Switch Theme:

Why 2k? Average game size discussions.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






How do?

First up, it's just an attempt at a witty and eye catching title. I'm not looking to rag on 2,000 point games specifically. Or indeed rag on any particular size of game.

Instead, I want to pick brains to see where 'standard game size' comes from in the public psyche. And whilst 2,000 is something we'll see mostly in GW's games, this is about every game in the wider Wargaming Hobby.

For instance, many feel the average game size is driven by organised play. When that's settled on 2,000 or 1,850, it of course has a knock-on effect to those who partake, and those who are their regular opponents.

But is this Chicken and the Egg stuff? Did organised play adopt X points, because that's the size most attendees want to play?

To sum up, even though it's not been a long thread opener....what is your average game size, and why?

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

2,000 because of what you said (driven by the fact 2k was the decided limit for organized play), but I tend to prefer lower point games because they tend to go quicker and you tend to see less nonsense at lower points. In non-GW games, I find the same thing: Unless you are a new player who doesn't have a large enough collection, the normal point value is whatever is used for tournaments. Warmachine, for example, standardized on 75 (and 50 before that) because it is what the big tournaments use. I'd imagine the same thing happens in Infinity, Kings of War, Bolt Action, et all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 12:37:50


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

Now, zero points, since I basically never get to play 40K even before 8th hit and sapped my enthusiasm.

But, when I did play, my "standard game size"(ie, the size I preferred to play, not necessarily the one that was common in any given area I lived in) shrank with every edition as army sizes ballooned. I thought 1500 was plenty, and that was back in the prime of 3rd Edition, these days some of my armies from back then would struggle to break 1000 points.

TBH I've no idea exactly how the standard sizes develop, but it seems to be some combination of the typical size of armies GW present in WD and other marketing, and tournament/event gamers "setting the tone" in the wider community because they want to practice using their event lists.

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

It's weird because I'm sure in 3rd edition 1500 points was considered the standard. I think some named characters had a minimum points limit you could use them in like Chaplain Xavier and Ghaz.

Sometime whilst I wasn't playing they moved the goalposts!
I still play 1500 points maximum just because 2000 takes too long and doesn't really add any additional enjoyment for me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 13:07:05


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Like decade ago when I was last heavily into tournaments it was what tournaments then were so 1500-1750. These days every game is different sized without using points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kroem wrote:
It's weird because I'm sure in 3rd edition 1500 points was considered the standard. I think some named characters had a minimum points limit you could use them in like Chaplain Xavier and Ghaz.

Sometime whilst I wasn't playing they moved the goalposts!
I still play 1500 points maximum just because 2000 takes too long and don't really add any additional enjoyment for me.


Yes 1500 was 3k standard. Can't recall minimum points but could be wrong.

Players keep upping the standard. I think partially because old players keep bolstering their army so in old point levels despite point costs going down all the time there's still crapload of models you couldn't use so veterans wanted more models on field. This of course ignores new players who had no advantage of existing army to fall back to.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 13:05:08


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

If you'll remember, I did a similar thread a few months ago, asking if the industry was creating unrealistic expectations.

My conclusion was yes, they are creating unrealistic expectations, with the primary aim of selling more stuff = more cash.

It's no accident that glossy wargames magazines are full of 12x8 tables with hundreds of minis on them.

Like the above posters, I also remember the days when 1500 was deemed the average size, but over the years, we've seen that creep up to 2000.

At the end of the day, these are businesses, so I don't blame them for trying to make money, but I do believe it's a deliberate move to push the average game size up and up.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





I think settled on game size is a result of two factors and reaches back to 3rd ed: desired game time and "standard" terrain layout. In turn, those two factors dictate how many models you can comfortably fit on the table so that your own units do not interfere with eachother and games reach their natural end. 3rd ed set the foundation for following editions, including scarce terrain examples and simple strategies presented in BRB/codices. The exact number of points that meet those cryteria varies depending on core rules (overall mobility, damage output, reserves options etc) so it fluctuates from edition to edition, but the underlaying principle remains the same.

With introduction of 8th people first played with past-ed terrain and past-ed strategies, but as we all can see, this quickly (half a year) evolved towards more LOS blocking terrain, introducing ITC standard terrain layouts and people started developing "properly 8th ed strategies" only after some adjustment time (even in "index only" times people did not invent optimal plays/lists straight away). Now, after this "conditions adjustment" period, optimal point level starts being debated all over the community and will settle in some time. This debate will also show which side has stronger influence, as GW will always support larger point limit, while TOs will lean towards more manageable point limit to fit typical tournament timeframe. Most players will follow whatever result, with some non-tournament focused outliers playing whatever points fit their style best.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Because official tournaments use that as the point threshold, and whatever is tournament standard tends to leak down into all aspects of every level of play.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut






I struggle to get games in at the moment due to new dad/husband commitments so when I play it tends to be massive games (4,000+), but these will be very few and far between.

At the other end of the spectrum, 1,500 has usually struck me as fun without the game lasting to long. Sometimes I go 1,000 if I want to squeeze a game in on a work night.

I have no idea where the standard 2,000 comes from, but I don't play it.
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






 auticus wrote:
Because official tournaments use that as the point threshold, and whatever is tournament standard tends to leak down into all aspects of every level of play.


But did that pressure come first, or did they adopt that pressure from existing collections?

   
Made in gb
Moustache-twirling Princeps




United Kingdom

In 7th we played 1,500 points as we could finish a game in 2 hours and therefor get 2 games into a club night. In 8th we've upped to 2,000 points and it's taking the same amount of time.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

At the other end of the spectrum, skirmish games have provided some of the best gaming moments of my life.

A handful of models on each side, and the Osprey wargames series, has given me samurai defending a village from marauding bandits, musketeers fighting the Cardinal's guard, and of course, happy memories from Necromunda and Mordheim.

Larger games have also given me some of the worst gaming moments. I remember a few years back spending a lot of time painting up an imperial guard force. Probably the best painted force I ever did. And then I put my Cadians down on the table, and 2 minutes later, I was picking them up again, and I wondered why I bothered...

That was a friendly opponent, in a friendly/casual game, and the fault was probably GW's for writing gak rules.

The maxim here is that larger games do not always guarantee enjoyment.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in be
Courageous Beastmaster





I personally prefer 1500, mostly because I just don't that large a single army in my collection that's properly functional.

I don't think I can build a functional 3K list since my collection is very spread out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 13:58:21





 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Because official tournaments use that as the point threshold, and whatever is tournament standard tends to leak down into all aspects of every level of play.


But did that pressure come first, or did they adopt that pressure from existing collections?


Great question. I started GW games in 1998. In 1998 we were pressured to get 2000 points of fantasy and 1500 points of 40k because that was tournament standard and that was how you were supposed to play the "real game". I don't know who made those numbers or where it originated, but I do know that for at least the past 20 years the tournament standard is what drove every player I have ever encountered to build to that point.
   
Made in us
Blackclad Wayfarer





Philadelphia

I prefer to play 1500 over any other sized game for 40k. The game is 2 hours or less, a pick up game will not have 500+ point super heavies, and opponents will rarely have a preset 1500 point net list ready to stomp.


However playing 30k, I find that 2000-2500 works great. I also run Luna Wolves

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 14:36:24


   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

My son and I started with 1000 points games on my return, but we quickly found that that point value was sufficient for a game that felt “long enough”, so we didn’t up the scale.

With 8th, I shudder at the idea of a 2,000 point game.

I do think that the points level was thrust upon gamers primarily by organized play - furthermore the larger games due to the old minimum points limit to field characters, and then just creeping up with each iteration from there.

It never ends well 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

Increasing the points of the game while decreasing points per models and 2k in 8th feel like Apo games back in 4th

We had the same in Fantasy and it was one reason why it died (increasing points per army because everyone wanted to get those new expensive models on the table while basic troops got a point decrease)


For what the game is now, 1250 points or less would do it a favour.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






The last few games I've played have been 50 Power. That's a decent size for a quick game, taking a couple of hours or so at the club.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




There would have to be some fairly large changes to scale the game down at this point. Having everything from little grots to small titans in the game just inevitably is going to scale things up. Playing smaller games is going to lead to even more swing in the balance, as it’s just nigh impossible to build an all-comers list with everything that’s in 40k at small point thresholds. I think it would take a full on alternate rule set to make it fully playable.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Surrey, BC - Canada

For 8th Edition of 40K my group started smaller sized armies for the first month or two. Then we grew to 2000 pts or 100 Power because that seems to let each of us field what we want. It does make the games longer and we have had a few end early due to time.

My two cents,

CB

   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 auticus wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Because official tournaments use that as the point threshold, and whatever is tournament standard tends to leak down into all aspects of every level of play.


But did that pressure come first, or did they adopt that pressure from existing collections?


Great question. I started GW games in 1998. In 1998 we were pressured to get 2000 points of fantasy and 1500 points of 40k because that was tournament standard and that was how you were supposed to play the "real game". I don't know who made those numbers or where it originated, but I do know that for at least the past 20 years the tournament standard is what drove every player I have ever encountered to build to that point.


In FB case it was probably something to do with the % army building rules. 25% of 2000=500 pts. This often was the toggle for big lord level heroes. Made even more clear on 6th ed when 2000 pts was minimum you NEEDED to field lord level. If game was set at 1999 pts then no lord. This was though time the % went away.

Then somewhere along 7th ed IIRC for some reason standard point size upped to 2250. Then came % back again in 8th ed. 25% of 2250=562,5. Not nice number. So rather than say DROP to 2000 to get nice dividable by 4 players UPPED it to 2400 pts.

40k hasn't had % system since 2nd edition(I think that was largely why then 1000 and 1500 were popular enough) so that doesn't apply there though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/20 18:51:17


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Yep, and you won't see the return of the percentage systems or any other form of organization/army building limitations if they in any way hinder consumers buying more models. I don't mean that to sound overly critical, but an unbiased look at 40K at the moment screams "buy more models".

The entire game build, army construction rules, and "more models = bonuses", etc. is very clear.

The game is also much more killy, and a lot of models are decently cheap points-wise, all of which mean more plastic on the table = more GW moneys.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




For me the size of a game is typically set to control the length of time the game takes..

Hence FoW (V3, before they lost the plot...), LW at 1,750, MW around 1,650 and EW around 1,550 - avoids the spamming of cheaper armoured units or infantry in the earlier periods, while providing the points for some of the better toys.

40k was about 1,500 in 5th, its now about 2k locally (my lot are still at 1,500 as they are not finished) as the length of game seems to work.

same with other historical systems etc, the point value ends up being fiddled to what gives a game thats like the old saying about a woman skirt, long enough to cover the basics, short enough to be interesting.
   
Made in si
Fresh-Faced New User




I think it's simply an issue of a long running game

as people get more and more stuff, they of course want to be able to play with at least most of their stuff, so the size of the average game goes up and up
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

I really like 1500 & 3k, 1500 for fun pick up games and 3k for narrative & "big" ones. but honestly I don't care how many points.
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




I think it kind of took off in 6th edition, at least in my local meta. 2000 points was, at the time, the minimum threshold for taking a second Force Organization Chart, and many games and tournaments were divided along that line. (Double FOC armies of 2000 points, or single FOC armies of 1850 or 1999+1.)

Also, in 8th, 2000 points is usually standard because if you go a little lower, you tend to have an underpopulated board (Unless you drop all the way down to sub 1000 and play on a 4x4,) and at 2001+ you need an 8x4 board, which can get awkward.
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit





United States

For games of Horus Heresy, A standard game for our group is 4-5k per side.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





Sydney, Australia

Wayniac wrote:
In non-GW games, I find the same thing: Unless you are a new player who doesn't have a large enough collection, the normal point value is whatever is used for tournaments. Warmachine, for example, standardized on 75 (and 50 before that) because it is what the big tournaments use. I'd imagine the same thing happens in Infinity, Kings of War, Bolt Action, et all.


A large reason that non-GW games are played at those levels though is because they are the most balanced point levels, and clearly indicated to be so. Malifaux and Wyrd are pretty transparent with this, 50SS being the standard game size because it is what each model is written to be played at, as is the case with Infinity and Batman as well. Even Warmachine has those 'tournament levels' set because they're the closest you can get to a well balanced game (and thus makes a tournament more of a question of skill rather than "which broken wombo combo can I take that's countered by the least amount of other broken combos). There are obviously still issues with these systems, as things may be undercosted or overcosted throwing things into whack (or have much deeper problems with a proliferation of free units a la 6th-7th ed 40k formations in the case of Warmachine), but the vast majority are written and costed with these standard game sizes in mind, so rather than it being a matter of "we play this size because it's what tournaments play" it's a matter of "this is what makes for the best gaming experience for both parties, so this is therefore the best way to play"

When it comes to the GW games though, it does seem rather arbitrary to me, because there are points levels that are far more balanced than take-everything-2k (~1k for example, taking half what you'd normally have leads to some serious decisions being made) but because the big tournaments play 2k, everyone does. I also think win conditions for games must be considered here, because in the GW games, the usual win condition that I see is just wiping the opponent off the board, with objectives being an afterthought. While this is somewhat seen in other games (Warmachine has the much-maligned caster kill as a win condition, and my beloved Viktorias in Malifaux go straight for the throat) objectives and scenario play is a much greater focus. Malifaux for example, where I can realistically take my Viktorias crew and just try and wipe out the opponent, doesn't award any VP for kills outside of certain situations. This means that when other objectives come out for a game (they're still random for the most part, but seen before crew building) I won't often choose the Viktorias because they're at a disadvantage in objective pools that require me to survive (they're extremely fragile) or drop markers (they don't support that playstyle, while other leaders in faction do). As another example, my usual Batman crew consists of 1-2 longer ranged guns, a faster hero (usually an acrobat with high movement, sometimes also with a batclaw), a Batman (usually Batfleck due to his survivability) and a few henchmen to arrest what gets knocked out and to claim objectives. This allows me to counter an opponents crew and fight them on my terms while also being able to reach my objectives quickly and maximise VP gain. BMG still gives points for killing models, but usually you'll do so to stop them claiming an objective or denying one of yours.

DC:90S++G+++MB+IPvsf17#++D++A+++/mWD409R+++T(Ot)DM+

I mainly play 30k, but am still fairly active with 40k. I play Warcry, Arena Rex, Middle-Earth, Blood Bowl, Batman, Star Wars Legion as well

My plog- https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/787134.page
My blog- https://fistfulofminiatures.blogspot.com/
My gaming Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/fistfulofminis/ 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Waaaghpower wrote:

Also, in 8th, 2000 points is usually standard because if you go a little lower, you tend to have an underpopulated board (Unless you drop all the way down to sub 1000 and play on a 4x4,) and at 2001+ you need an 8x4 board, which can get awkward.


Board shouldn't be squads shoulder to shoulder all the way. The more crowded it is the less there is room to manouver thus removing strategy. 2nd ed and 6'x4' board was just nice. These days boards are way overpopulated as model count has increased, model footprint has increased yet board sizes have stayed same.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

tneva82 wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:

Also, in 8th, 2000 points is usually standard because if you go a little lower, you tend to have an underpopulated board (Unless you drop all the way down to sub 1000 and play on a 4x4,) and at 2001+ you need an 8x4 board, which can get awkward.


Board shouldn't be squads shoulder to shoulder all the way. The more crowded it is the less there is room to manouver thus removing strategy. 2nd ed and 6'x4' board was just nice. These days boards are way overpopulated as model count has increased, model footprint has increased yet board sizes have stayed same.


Indeed, cramming the boards with so many models maneuver and positioning began to mean nothing seems like one of the reasons they ended up going for a much more "game-y" set of rules in the 8th reboot - I recall 40K as an experience that even at its worst at least looked like a cool scifi battlefield, but I watched a couple of games of "competitive" 8th the other day and it was ludicrous, all conga-lines and minute measurement shenanigans.

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: