favor? When I first started playing, in 7E, it seemed like the standard pretty much everyone played (and what my FLGS always did tournaments in)

The standard in 7th edition was 1850 points, the 2500 points was (and still is) a huge format. Now the standard is set around 2000 points since several stuff became more expensive. Still lesser units than in 7th but with the return of the hordes games are not extremely short, and the 2000 points format is a good compromise between time and model count. But the real equivalent of the 7th edition 1850 points games is the 2500 points format in 8th edition: if you try to use the same lists at 1850 points you made in 7th with the current points costs you'll end up with 2500 points lists, but a 2500 points game in 8th edition takes too much time on average.

That last statement is very army dependent. For many of my builds things come out to similar points as 7th (or sometimes less!) Xenos price changes were highly variable.

Edit to add an example:

7th Edition ListSo with the same models set up in a similar way, I can build the following:
That's now 1549 now and used to be 1850.

I'm surprised people even play 2000 still, just seems like so much!

2000 is the new 1750 from 7th

(2000 is the new standard in all I have sceen)

I used to play 7000- 9000 points regularly. I love huge games. Bu this was way back in 4th. Since then I've sold off a lot of my army.

2500 Points was the standard sized game at my old shop for games of 30k but that was because we all wanted to use our big awesome FW toys.

40k for 7th was always 1500 to 1750.

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:2000 has always been the standard, you're the first I've ever seen refer to 2500 as the standard.

Weird, in my area all I ever see is 2500, even in tournaments at most of the local shops.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I love 2500 and wish more people would do it. Especially in 8th; the increased lethality means you've GOT to have more units on the board to endure.

But, sadly, 2500 isn't comfortable with most people because of board space (which is true; if stuff doesn't get deleted quickly, then it all very rapidly becomes a huge mess of nonsense just piling forwards because there is no space to maneuver).

Blackie wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Looking through army lists in the army list forum, I've noticed nearly everything is 2000 point lists. Has 2500 just fallen out of favor? When I first started playing, in 7E, it seemed like the standard pretty much everyone played (and what my FLGS always did tournaments in)

The standard in 7th edition was 1850 points, the 2500 points was (and still is) a huge format. Now the standard is set around 2000 points since several stuff became more expensive. Still lesser units than in 7th but with the return of the hordes games are not extremely short, and the 2000 points format is a good compromise between time and model count. But the real equivalent of the 7th edition 1850 points games is the 2500 points format in 8th edition: if you try to use the same lists at 1850 points you made in 7th with the current points costs you'll end up with 2500 points lists, but a 2500 points game in 8th edition takes too much time on average.

Maybe it's a difference in the meta where I mostly play, the fact that people don't play a lot of spam lists or anything like that, but to me 2500 has never seemed to be a significantly larger or longer game than 2000 or even 1850, because for most of the players I know, those 500-650 points mostly get taken up by including more heavy support choices, flyers, etc. that they wouldn't have wanted to sacrifice bodies for at lower point values. It's rare in our local meta to see a 2500 point list add more than 10 models against a 2000 point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chimeara wrote:
I used to play 7000- 9000 points regularly. I love huge games. Bu this was way back in 4th. Since then I've sold off a lot of my army.

If I ever had the time, I'd do this. But, y'know, wife, murdering me.

I found in 6E and 7E that most people wanted to play at 1850, and my local shop was odd for preferring 2000. (Though, in 6E, 1850 did have the advantage of automatically preventing the use of double force organization without having to worry about hair-splitting about a few points one way or the other.)

AnFéasógMór wrote:

CREEEEEEEEED wrote:2000 has always been the standard, you're the first I've ever seen refer to 2500 as the standard.

Weird, in my area all I ever see is 2500, even in tournaments at most of the local shops.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I love 2500 and wish more people would do it. Especially in 8th; the increased lethality means you've GOT to have more units on the board to endure.

But, sadly, 2500 isn't comfortable with most people because of board space (which is true; if stuff doesn't get deleted quickly, then it all very rapidly becomes a huge mess of nonsense just piling forwards because there is no space to maneuver).

Blackie wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Looking through army lists in the army list forum, I've noticed nearly everything is 2000 point lists. Has 2500 just fallen out of favor? When I first started playing, in 7E, it seemed like the standard pretty much everyone played (and what my FLGS always did tournaments in)

The standard in 7th edition was 1850 points, the 2500 points was (and still is) a huge format. Now the standard is set around 2000 points since several stuff became more expensive. Still lesser units than in 7th but with the return of the hordes games are not extremely short, and the 2000 points format is a good compromise between time and model count. But the real equivalent of the 7th edition 1850 points games is the 2500 points format in 8th edition: if you try to use the same lists at 1850 points you made in 7th with the current points costs you'll end up with 2500 points lists, but a 2500 points game in 8th edition takes too much time on average.

Maybe it's a difference in the meta where I mostly play, the fact that people don't play a lot of spam lists or anything like that, but to me 2500 has never seemed to be a significantly larger or longer game than 2000 or even 1850, because for most of the players I know, those 500-650 points mostly get taken up by including more heavy support choices, flyers, etc. that they wouldn't have wanted to sacrifice bodies for at lower point values. It's rare in our local meta to see a 2500 point list add more than 10 models against a 2000 point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chimeara wrote:
I used to play 7000- 9000 points regularly. I love huge games. Bu this was way back in 4th. Since then I've sold off a lot of my army.

If I ever had the time, I'd do this. But, y'know, wife, murdering me.

You're area sounds pretty weird lol. In 7th for me we had enough stuff on the table at 2500pts that it would 4-5 hours per game. Hell, we ran tournaments at 1500 because 1850 took too long. Just to clarify though it wasn't the amount of models that made the game take longer it was the amount of overlapping special rules. 600pts would have been enough for a decently tooled out libcon or another mini-star or tooling out whatever deathstar we already had.

We used to play a lot of 2500 in my local group. We play less now because our armies are less efficient at 2500, and we haven't re-equipped yet.

It's not really any different from 2000, though.

ERJAK wrote:


You're area sounds pretty weird lol. In 7th for me we had enough stuff on the table at 2500pts that it would 4-5 hours per game.

Oh, absolutely, but I think that might be part of the thing, is most of us like playing a 4-5 hour game (it's Appalachia, there isn't a ton else to do). It did make it a bit problematic for tournaments, though, because most of them wouldn't make it past the 3 round. Although, tournaments seldom saw a lot of models on the table, because we did have a few too many tournament players in 7th who would do things like, y'know, drop two Warhounds on the table.

2k used to be the standard at my club and still is. However - 2k is a smaller game in 8th compared to 7th.

There's already scaling issues with armies. Increasing the point limits would only serve to highlight that disparity.

I will happily play 2500 point games after they nerf a few problematic armies.

In our gaming group we play regularly at the 2500 pt level.
It gives you more options and allows even a superheavy to be included.

I remember 1850 and 2k being the norm for 7th

i remember hearing 2500 is the new 1850

but 2k seems fine and that is what we play in my group

2500pts has always been an abovr average, very large sized game that was never a standard outside of the olde 5E 'ard Boyz tournaments.

They can be fun once in a while, but that's more of an outlier sized game. 1500/1750/1850/2000pts were far more typical. 2500pts also just has issues with boardspace for many armies.

God I hope 2500 isn't the standard, I'm not even sure what an IG player does at that level to keep from filling up his deployment aside from spam baneblades