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.

In the previous edition, I remember seeing many 1850-pt lists being posted. This number has always struck me as weird and arbitrary (why not 1750 or 2000?), but apparently there were lots of tourneys where this was standard. According to some, games of that size hit some kind of "sweet spot".

Since the beginning of the current edition, this no longer seems common. Has this game size all but disappeared?

Pretty much. 2k is generally considered a full size game this edition. This is partly due to how 1850pt armies 7e translated to 8e, with most going up a bit in points.

-Guardsman- wrote:
In the previous edition, I remember seeing many 1850-pt lists being posted. This number has always struck me as weird and arbitrary (why not 1750 or 2000?), but apparently there were lots of tourneys where this was standard. According to some, games of that size hit some kind of "sweet spot".

Since the beginning of the current edition, this no longer seems common. Has this game size all but disappeared?

The 1850pt spot was weird, and seemingly plucked from nowhere, same with the 1750pt limit used in some earlier editions. 1500pts or 2K in general works a lot better I think, and they're easier numbers to deal with in general. 5E had started to standardize on 2k, then with 6th they opened up the ability to take multiple FoC's at 2k, so we started seeing a lot of 1999+1 tournaments and then I think that led to the 1850 limit.

-Guardsman- wrote:
In the previous edition, I remember seeing many 1850-pt lists being posted. This number has always struck me as weird and arbitrary (why not 1750 or 2000?), but apparently there were lots of tourneys where this was standard. According to some, games of that size hit some kind of "sweet spot".

Since the beginning of the current edition, this no longer seems common. Has this game size all but disappeared?

Yeah it went away at the start. GW upped cost of models so old 1850 pts armies had to drop stuff. Players didn't much like that so upped for 2000 which gave about same size armies as before. Of course then GW started to drop point costs mandating purchace of models to fit to the new point size with cheaper point costs

And people wonder why game keeps getting more expensive all the time.

tneva82 wrote:

And people wonder why game keeps getting more expensive all the time.

To be fair to GW, the gamers have no one to blame but themselves here too! We could all just play at 1k or 1500.

Especially considering that 2000 is a fan made format and the official format is 1750.

I'm really enjoying 1500 and under.

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm really enjoying 1500 and under.

Tbf meta changes quite a bit between 500 and 1000.
It's a fun way to play, it you also implement better terrain rules.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm really enjoying 1500 and under.

Tbf meta changes quite a bit between 500 and 1000.
It's a fun way to play, it you also implement better terrain rules.

Honestly, I've gotten so fed up with the FAQs, and constantly invalidated codexes, so I've gone back to playing with just indexe, PL and the Narritive rules.

I'm another using 1,000 pt armies.

Just not fond of how the game changes at 1500+ points.

I remember when armies used to be so much easier to transport.

People don't seem to like it when they have to make critical list decisions and can't run ALL the great stuff in their codex at once.

The game would be seriously improved at between 1-1.5k imo.

-Guardsman- wrote:
In the previous edition, I remember seeing many 1850-pt lists being posted. This number has always struck me as weird and arbitrary (why not 1750 or 2000?), but apparently there were lots of tourneys where this was standard. According to some, games of that size hit some kind of "sweet spot".

Since the beginning of the current edition, this no longer seems common. Has this game size all but disappeared?

The "sweet spot" you're talking about is created by the cost of 1-2HQ and 2 Troops plus X units of "other stuff" that usually ends up costing about the same in points. A 10 man Whirlygig Heavy Support Squad might be 330 points. A Whositwhatsit Tank could be 350. A Whatchamacallit Walker could be 165 (and thus 2 are 330) The difference between 1750 and 1850 is only one hundred. Which means one less Whatchamacallit Walker plus fewer times you can take a Whositwhatsit Tank instead of a Whirlygig Heavy Support Squad. The way those big blocks of points for bells and whistles squads clumped together 1850 hit a sweet spot where more options all matched up.

In the new edition, You have to add another HQ and Troop Unit, and the overlap point of the Whirlygigs vs the Whatchamacallits might end up being 2K instead of 1850. I don't know yet, Every time I think I'm done catching up, they come out with new units I need to assemble and paint, or a new codex, so I have to redo my army lists again.

It has to do with the tension between limited points forces players to make choices vs iv game lots of points you can bring those Uber units/kitchen sink with all the tools. 1500 on one side and 2000 on the other. First the jump to 1750 because people want to bring more fancy, they get a taste for expensive units and want MORE, so go to 1850. Not 2000 as that hits a point where games are longer and the tension on what to pick is gone. Sometimes things move back the other way when people want more tension and less toys. I saw this mid 1990s-early 2000s in 40k then the same story in the flames of war community/tourneys for a few years after that.

 Blndmage wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm really enjoying 1500 and under.

Tbf meta changes quite a bit between 500 and 1000.
It's a fun way to play, it you also implement better terrain rules.

Honestly, I've gotten so fed up with the FAQs, and constantly invalidated codexes, so I've gone back to playing with just indexe, PL and the Narritive rules.

And what about the people you play with? What happens to them when a new model comes out they'd like to play with? What happens when they get their wish & some gak unit of thiers gets finally improved?
Or do you just sit out/not get invited to many games?

Either/Or wrote:
It has to do with the tension between limited points forces players to make choices vs iv game lots of points you can bring those Uber units/kitchen sink with all the tools. 1500 on one side and 2000 on the other. First the jump to 1750 because people want to bring more fancy, they get a taste for expensive units and want MORE, so go to 1850. Not 2000 as that hits a point where games are longer and the tension on what to pick is gone. Sometimes things move back the other way when people want more tension and less toys. I saw this mid 1990s-early 2000s in 40k then the same story in the flames of war community/tourneys for a few years after that.

Meh, it's the base points value.

1HQ, 2 Troops, and X Average Unit values hit you to 1850. Part/Most of the jump to 2K was the change to 2HQ and 3 Troop over 1HQ 2 Troop.

Start Yourself a Marine list. Take two HQ with Bells and Whisltes -

Calgar + LT or Tiggy or both.
Add three Troops -
10 Intercessors with AuxGL's
10 Infiltratrors with Helix Adept
10 Scouts with sniper rifles and cloaks.

Now add some toys - Redemptors, Repulsors, Aggressors, Hellblasters, Vanguard Vets, SG, etc, etc. (Toy Infantry in groups of 5 or 10. ). Do this several times several different ways - making sure you have a Primary and Secondary choice for various common roles and transports for units that would use them i.e. Pods for the SG- Close Assaulty stuff, Heavy Weapon Stuff... i.e. Aggressors to assault, backed up by Redemptors/Warsuits or Hellbalsters for Heavy Stuff backed up by Redemptors or Repulsor Executioners.

Turn the scouts into Bolter Scouts, and add a couple units of Eliminators instead. I think you're going to find the more often you make a "complete" list that has a primary unit/role and a backup unit/role they end up in the same ballpark. Whether it's 1850 or 2000.

As I mentioned this is for a Marine list - I suspect the Marine Lists dictate the average point cost - as they have less granularity in their flexibility so they tend to hit the same points ballparks over and over, and they're one of the most played armies, so event or pickup people are going to pick a points level those players can hit easily.

You can also see this if you just make Space Marine Units. Look how many end up in the 150-175 range, look how many end up in the 275-330 range.

1850/330 is about 5.5 units. 10 Hellblasters is about 330, 10 Sniper Scouts and 10 Intercessors is about 330. Two Redemptors is about 330. Guilliman is about 330. Calgar and Tiggy is about 330. 5.5 330's is 3 troops (1.5 330's.) Calgar + Tiggy (+1 = 2.5 330s) 2 Redemptors (+1 = 3.5 330's) 10 Hellblasters (+1 = 4.5 330s) and a Repulsor (+1 = 5.5 330's) Replace a Redemptor (0.5 330's) with some Aggressors (about 0.1 330's) and an Apothecary (about 0.2 330's) and 3 Aggressors + 1 Apothecary is about (0.5 330's). The big chunks keep hitting the same ranges.

Also, 1500-2000pts is where GW themselves aimed for when armies could reasonably go against each other with the outcome not a sealed deal to one player.

Obviously this is only applicable for non spam, tournament lists, etc.

Yea, 1859 disappeared.

No idea why it was ever a thing though.
1750 made sense as its literally between 1500 and 2000, but 1850 was really random.

I've never played a 1750 or 1850 game. Most of the 40k games I play are in the 2-2500pt range. When we play apoc19 it's closer to 3k min(i dare not say the PL phrase).

Well, in the meanwhile, 1850 pts seems to be an odd level.
2000 pts is the usual way to go.

Spoletta wrote:
Especially considering that 2000 is a fan made format and the official format is 1750.

Not entirely.

GW did run 2000 point tournaments in 2017, when 8th first dropped.

But they quickly changed to 1750. Many (but not all) events in the UK, Europe, some events in Australia like Eastcon this weekend, etc... followed suit and dropped to 1750.

However, especially the ITC from the US or TTM in Germany, some tournament circuits just stuck with 2000.

My personal sweet spot is 1500 points. Primaries covered, a few toys, but clear weaknesses in the list and opponents list.

A full game 6turns, say, is about the right amount or time for me. Assuming it isn’t a blow-out and over by the middle of the second turn.

(Hooray for Kill Team!)

Does 1250 even exist anymore? I remember going to tournaments that were 1250 back in 5th, I skipped 6th and a chunk of 7th. I feel 1250 is a decent spot to not have TONS of big stuff running around, but still have fun sized armies.

 Stux wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And people wonder why game keeps getting more expensive all the time.

To be fair to GW, the gamers have no one to blame but themselves here too! We could all just play at 1k or 1500.

That was kind of my point players are the ones setting points and they have odd habit of reacting to anything by upping. Gw up's point costs? Up the game size. Gw lowers point cost? Up the point level.

Gw has lowered point values decades yet game sizes have gone up. Not that gw complains sneaky from them. Well good for gw

Never understood the desire to play smaller games? Bigger the better. 2k is the minimum I will play (except for 1000 point tournaments - those are fun). 2500 point games are the best IMO as you can play more elite armies with command points.

well if normal games were 1000pts, and am assuming the armies would also be proportionaly smaller, not that we do some math trick and armies we have today suddenly end up costing half the points, then if you would end up with an army that stops working, like Inari, or an army you don't like, it would be much easier to change.

It would also be much easier to start playing. The play vs a noob with what ever he has is all fine and good, but most regulars will maybe play a noob with a non 2k army one time. Some will just not play them, because they don't have an army that runs at less then 2k pts. It is daunting to a lot of new players to check how much a 2k army costs, how many books they will need to play and that a FAQ/CA or an errata may just make their army a non entity. I have no love for people who play eldar, but if someone started Inari as their first army and then 2 months later the WD codex came out, they probably ended up kind of a sad.

The way CP is generated doesn’t help for wanting smaller games. I mean if you want any even reasonable amount of CP you need a battalion which for some armies eats a lot of points up taking away the ability to bring units you want to use the CP on.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never understood the desire to play smaller games? Bigger the better. 2k is the minimum I will play (except for 1000 point tournaments - those are fun). 2500 point games are the best IMO as you can play more elite armies with command points.

I prefer smaller games like 1k-1250 because every unit means more. I also don't like Elite armies just because the two big ones are Marines and Custodes, both really things I don't like. Not to mention I don't like the idea of those elite armies, and at 1k elite armies still feel elite while other armies can still have individual units matter a lot. Also limits choice, which is fun because you can't take everything you want. Transporting models is also an issue, and the cost of larger games.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never understood the desire to play smaller games? Bigger the better. 2k is the minimum I will play (except for 1000 point tournaments - those are fun). 2500 point games are the best IMO as you can play more elite armies with command points.

I prefer smaller games like 1k-1250 because every unit means more. I also don't like Elite armies just because the two big ones are Marines and Custodes, both really things I don't like. Not to mention I don't like the idea of those elite armies, and at 1k elite armies still feel elite while other armies can still have individual units matter a lot. Also limits choice, which is fun because you can't take everything you want. Transporting models is also an issue, and the cost of larger games.

The part I don't understand. "it's more fun because you can't take everything you want". To me that is less fun. If both players get to take everything they want it seems like a more fun experience to me. Overpowered units also have more power in smaller games. In smaller tournaments like 750 or 1000 I always just take knights because no army can deal with a knight at those points levels.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never understood the desire to play smaller games? Bigger the better. 2k is the minimum I will play (except for 1000 point tournaments - those are fun). 2500 point games are the best IMO as you can play more elite armies with command points.

I prefer smaller games like 1k-1250 because every unit means more. I also don't like Elite armies just because the two big ones are Marines and Custodes, both really things I don't like. Not to mention I don't like the idea of those elite armies, and at 1k elite armies still feel elite while other armies can still have individual units matter a lot. Also limits choice, which is fun because you can't take everything you want. Transporting models is also an issue, and the cost of larger games.

The part I don't understand. "it's more fun because you can't take everything you want". To me that is less fun. If both players get to take everything they want it seems like a more fun experience to me. Overpowered units also have more power in smaller games. In smaller tournaments like 750 or 1000 I always just take knights because no army can deal with a knight at those points levels.

I think the point is that we're not out to win, so if someone just takes knights then the other person has no obligation to play. It means you have to spend more time deciding what you want to bring, but also that it will have more influence on the game. We aren't competitive players however, so for me as a Tau player I don't just always take a riptide. Sometimes I'll take a ghostkeel instead, or some broadsides, or even hammerheads! It means I have to make choices instead of just taking everything I have, and those choices means that games are actually different instead of the same two armies facing off against each other ever ytime.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yea, 1859 disappeared.

No idea why it was ever a thing though.
1750 made sense as its literally between 1500 and 2000, but 1850 was really random.

Its all random and arbitrary if you're picking them based on nothing but the number. We like 1500, 1750, and 2,000 because of the 250 increments making for nicer, easier, prettier numbers/math. That has nothing to do with where the clusters of army lists will end up following FOC/Detachment requirements. As I've mentioned, the SM list does not lend itself well to 125/250 increments, but more along the lines of 165/330 increments - and 1850 is about 11 of the 165 incremements.