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.

Whether or not its quintessentially not 40k to have alt activation i will say i have been greatly enjoying necromunda and its ability to chain activate as well.

whether it would work for 40k i dunno but the idea of independent characters being more important than just for auras would be cool.

40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

If thats your argument then the best way to fix 40k is to kill it and make a new game that doesn't have it's problems.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

If thats your argument then the best way to fix 40k is to kill it and make a new game that doesn't have it's problems.

Better question is if 40k's problems arent just being overblown or limited to a hand full of issue units.

 Desubot wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

If thats your argument then the best way to fix 40k is to kill it and make a new game that doesn't have it's problems.

Better question is if 40k's problems arent just being overblown or limited to a hand full of issue units.

Well its my opinion that outside of a few units units are not the problem. It's the turn structure. So if 40k HAS to be IGOUGO. Then let it die.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

If thats your argument then the best way to fix 40k is to kill it and make a new game that doesn't have it's problems.

No, if you don't like Igo-Ugo mass roll games, play something else.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

If thats your argument then the best way to fix 40k is to kill it and make a new game that doesn't have it's problems.

No, if you don't like Igo-Ugo mass roll games, play something else.

I don't have a problem with rolling a bunch of dice. I have a problem with massive down time, little to no counter play, alpha, beta strikes, a lack of tactics in a war game.

All of those issues are a direct result of 40ks Igougo turn structure. It's not needed. It doesn't add anything. It takes a lot away.

JohnHwangDD wrote:40k has been a Igo-Ugo mass d6 for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

40k has had WS comparison for close combat hit rolls for how many editions now? Sorry, no.
40k has had combat order be based on initiative for how many editions now? Sorry, no.
40k has had AP be all or nothing for how many editions now? Sorry, no.

No, if you don't like Igo-Ugo mass roll games, play something else.

No, if you don't like WS comparison for close combat hit rolls, play something else.
No, if you don't like initiative based combat order, play something else.
No, if you don't like all or nothing AP, play something else.



This essentialist argument is just so artificial. An edition can come along that turns decades of doing it one way on its head. Just because something happens to span multiple editions doesn't mean it's some sacred part of what makes 40k actually be 40k. Any of them can be reversed with the next edition change.

It's just an appeal to tradition fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Whether or not its quintessentially not 40k to have alt activation i will say i have been greatly enjoying necromunda and its ability to chain activate as well.

whether it would work for 40k i dunno but the idea of independent characters being more important than just for auras would be cool.

It works really well in Necromunda, doesn't it? And the game also still totally evokes the 40k universe. I think the new Necromunda would be a great starting point if one wanted to make a more interactive 40k. It's very similar to the rules that 40k grew out of in the first place, so that's no surprise really.

Look, if you want to make a totally different game, that's fine. Just don't pretend it's "Warhammer 40k".

And for the record, Igo-Ugo is the absolute best way to allow combination attacks and fast turn processing with the least amount of overhead.

The real problem with 40k is the players, and the bloat that the players have added, 1000 pts of 40k 3E is fast and smooth, and the downtime is minimal because the armies are *tiny* compared to what people play today.

But make no mistake, changing to AA at current game sizes will only slow the game even further. It would be an even worse experience.

Easy: bring back 3rd Edition and balance the codices. Done and done. Give better illustrations of how consolidation works, so people stop claiming they can consolidate 2D6" Add the newer units in, and create an Apocalypse variant to cover super heavies and fliers.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Look, if you want to make a totally different game, that's fine. Just don't pretend it's "Warhammer 40k".

And for the record, Igo-Ugo is the absolute best way to allow combination attacks and fast turn processing with the least amount of overhead.

The real problem with 40k is the players, and the bloat that the players have added, 1000 pts of 40k 3E is fast and smooth, and the downtime is minimal because the armies are *tiny* compared to what people play today.

But make no mistake, changing to AA at current game sizes will only slow the game even further. It would be an even worse experience.

Calling Bull gak. Not only does it not take any more time, even if it DID it would be a much more enjoyable experience. BECAUSE it's interactive and the individual downtime is reduced drastically. The idea that the game would somehow become worse because you had more to do with more agency over how a turn played out is just a crazy thought process to me.

This whole "if it's no longer IGOUGO then it's no longer *real* 40k" is also smelling a lot like the Real Scotsman fallacy. AA is one option, making Overwatch an active decision is another option, and just cutting down on the weight of dice yet another one.

I sort of get where JohnHwangDD is coming from.However I dont think any particular resolution method or game mechanic defines 40k.

As there are lots of straight forward options that stick to the ''taking turns and rolling lots of D6 '' more closely than just using a new rule set as a base for 40k , like Bolt Action or Epic etc.

But few are willing to discuss the real issues with the current 40k game play in depth, to actually fix the core problems.
Many just take the path of least resistance and port in ideas from other game that work fine within the context of their original game.(As many have specific game play in mind during the game development , unlike 40k.)
I have used 40k minis with other rule set when I want a ''40k war game '' so I know how easy to is to do, compared to developing the rules for 40k to cover the ]''intended/.expected game play'' from the ground up.

Does everyone agree that 40ks core game play issues are;-
1)Lack of player interaction,
2)Imballance between shooting and assault,
3)Poorly implemented moral system(s).

Are there any other core problems with game mechanics and resolution methods I have missed off?

4) A general lack of "position" and combat feeling floaty. From the changes to AOEs making it so that shooting a unit spread-apart is functionally the same as if they're lock-and-step, to infantry being able to stop tanks in their tracks, to the defender choosing all casualties removed regardless of attack direction, to routing being replaced with "withdraw from melee in a direction of your choice" to cover becoming hilariously irrelevant, the game itself makes it feel like flanking/outmaneuvering in its own right is pointless, and the game is more about making a ballet-tap into your own range-band while minimizing the enemy's band in turn.
5) Rule-writing that makes the "intent" of the game fairly unclear, due to usage of plain English, mixing fluff and crunch into the same sentence, etc. Whether it's the creation of "unique" special rules, or creating "universal rules" with cool-sounding names that don't actually describe what they do. (Ex: "Furious Charge versus Rage" when you could have Charge Bonus[+1 Strength] or Charge Bonus[+1 Attack]). Furthermore, improper usage of logical operands (The rules for Blood Lance use the words "for-each" twice despite it being only one loop, Vostroyans can fire "any" weapon into close combat, with "any" ambiguously definable as "all") combined with FAQs that directly contradict themselves mean that winning 40k can sometimes be less about outplaying your opponent and being able to out-interpret the rules like a grimderp Perry Mason or Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney.
6) Many armies are incoherent, historically a collection of a few units which may be awesome in isolation but do not come together as a well-rounded whole. A classic example of this was 4th ed Codex: Daemons, where the majority of units were all a subtle shade of "kill infantry in melee," and 5th became defined by mass light mech. Furthermore, late 6th and early 7th edition started a trend of releasing mini-armies that are "not meant to be standalone," with the low point being Codex: Legion of the Damned, an army that was literally unplayable by itself in 2nd edition, since it required everything to start off-table, and a player with no units on the table automatically conceded. Oops.
7) A lot of options (especially from the newer kits) are a case of "Not Your Dudes." Stuff like a Deathwatch Captain having access to a Relic Blade unless wearing Terminator Armor, due to it being "exactly what's on the sprue." Stuff like a Tau Fireblade having no loadout options whatsoever, a Morkanaut only having access to a Kustom Mega-Kannon or a Battlewagon only having access to a Lobba/Kannon/Zzap, due to those being "exactly what the models have." Ironically, this also creates its own share of bloat, as you have to keep track of all these little exceptions and minutiae like "Oh, only a Scourge Solarite can take a Power Lance. Which model was allowed to take a Venom Blade again?" And this in itself isn't even a matter of "balance" (since many of said options were inferior to just taking a Haywire renade) so much as GW not wanting people to kitbashers or use 3rd-party products.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
This whole "if it's no longer IGOUGO then it's no longer *real* 40k" is also smelling a lot like the Real Scotsman fallacy. AA is one option, making Overwatch an active decision is another option, and just cutting down on the weight of dice yet another one.

There is a vast difference between changing the fundamental dynamic of the game and changing pieces around the edges. Replacing the overall Igo-Ugo turn structure with AA is a fundamental change, whereas restoring overwatch / reactions is not. Reducing the the weight of dice (i.e. hit-wound-save) is a similar fundamental change, where removing fething random terrain, random charge distances, and/or effectively unused Leadership/Morale mechanics are not.

IRL, it's the difference between getting a haircut, and amputating a leg. I find it surprising that distinction is not obvious to most people, particularly those who want to play Infinity or somesuch with 40k models, and call it "fixing" 40k.
____

Lanrak wrote:
I sort of get where JohnHwangDD is coming from.However I dont think any particular resolution method or game mechanic defines 40k.

Does everyone agree that 40ks core game play issues are;-
1)Lack of player interaction,
2)Imballance between shooting and assault,
3)Poorly implemented moral system(s).

Are there any other core problems with game mechanics and resolution methods I have missed off?

0) Armies 3x to 5x too large!

That right there is the core problem with 40k today, and that directly drives issue 1). Army size was fine at the start of 3E (1500 3E pts), but has since bloated up to 2,000 pts exacerbated by reduced model points costs. The more stuff each player moves, the longer their individual turn takes. The more guns you bring to the tabletop, the more you can combine them on single targets, whereas it's much harder to have the same ratio of assault forces focus on a single target. And the higher combined lethality exacerbates the morale issues.

Dial 40k back to 500-1,000 pts with a FOC, and most of these issues go away. Armies have space to maneuver on the tabletop, and mobility matters. Cheesy combos are harder to get, due to points and core requirements, and they're more fragile, due to lack of redundancy.

Address the elephant in the room, and the "core game issues" aren't issues at all.

My big fixes?

1) Use digital tools to make army lists that function as references for play. The game would play substantially faster if double checking a stat didn't require finding it in a book.

2) I'd probably break up the turn structure slightly by combining a turn into two phases. One in which a model that activates does its movement, advancing, shooting, and psychic powers, and a second in which a model assaults and then makes its attacks. I suppose a third would be needed to resolve melee combats after the assaults, but that's fine. The amount of time between a model moving and any penalties associated with that movement are pretty extreme.

Take a lead out of the lord of the rings game. Things happen differently. One player moves and charges, then the other. Then one player shoots, then the other. Then all combat is resolved.

 Desubot wrote:


With the ability to touch anyone on t1 the game will always be very one turn tableeee.

Horus Heresy isn't. Generally crucial turns are more like 3 or 4. Some armies can make it turn 2.

Still has long ranges, indirect weapons etc though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

0) Armies 3x to 5x too large!

That right there is the core problem with 40k today, and that directly drives issue 1). Army size was fine at the start of 3E (1500 3E pts), but has since bloated up to 2,000 pts exacerbated by reduced model points costs.

This for sure. Even at the top tables of the LVO there were games where a person didn't finish deploying and doing their first turn before a full hour went by.

The more stuff each player moves, the longer their individual turn takes. The more guns you bring to the tabletop, the more you can combine them on single targets, whereas it's much harder to have the same ratio of assault forces focus on a single target. And the higher combined lethality exacerbates the morale issues.

This also drives up the amount of terrain needed for a typical game to balance out the shooting issues.

Dial 40k back to 500-1,000 pts with a FOC, and most of these issues go away. Armies have space to maneuver on the tabletop, and mobility matters. Cheesy combos are harder to get, due to points and core requirements, and they're more fragile, due to lack of redundancy.

Address the elephant in the room, and the "core game issues" aren't issues at all.

This is what I've been doing with 8th. It seems to work well as long as you talk about what you are taking in your army. A super heavy or a knight at 750 can really skew the game. Just like how people generally don't recommend taking Behemoths in Age of Sigmar in 1000 point games as it can really mess things up. We even have players disclose anything they are planning on taking that is T7 or W7 or higher. It hasn't really changed much to the game prep except for a quick "any big stuff?" "yeah, a predator" and the other person goes, "okay, I'll play my list with the Onager" and that's that.

Smaller games also really fix the wait times. With less models moved you get to the overwatch part of charges and the fight phase sooner and then the other player (assuming their stuff survives) can make some attacks.

@JohnHwangDD.
I totally agree that 5th to 7th edition 40k was just about upping the model count , to sell more stuff with little consideration for actual game play.
But the core issues I highlighted were just magnified by the overpopulation on the 40k game table.

And they do not go away with smaller game sizes, without players compensating for them with lots of LOS blocking terrain and/or lots of additional special rules.(The rules bloat from 4th to 7th was an indicator of this.)

Lots of 40k players agree with you that 'rolling lots of D6' and 'taking turns with armies' , is sort of what they expect in 40k.

So I would prefer to look at tweeking the core mechanics to reflect the expected game play.
Rather than perpetuate a WHFB clone that was kept to help player transition from WHFB to 40k...

The alternating game turn only works well if the players have to maneuver into effective weapons range.
With the large amount of 'unrestricted ranged weapons' in 40k.(EG can hit anything in weapons range with the same chance of success!)
It sort of scupper this , and leads to 'Alpha Strike' issues.

So why not look at straight forward ways to make shooting tactically useful, while not competing directly with close combat for the same limited role.
If we included a simple suppression mechanic, it could add an intuitive level for morale to function in ,and a new tactical option for range attacks.

If we kept the phases , move shoot , assault.But allowed both players to act, and removed casualties at the end of the phase.
This could model simultaneous activation in a simple way.
Maybe include this as an option players could adopt for more tactical depth if they want?

I want to look at ways to tweek the core mechanic and resolution methods to fix 40k.
Rather than port over a different rule set, or add layers of special rules to try to reverse engineer core faults.

Are you interested in this sort of thing?

1 - Stop trying to 'fix' something based of the assumption that things are broken in the first place. There have been multiple opinions all around, not just here, that things that core elements of the game are broken and therefore need to be fixed. The IGOUGO has been mentioned, Maelstrom missions are still a topic of discussion. I'm not necessarily stating that anyone here is wrong, but if we treated something as broken and it hasn't changed, then why aren't we treating our view of the mechanic as broken instead.

2 - Remove the ITC (and others like it). Based off of point #1, they've been making adjustments in an attempt to make the game fair, balanced ,and redefining what 'competitive' really means. Well there have been at least 3 (and a half) edition changes where these 'balancing' mechanics still have not made it into the game. Is the game really still broken? Or is this haven for those who still feel like it's Broken, and it's somehow their job to fix it on behalf of the greater community... broken? I can't play the ITC anymore and enjoy the game. They're two different things now. It seems to survive off of players feeling that persistent mechanics are still 'broken' in 40k, and that its a non GW entities responsibility to address them. SURE, the tournament community is able to provide feedback sooner and faster than the community as a whole, but how valid is it when the results are based off of mechanics that still don't exist?

That said, I'm in the same boat, that there are some mechanics that need to be addressed. Things that have not changed, don't really need to be addressed as we shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken. IGOUGO for example, hasn't changed and probably isn't going to. In the age of Kickstarter, there are PLENTY of other options if you prefer this kind of mechanic but none of those are as popular as 40k. Is it because of IGOUGO? Doubtful, but it's something that hasn't really changed. Most of my 'fixes' aren't really fixes, but things that I dislike, which is really what the core of this thread is about isn't it? Oddly enough, they're limited to things that have changed and I don't believe it's fully fair to fix something that even GW has limited experience with. Luckily, GW has re-introduced the 'Chapter Approved' strategy, and have a system in place where we don't have to wait for Codex/Edition changes to address these issues. We've got an active FAQ schedule in addition to that, which might not be enough for the more impatient of us, is still more than has been done since they took their own forums down in the 2000's.

1 - Vehicles. This is a tough one as there is clearly a disparity between vehicles, their firepower, and lifespan. We've got a 300 point Marine Transport that can be destroyed by a 150 point AM Tank is one example. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting it to be balanced, as it's the first time GW has really dealt with the removal of the AV mechanic. With their resources being devoted to more important projects there probably isn't much time to address this. Especially since we haven't even updated all of the vehicles fully into 8th yet. In a Mathhammer world, Im sure someone has figured out some sort of Formula for how the points breakdown for return on investment. It'll be interesting to see how it moves forward when certain stats have their value re-assigned mid codex. This isn't limited to vehicles I might add. We have more multiwound models, and other unit types that aren't balanced, like Bike units vs. their Jetbike counterparts.

2 - Deep Strike / First Turn Assaults. I actually like the current Deep Strike mechanics, and I'm actually glad they've stopped the situation where 2 armies can move to 1" apart, but won't go toe to toe simply because it's turn 1. I feel they were in a tough spot with determining WHEN to allow certain units to do it. I dislike the first turn, alpha strike, concept. Traditionally this has been restricted to starting on Turn 2, but there were armies that could roll on turn 1. So instead of showing favorites by allowing certain armies to do it when others can't, they just made it a blanket rule. That said, anti-Alpha options are available to most armies and hope that those still pending will get options as well. I think this is the 40k version of the 'Assassination' mechanic in Warmahordes, and if you don't plan for it, then it's on you and not the game designers. Personally, I hope that they re-visit this purely from a 'fun' perspective, as it's entirely frustrating, especially to new players, to buy models only to remove 1/2 of them before they get to use them.

3 - Command Points. Another new mechanic that I think is great, but has it's imbalances. I feel they've done an amazing job balancing them with each Codex release to be honest. The Custodes have so many options that it allows the player to choose between getting more CP, or taking their favorite units and building around 3-4 CP to reward the Custodes player without forcing him to take units he doesn't want to. Certain armies definitely have advantages with their ability to restore lost CP, and of course there are those who are waiting to get updated. Like vehicles, this is the first time they've done something like this, and it's too soon to address any fixes to it.

** This is one I've actually thought about as I've played, and I feel a CP per turn, in a use it or lose it style, based off of how you've built your list could be effective. I'm only saying this because I've seen games where the losing player is down to 1-2 units and is out of CP, while his opponent still has several lying around to use to stupidly destroy the remaining models. Giving players 1 CP per turn for Battle-forged, then +2/+3 for each Battalion / Brigade would put a ceiling on how many could be used per turn. Late game, they'd still have options to give those remaining units some tactical, as well as heroic last stand story driven options as well. If this was implemented, then we could have a broader CP cost instead of the 1-3, where we could have some powerful 4-5 CP stratagems that will require the non-specialized detachments to even use. It's just a thought, but I like the idea.

4 - Mortal Wounds. Playing AoS, I really do like this mechanic, as we're back to having a way to getting around Invulnerable saves, instead of D Weapons. If this were around in 6th and 7th, then I don't think Deathstars would've lasted as long as they did. Like D Weapons, I DO think that they've gone a bit overboard with who has access to them, and they might be scrambling to provide armies with a way to deal with them, like Death Guard. Still, nothing appears to be out of line with the evolution of a mechanic and just adds to the whole 'Codex Creep' mentality.

5 - Variable Damage Weapons. This is another huge change that both players and GW are struggling to balance with. On the infantry side, it's good to see that they've learned from AoS and not making flat damage pools where 1 Lascannon will fry D6 guys. On the flipside, you've got overpriced vehicles that will die to 2-3 of these weapons, and under-priced vehicles that will take several of these hits to blow off the board. It's extremely frustrating when the discussions based on 'taking X sucks because there is Y units that you probably won't see in most games', actually has merit. I can't even begin to think of how they will address this outside of altering the points to reflect this. Largely because you have the D3/D6 damage weapons.

6 - Variable Damage Performance. (ie. Changing Stats based on Damage Received) Another mechanic that they've introduced from AoS which is good, but isn't exactly balanced. I do miss the games where I could blow off the specific weapons, or flat out Immobilize vehicles. Some of them have feel like they've simply said 'Well this would be cool if we allowed them to function fully until they're almost dead'. I'm happy that they changed it to what it is, so that the whole MC vs. Vehicles debate is now gone and everything is Kill it to Stop it. As these are hard printed into a unit's profile, this one will be more difficult to address as the game develops moving forward.

Everything else I've been okay with so far.

Lanrak wrote:
@JohnHwangDD.
I totally agree that 5th to 7th edition 40k was just about upping the model count , to sell more stuff with little consideration for actual game play.
But the core issues I highlighted were just magnified by the overpopulation on the 40k game table.

And they do not go away with smaller game sizes,

When was the last time you played 500 pts of 7E / 8E? Or 750 pts of 3E / 4E? I played a lot at that size, and I think the games were great.

 Akar wrote:

2 - Remove the ITC (and others like it). Based off of point #1, they've been making adjustments in an attempt to make the game fair, balanced ,and redefining what 'competitive' really means. Well there have been at least 3 (and a half) edition changes where these 'balancing' mechanics still have not made it into the game. Is the game really still broken? Or is this haven for those who still feel like it's Broken, and it's somehow their job to fix it on behalf of the greater community... broken? I can't play the ITC anymore and enjoy the game. They're two different things now. It seems to survive off of players feeling that persistent mechanics are still 'broken' in 40k, and that its a non GW entities responsibility to address them. SURE, the tournament community is able to provide feedback sooner and faster than the community as a whole, but how valid is it when the results are based off of mechanics that still don't exist?

@JohnHwangDD.
When was the last time you played 40k at smaller sizes without any L.O.S blocking terrain or ''GW special rules'' , and found the game 'great?'
Adding on extra rules to plug the gaps the core rules do not cover, should be done sparingly.Good rules sets use special rules to cover limited and extreme exceptions .For example ''chemical weapons ignore the targets cover bonus''.
(Unlike 40k where special rules seem to be handed out to practically every unit! )

When looking at fixing 40k, a was primarily looking at covering large skirmish to small battle games.(Squad to company level size.)As having the small games for new players just as fun and exciting as larger games for those who prefer them , would be quite a good idea.IMO.

Are you playing smaller games of 40k out preference, or do larger games of 40k simply not function efficiently in your opinion?

40k does great without an excess of special rules, as the 40k 3E rulebook lists amply demonstrated until the Codices came out to ruin the game.

I rarely play, but when I do, I like a smaller game that finishes all 6 turns. I dislike huge games that barely get the first turn completed before it's time to pack up.

I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much. I think 1500 is a really good point level right now. At 500-1000 points you would really need to comp the game to make it even playable, the balance level borders on terrible unless you agree not to bring certain types of units. I feel like people who enjoy the game at this level do a lot of self comp to keep it fun, if you don't you end up with One guy running a shadowsword and the other guy with 4 tactical squads and a captain. That game is not fun at any level.

SO you end up saying, well no Lords of War. Ok well I'll just take 3-4 mantacores or basilisks. Oh well that isn't fun either.

Ok everyone needs to take 1 HQ and 2 troops. IG still takes 3 heavy tanks and those things, because their troops are super cheap,

Every event I've ever played that goes down to 400-500 points puts a ton of comp on what you are allowed to take.

Game size is an issue, but not to that level.

As for IGO UGO defining 40k. I'm not so sure it does. IT certainly doesn't for me, not any more than having large armies on the table. IF I want to go down to 500 points and play a skirmish game, I'd rather play better designed skirmish games that don't need comp just to function.

I really gave 40k a shot because of Kill Team, but it was more because there was a crowd for it. Give me the option of Kill Team or Infinity and I pick Infinity every time.

I'm not sure there's any scale I would say 40k is my preferred choice, but 1500 definitely is in harsher competition with Warmachine. I think to some degree 40k really only stands out at 2k. The trick is rewarding varied army composition at that level though; because the game suffers again if it becomes 700 points x3.

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Breng77 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I agree with reducing game size from 2k but 500-1000 is too much.

Try a couple games of 1000 pts, and you'll see. Half the stuff on the board makes a big difference.

I have, 1k is too small to work without restrictions on what you are allowed to bring 1500 to me is the sweet spot for the game right now. You can bring a decent sized force, while still having to make choices about what goes into your list. It also allows for there to be enough space on the table. The big models in the game ruin it at 1000 points..

Agreed