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.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 oni wrote:
In my opinion the only reason tournament players whine, bitch and moan about lower points is because it forces them to make the hard choice (#1) and significantly drops the power level of most, if not all of the staple tournament lists being played.

Or perhaps they recognize that lowering points levels increasingly emphasizes the rocks-paper-scissors aspect of the game.

Or perhaps higher points that make the game into a math equation and not a tactical exercise. I rather take my chances losing (still have a chance) to a bad match up, instead of having to deal with a opponent winning in the list building phase of the game because he maxed out the number of dice necessary to table me if he goes first. All the while taking about 45 mins to finish his top of turn 1. Then again some so called competitive players think the game is just about list building and that is the tactical part of the game. I can see why you would want as many points possible in that case. Of course these folks would never admit to it.

 tastytaste wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:

 oni wrote:
In my opinion the only reason tournament players whine, bitch and moan about lower points is because it forces them to make the hard choice (#1) and significantly drops the power level of most, if not all of the staple tournament lists being played.

Or perhaps they recognize that lowering points levels increasingly emphasizes the rocks-paper-scissors aspect of the game.

Or perhaps higher points that make the game into a math equation and not a tactical exercise. I rather take my chances losing (still have a chance) to a bad match up, instead of having to deal with a opponent winning in the list building phase of the game because he maxed out the number of dice necessary to table me if he goes first. All the while taking about 45 mins to finish his top of turn 1. Then again some so called competitive players think the game is just about list building and that is the tactical part of the game. I can see why you would want as many points possible in that case. Of course these folks would never admit to it.

Way to troll!

Personally I don't think anything needs to change except adding 15 minutes to the prep stage where we get to roll warlord traits and powers. This wouldn't count for the gAme time.

Breng77 wrote:
Yeah 1500 points won't have the effect people claim on the top armies. IT certainly does not discourage spamming.

Eldar serpent spam at 1500 looks much the same as if does at 2k.

Tau don't lose a whole lot.

What 1500 really cuts down on is allies in a lot of cases.

I agree with Danny though that 1500 leads to less TAC lists and more extreme builds.

I was going to comment about it discouraging allies a little bit, too. That might not be a bad thing... certainly, a few 1500 point tournaments would be a welcome addition / change to the current lineup of GTs in the US, which is mostly 1750 - 2000.

Longer time. From what I've understood (feel free to correct me), most tournaments in the US run 2h 30 minute or less rounds for 1850+ point games. All the tournaments I've attended have had 3 hours for 1750 points and the only game I've seen that ran out of time was artillery artillery/foot guard vs. artillery/foot guard, who got to turn 6. If it means cutting down on rounds, so be it.

Target wrote:
I don't know Danny, most people would consider me in the tournament player camp I'd imagine, and I don't think the game gets any more RPS at 1500 versus 2000.

Would you say that the game gets any more RPS at 1000 points? What about 500 points?

I think the fewer resources one has to work with the harder it is to build an take-on-all-comers list that can readily deal with the variety of extreme builds that exist, even in the competitive field. The concept is better illustrated at lower points values (e.g., 1000 or even 500) where a single unit can dominate an entire match simply because the opponent's list doesn't have the tools to deal with it. There’s no single points value below which we can say that RPS becomes a factor and above which we can say that it ceases to be one--if one is to concede that such a relationship exists at all then it would necessarily be gradated.

Two other points that are worth discussing, though not necessarily in support of or opposition to lowering points:

Lowering points values will probably have disproportionate effects on the success of particular armies and list archetypes. With fewer points to spend, I imagine that the practical value of multi-purpose units would increase (it’s usually cheaper, when the option is available, to purchase one unit that does two things than two units that each do one thing). Consequently, this would give a boost to armies that can field generalist (as opposed to specialist) units.

Similarly, deathstars become significantly stronger at smaller points values. This is in part due to the RPS effect, but also due to the fact that many deathstar armies are designed around a particular super unit. Theoretically, deathstar units should function optimally at the minimum points value that permits their practical use, since the accompanying units are usually of peripheral importance (though still necessary, e.g., 3-man jetbike units in a Seer Council list).

EDIT: Regardless of my personal feelings about games at 1500 points, I actually think it's a great idea for some 1500 points GTs to exist. I think it's really important to have some variety in the tournament scene. This is the chief reason that the BFS GT (http://www.battleforsalvation.com/) is sticking with 2000 points next month.

 RiTides wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Yeah 1500 points won't have the effect people claim on the top armies. IT certainly does not discourage spamming.

Eldar serpent spam at 1500 looks much the same as if does at 2k.

Tau don't lose a whole lot.

What 1500 really cuts down on is allies in a lot of cases.

I agree with Danny though that 1500 leads to less TAC lists and more extreme builds.

I was going to comment about it discouraging allies a little bit, too. That might not be a bad thing... certainly, a few 1500 point tournaments would be a welcome addition / change to the current lineup of GTs in the US, which is mostly 1750 - 2000.

I personally have no issue with 1500 points, I just think the game is more fun above it, but variety is the spice of life.

Or perhaps higher points that make the game into a math equation and not a tactical exercise. I rather take my chances losing (still have a chance) to a bad match up, instead of having to deal with a opponent winning in the list building phase of the game because he maxed out the number of dice necessary to table me if he goes first. All the while taking about 45 mins to finish his top of turn 1. Then again some so called competitive players think the game is just about list building and that is the tactical part of the game. I can see why you would want as many points possible in that case. Of course these folks would never admit to it.

This is just humorous, as if those same players cannot do the same thing at 1500 points. The reality is a good player/list builder will be as good at 1500 or 2k. You are just as likely to get blow off the table at 1500 as you are at 2k. People often act like at 1500 points some how firepower is greatly diminished or something. It is not, what is diminished is the ability for some armies to deal with multiple types of threats successfully. As Say eldar I can still run 5-6 Wave serpents which put out enough fire power to blow people away early in the game, and still have 400+ points to spend. The belief that small points is some how making every army make tough choices and that it somehow makes the game less list and more tactical is a false one.

Breng77 wrote:
Yeah 1500 points won't have the effect people claim on the top armies. IT certainly does not discourage spamming.

Eldar serpent spam at 1500 looks much the same as if does at 2k.

Tau don't lose a whole lot.

What 1500 really cuts down on is allies in a lot of cases.

I agree with Danny though that 1500 leads to less TAC lists and more extreme builds.

I am not so certain that it does lead to more RPS.

With more points you get to dominate even more certain aspects of the game. If you have fewer choices then it might have the opposite effect of limiting extreme builds.

There are certain armies can spam very powerful units. So your opponent can either deal with these units and win, or not be able to and lose. That is why the games seems so RPS sometimes. Now with less points these armies might not be able to spam those units and thus there is more balance. To give an example, at 2000 points Tau can run a lot of riptides, but at lower points they can't without losing a lot elsewhere.

True, while possible to dominate more in certain aspects, you are also able to cover your bases. I can dominate that aspect just as well at 1500 points. Where I typically see points cut are: War gear, troops (minimum squads etc.), list variety. If you think that the core of a list runs say 1250ish points, any points above that lead to variety. Running closer to that means that optimized lists are just that skin and bones optimized with little variation.

I.e. see eldar still spamming out serpents at 1500, just instead of maybe taking some wraith guard, or fire dragons, it is DAVU serpents, with minimal upgrades, bare bones HQ etc.

I have also always felt that armies with good troop choices (i.e. Eldar Serpents, Tau...) do better at lower points. Armies Like say Daemons end up giving up their hitting power while eldar and Tau largely maintain their potency.

The problem with chess timers is two-fold.

1. Someone already brought up the fact that you can't really count rules discussions or arguments against any one person since both are involved.

2. This one I think is the biggest. If I assault you in my turn and sweep a squad, the time in the assault counts against my time. Whereas, you might not be in assault the next turn, therefore not taking up much time. Because i assaulted you and killed you in my turn, I will be using up more clock because of how slow the assault phase is. Now I could not be slow playing but still be docked because I initiate assaults and in my opponents turn they did not have to assault or resolve any CCs? No way.

Chess clocks won't work because armies all have different playing times. There are hundreds of variables (Psychic powers, assaults, hordes, to name a few) which will take up time but doesn't mean the person is playing slow.

With the color card thing, you could have the table number card be the color card. This way you don't have two cards, one for the table number and one just to indicate what round you are in. If you can laminate the table number with the 3 different colors and put them on a ring, I believe this will be easier.

 Danny Internets wrote:

Target wrote:
I don't know Danny, most people would consider me in the tournament player camp I'd imagine, and I don't think the game gets any more RPS at 1500 versus 2000.

Would you say that the game gets any more RPS at 1000 points? What about 500 points?

I think the fewer resources one has to work with the harder it is to build an take-on-all-comers list that can readily deal with the variety of extreme builds that exist, even in the competitive field. The concept is better illustrated at lower points values (e.g., 1000 or even 500) where a single unit can dominate an entire match simply because the opponent's list doesn't have the tools to deal with it. There’s no single points value below which we can say that RPS becomes a factor and above which we can say that it ceases to be one--if one is to concede that such a relationship exists at all then it would necessarily be gradated.

Single units that dominate also tend to chew up enormous amounts of points - which means less leftover in deathstar mcgee's army to actually win the mission (multiple scoring units) or the ability to tackle an msu army. Sure, you can field O'vesa star or triple riptides and min troops at 1000, but if your opponents think about it, they'll easy get you on objectives.

 Danny Internets wrote:

Two other points that are worth discussing, though not necessarily in support of or opposition to lowering points:

Lowering points values will probably have disproportionate effects on the success of particular armies and list archetypes. With fewer points to spend, I imagine that the practical value of multi-purpose units would increase (it’s usually cheaper, when the option is available, to purchase one unit that does two things than two units that each do one thing). Consequently, this would give a boost to armies that can field generalist (as opposed to specialist) units.

Similarly, deathstars become significantly stronger at smaller points values. This is in part due to the RPS effect, but also due to the fact that many deathstar armies are designed around a particular super unit. Theoretically, deathstar units should function optimally at the minimum points value that permits their practical use, since the accompanying units are usually of peripheral importance (though still necessary, e.g., 3-man jetbike units in a Seer Council list).

Here's the thing though - you're guessing about the impacts it has on lists. Try building balanced lists at 2000 and 1500, in my experience of doing so you can build perfectly acceptable lists at BOTH values. I also disagree that deathstars become stronger, deathstars need a critical mass in order to function, and are generally fairly locked into a high points value in order to function. O'Vesa star built the way cook did comes in at approximately 850 points. At a lower points value, his scoring (which was already quite sad) becomes anemic, or he loses both of his extra riptides, and now he has okay scoring, and one unit able to "do" anything. Screamerstar is also locked in at needing to spend 800-850 points, if you cut it's points value, it now has the same choice as ovesa - lose it's other real units which present a threat, or lose it's ability to score/hold objectives. This goes on and on for Jet-Seer Council and others.

Of the current "big" lists, other than the deathstar approaches I listed above (and gave reasoning why I feel they actually get worse at winning), here's what I see as the current common lists we see:
-FMC Circus - (Similar to Nick N's) the list doesn't really change from 1850 - 1500, it drops an FMC or two, and plays the same way (every list will "feel" as if it's losing power because mentally we're comparing it to what it did at 1850 or 2000, against 1850 or 2000 point lists)
-Wave Serpent Spam or 5-6 Serpents + Tau or 5-6 Serpents + Wraithknight: They cut a couple serpents, or they cut an MC (riptide or wraithknight), but the lists stay effectively the same, they're not losing any "tools" if they don't want to
-IG Blobs - these play just as well, if not a bit better at 1500 from a power standpoint, but they dont lose tools
-Typical Tau (Triple Riptide, heavy support of 1-3 skyrays and 1-3 units of broadsides, ~60 kroot). You cut (from 1850) a unit of broadsides and 1 scoring unit and you're down to 1500. The list hasn't changed. Or cut 2 riptides (to 1) and beef something a bit. The tools don't go away.

So none of the big lists currently would change (and I'm more than willing at some point to physically edit some lists if people feel it'd be a useful exercise), do you see any lists that would become unplayable or that would change in a large way in terms of the tools they can bring? Because what I see is at 2000, we all have a toolbox, except instead of having a hammer, a phillips screw driver, and a flathead, we have 3 of each (or more).

 Danny Internets wrote:

EDIT: Regardless of my personal feelings about games at 1500 points, I actually think it's a great idea for some 1500 points GTs to exist. I think it's really important to have some variety in the tournament scene. This is the chief reason that the BFS GT (http://www.battleforsalvation.com/) is sticking with 2000 points next month.

Agreed on variety, however with the # of games commonly increasing at GT's, and the speed of the game decreasing, I'd like that variety to be downward of 1850 rather than up - mind you you guys did something I am super pumped to see in changing to 3 hour rounds, which was part of what got my keister off the fence and put a ticket in my hand.

I saw an interesting solution in the rules for a tournament not long ago.... Any pair of opponents who did not finish at least 4 full turns in the time limit received no points for the round. None. Sounds like good incentive for both to play at a decent speed.

Coldsteel wrote:
I saw an interesting solution in the rules for a tournament not long ago.... Any pair of opponents who did not finish at least 4 full turns in the time limit received no points for the round. None. Sounds like good incentive for both to play at a decent speed.

If this was instituted, both players would just say they got to round 4 and count up their score as such. This would be a very poor rule, and still would not stop the issues that are being discussed. I could not see any players letting this rule happen in their games.

I know I would talk with my opponent beforehand to tell him that if we dont get to turn 4, (has only happened once in all tournaments I have been to) we will write our score down as if it ended on turn 4 so that way one of use still received points.

I also disagree that deathstars necessarily become stronger at winning games at lower point levels. As stated, you have less points available to make a truly scary deathstar, and also include enough scoring troops and the like.

My gut feeling would be that it's actually easier to make a deathstar build at higher point levels that can win on objectives, since you can make the scary unit and have enough points leftover for the other list elements that you need.

Target wrote:

Here's the thing though - you're guessing about the impacts it has on lists. Try building balanced lists at 2000 and 1500, in my experience of doing so you can build perfectly acceptable lists at BOTH values. I also disagree that deathstars become stronger, deathstars need a critical mass in order to function, and are generally fairly locked into a high points value in order to function. O'Vesa star built the way cook did comes in at approximately 850 points. At a lower points value, his scoring (which was already quite sad) becomes anemic, or he loses both of his extra riptides, and now he has okay scoring, and one unit able to "do" anything. Screamerstar is also locked in at needing to spend 800-850 points, if you cut it's points value, it now has the same choice as ovesa - lose it's other real units which present a threat, or lose it's ability to score/hold objectives. This goes on and on for Jet-Seer Council and others.

Well, of course I'm just guessing (we both are). Without a body of data about outcomes from games at 1500 points in 6th edition (European GT results aren't necessarily useful for a variety of reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread), any forecasting of the possible effects of dropping standard games to this points level will require a good deal of guessing. What matters is whether or not said guessing is backed up by sound reasoning (I think it is on both sides of the argument).

I agree that deathstars need a critical mass in order to function. My point was that they function best at a points level close to that critical mass for two reasons, (1) fewer points decreases the likelihood that an opponent will field a counter, and (2) deathstar units tend to be exceedingly effective/efficient and somewhat inflexible in terms of cost, so in smaller games these units represent a larger portion of the army. Defining exactly where that critical mass is may be where we differ, but I believe it's at a value less than the current 6th edition tournament standard of 1850. (I would consider that critical mass to be a points level that allows for the fielding of the deathstar itself and sufficient supporting units, not just the Deathstar + minimal FOC selections.) That being said, my sentiments are more relevant to traditional deathstars (Seer Councils, Screamer Councils, Draigowing, etc.) than O'vesastar.

I'm still curious whether or not you think the game becomes more RPS-oriented at 1000 or 500 points though. It may have sounded rhetorical, but I'm genuinely curious whether you think there exists a connection between points level and the ability to build an effective TAC list at all (I think this point frames the discussion).

Of the current "big" lists, other than the deathstar approaches I listed above (and gave reasoning why I feel they actually get worse at winning), here's what I see as the current common lists we see:
-FMC Circus - (Similar to Nick N's) the list doesn't really change from 1850 - 1500, it drops an FMC or two, and plays the same way (every list will "feel" as if it's losing power because mentally we're comparing it to what it did at 1850 or 2000, against 1850 or 2000 point lists)
-Wave Serpent Spam or 5-6 Serpents + Tau or 5-6 Serpents + Wraithknight: They cut a couple serpents, or they cut an MC (riptide or wraithknight), but the lists stay effectively the same, they're not losing any "tools" if they don't want to
-IG Blobs - these play just as well, if not a bit better at 1500 from a power standpoint, but they dont lose tools
-Typical Tau (Triple Riptide, heavy support of 1-3 skyrays and 1-3 units of broadsides, ~60 kroot). You cut (from 1850) a unit of broadsides and 1 scoring unit and you're down to 1500. The list hasn't changed. Or cut 2 riptides (to 1) and beef something a bit. The tools don't go away.

I agree on most except the Daemons, dropping 1-2 of 4-5 FMCs is a big change, to how the list will perform. Compared to Eldar essentially giving up nothing.

Essentially I feel that some books lose more than others at 1500. Again it is just different though. I prefer tournaments to just decide what point level/round length they are comfortable with, and adjust accordingly.

If they only want to play 2:15 rounds then 1500 sounds great. If they go 3 hours then they staying at 2k is fine.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
I saw an interesting solution in the rules for a tournament not long ago.... Any pair of opponents who did not finish at least 4 full turns in the time limit received no points for the round. None. Sounds like good incentive for both to play at a decent speed.

If this was instituted, both players would just say they got to round 4 and count up their score as such. This would be a very poor rule, and still would not stop the issues that are being discussed. I could not see any players letting this rule happen in their games.

#1. It has an impact right away because both players know that they will get a loss if they do not get to turn 5, so there is a lot of motivation at the start for both players to play fast. ‘

#2. If you are slow playing me and we get less than 4 turns in and I lose, why should I say we got to turn #4?

I know I would talk with my opponent beforehand to tell him that if we dont get to turn 4, (has only happened once in all tournaments I have been to) we will write our score down as if it ended on turn 4 so that way one of use still received points.

If that was the case, I would tell you that I would mark you down as a loss as well as myself if we do not get to turn #4, so you better play fast to make sure that doesn't happen.

Otherwise, what is motivating you to play as fast as possible? If I lose to slow play who cares is a get a couple of points out of the game or not? Why would I want to reward a player who is stalling?

In my last round of the Nova Open I played against a player who slow played me (rolled saves one at a time etc.) We got to the end of turn #3 and they said do not play another turn. He wins because I am off all of the objectives (not thinking that this will be the last turn). Why on earth would I give this guy a win?

On Danny's point about points level I think what points levels introduce as far as balance is this. At lower points values randomness matters more. At 500 points a Flyrant can single handedly (assuming average rolls) dominate an opposing army. But having your points invested in that way means that a few bad rolls can screw your entire army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for both players "losing" if we don't finish, that only works assuming no sore losers. If we get to bottom of 2 and it is obvious I am going to lose, what is to stop me from screwing you out of a win?

In the end some combination of incentive + players involving judges early in these cases is the best solution. MY quesiton remains to those who are saying they got slow played, how many of you asked your opponent to speed up and if they did not went and got a judge to speed things along?

There is no system (short of having a judge for every table or 2) that will fix slow play without invlovement from the players. The issue is that far to often people are afraid that their opponent will get up set if they accuse them of slow playing, and do nothing.

#1 the impact could be nothing as i described.

#2 If you wouldn't agree to do that, then don't agree to do that. I guess it would give you one less thing to complain about.

Who cares about a few points? I guess not you, but some players do. If a few points don't matter, then don't agree to it, pretty simple solution.

Everyone gets slow played at some point, hurting both players for not getting to Turn 4 is not the answer.

Well, it's caused by players adjusting to new editions and not knowing the rules of their opponent's army. While it would be great if that could be changed, it simply can't. Lowering points values has to increase the likelihood that games finish on time, and should be the best solution. 1500 points is a great value, and I still think it's up for debate whether the extra 350 points actually encourages diversity with new units or simply adds 1-2 more of the spammable units.

I really wish rounds would be extended to 3 hours. If were there to game, I dont see an issue with going from 9 am to 10 pm (hour for lunch) for 4 round days, and for 3 round days 10 hours of gaming is totally feasible.

From what Mike Brandt said (from memory on 11th co), it sounded like a majority of games at NOVA did NOT meet their natural conclusion, with some not even making round 5 at 2.5 hours. By Natural conclusion I mean roll dice for turn 6 and 7... in 2.5 hours you can plan on playing ONLY to turn 5, really changes the way games are played AND makes armies like tau that much stronger (as they know when they have to expose weak scoring units, etc).

The issue is with slow players and rules questions. No need to change, only thing to do is have TO's roaming about watching for it.

2.5 hour rounds really really benefit some of the current stronger armies (in my opinion) as they know exactly when they have to expose their weaker units, which tend to be their scoring units. Without random game length (as there usually isnt in 2.5 hours round tournaments) the current Tau and Eldar armies know exactly when they have to push their relative small and vulnerable points investments (usually 2-3 squads of kroot or guardians) onto the objectives, with the rest of their points able to be spent on further bolstering their offensive output. Additionally, denial units can play for turn 5 (such as a riptide), able to stay out of assault range for most the game only to jettison onto an objective turn 5 with only the possibility of a 1 round assault phase (if they went 1st). This is really troublesome for some other armies which have to make greater points investments into scoring units (which typically don't have the strongest offensive capabilities) or fear loosing them quickly to the fire/range capabilities of the current top armies.

 Danny Internets wrote:

Target wrote:

Here's the thing though - you're guessing about the impacts it has on lists. Try building balanced lists at 2000 and 1500, in my experience of doing so you can build perfectly acceptable lists at BOTH values. I also disagree that deathstars become stronger, deathstars need a critical mass in order to function, and are generally fairly locked into a high points value in order to function. O'Vesa star built the way cook did comes in at approximately 850 points. At a lower points value, his scoring (which was already quite sad) becomes anemic, or he loses both of his extra riptides, and now he has okay scoring, and one unit able to "do" anything. Screamerstar is also locked in at needing to spend 800-850 points, if you cut it's points value, it now has the same choice as ovesa - lose it's other real units which present a threat, or lose it's ability to score/hold objectives. This goes on and on for Jet-Seer Council and others.

Well, of course I'm just guessing (we both are). Without a body of data about outcomes from games at 1500 points in 6th edition (European GT results aren't necessarily useful for a variety of reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread), any forecasting of the possible effects of dropping standard games to this points level will require a good deal of guessing. What matters is whether or not said guessing is backed up by sound reasoning (I think it is on both sides of the argument).

I agree that deathstars need a critical mass in order to function. My point was that they function best at a points level close to that critical mass for two reasons, (1) fewer points decreases the likelihood that an opponent will field a counter, and (2) deathstar units tend to be exceedingly effective/efficient and somewhat inflexible in terms of cost, so in smaller games these units represent a larger portion of the army. Defining exactly where that critical mass is may be where we differ, but I believe it's at a value less than the current 6th edition tournament standard of 1850. (I would consider that critical mass to be a points level that allows for the fielding of the deathstar itself and sufficient supporting units, not just the Deathstar + minimal FOC selections.) That being said, my sentiments are more relevant to traditional deathstars (Seer Councils, Screamer Councils, Draigowing, etc.) than O'vesastar.

I'm still curious whether or not you think the game becomes more RPS-oriented at 1000 or 500 points though. It may have sounded rhetorical, but I'm genuinely curious whether you think there exists a connection between points level and the ability to build an effective TAC list at all (I think this point frames the discussion).

Sorry I thought the RPS at 1k or 500 was more rhetorical than a question!

As to traditional deathstars - my post addressed both jetseer (my name for jetbike seer councils) and screamerstar (screamer council). I didn't address draigo because to be perfectly honest I don't really consider it a viable army anymore at the upper rungs of competition. That being said it would suffer the same issue, as draigo, 10 paladins and upgrades clocks in at 900 ish points, at 1500 that only leaves 600 for the entire rest of your army, and you're unable to handle MSU. Id say this keeps them fairly balanced like the others if not toning down deathstars at abit at 1500.

At 1000: You start flat out ruling out some builds, for instance most of those deathscars purely couldn't function at this level as they need 800-900 points to work properly. I think this would overall be "bad" as while I personally don't like deathstars, I also don't want to rule out any specific build archetypes due to points level. At this points level, the builds that are going to begin to dominate are those that can spam MSU as cheaply as possibly (imo) . You might see armies like GK Razor spam come back a bit, tau kroot horde + skyrays/ would fit a bit too well, etc etc. I'd say you start losing a fair bit of balance at 1000 because you truly can't at this level take a viable answer to extreme builds. You may be able to be balanced with some books (not all I'd guess), but you wont be able to handle the extremes.

At 500: It's a bit silly because this is just a completely different game, we're essentially talking a skirmish/kill team game at this level.

1500 Is where most things converge/stabilize imo, and is chosen partly because its a convenient/acceptable/roundish number thats historically been played. Im sure 1400 or 1550 or 1600 wouldn't be very different either.

At 1500 you can do (all points super super rough to be polite to posting exact values)
Eldar Farseer
4x Dire Avenger/Wave Serpent
2x6 swooping hawk
1x wraithknight
3x Shadowweaver
-some change.

Functionally this is very unchanged from an 1850 eldar build which merely takes more of everything. You could also trade the wraithknight and shadoweavers, or a serpent/something for a tau detachment if desired.

Tau Example:
Ethereal
Commander
6x10+1 hound kroot
2x Riptide with whatever
2x Skyray
1x Broadside unit with some drones
1500

Looks identical and has the same variety of answers as an 1850 version we see all the time

Screamerstar:
4 Heralds on discs with the usual crap
9 Screamers
3x Troops
1x 10 Cultists
CSM Sorcer or something
Heldrake
100 points left to take something, thats your typical screamerstar with CSM allies, if you don't want csm, spend the points on some fleshhounds, or an fmc, etc etc

Khan Bikers:
Khan+ Bike
4x5 Bikes with 2xGrav/Combi Grav/Melta bomb
Libby on Bike
Thunderfire
1 Stormtalon, skyhammer

Company Command Squad
Platoon Command Squad
40 Guardsmen
1 Vendetta

That's 1500 (plus or minus a couple points as always)

The list goes on - the armies really don't change, they just get less of the big expensive choices (wave serpents, wraithknights, riptides, broadside units, 1 less FMC, only 1 guard blob instead of 2, 1 less tervigon and some other small units, etc.) than at 1850.

Also list building is like crack to me. I don't know why.

Nice post, Target, and yeah you seem to have a thing for list-building . It's very pertinent to the topic, though... so thanks for posting them

I also agree that 1500 could be a nice sweet spot. That's a 19% difference in points with an 1850 point list... whereas a 1000 point level would a 46% difference in points. One is obviously going to affect list building a LOT more than the other!

With 19% less points to spend, imo you can make largely similar lists to what you can with 1850. You might see a few less uber-expensive toys, but most builds should still be viable (as Target, who knows a lot more about this, lays out examples of above).

 RiTides wrote:
Nice post, Target, and yeah you seem to have a thing for list-building . It's very pertinent to the topic, though... so thanks for posting them

I also agree that 1500 could be a nice sweet spot. That's a 19% difference in points with an 1850 point list... whereas a 1000 point level would a 46% difference in points. One is obviously going to affect list building a LOT more than the other!

With 19% less points to spend, imo you can make largely similar lists to what you can with 1850. You might see a few less uber-expensive toys, but most builds should still be viable (as Target, who knows a lot more about this, lays out examples of above).

As Target showed 1500 means you take 1-2 of the "good units" rather than spamming 3-4. I find my 1500 lists are just smaller versions of my larger lists.

Oh man... My personal experiences at 1500 back in the days of 3rd Ed tell me that you make huge sacrafices to be a take all comers list... While the rps players don't sacrafice as much. That said.... Missions were very different and lead to IMHO less Death Star builds. Perhaps we should be looking at missions that speed up play as opposed to slow it down?

MarkyMark wrote:
How would you suggest doing this Peregrine?, the few ways that have been suggested locally have not been good enough IMO and I feel its a very hard thing to enforce.

You have to give the judges the ability to make the call. In MTG there is no explicit definition for slow play, if a player feels like their opponent is playing too slowly then they call a judge and it's up to the judge whether or not they should enforce the penalty (usually after watching the game for a while). There's really no way around it being a judgement call, if you define slow play as A, B and C then the people who are deliberately stalling will just use D instead. You just have to have confidence in your judges.

A lot of TO's don't even get it. I was getting slowplayed at an RTT the other day so with 20 minutes left, I asked the judge before we started turn 4 if it was ok to split the remaining time evenly.. 10 minutes each. He said no, he'd never heard of that before. If I didn't think we'd finish another turn, then to end the game there because he was very strict about dice down.

Of course, my opponent was almost tabled with only a few models remaining here and there. All I needed to do was move three inches to get into contact with the Relic, but my opponent was content shuffling around worthlessly clocking me out for the win. I barely got the 30 seconds I needed after making a much bigger deal than I should've had to.

In other words, in order to get the attention of the TO on the issue of my opponents purposefully slow play, I was made out to look like the bad guy. That's the big reason noone ever brings it up in game. It's ridiculous.

1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, it's all 40K to me, personally. List building is more fun at higher points for sure as it feels more "complete" but it really doesn't make much difference. The best players still win at any points levels.

1500 is infinitely more realistic from a logistical point of view. You can provide time for a leisurely game with less time than a round at a higher points level allows for.

 Reecius wrote:
1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, it's all 40K to me, personally. List building is more fun at higher points for sure as it feels more "complete" but it really doesn't make much difference. The best players still win at any points levels.

1500 is infinitely more realistic from a logistical point of view. You can provide time for a leisurely game with less time than a round at a higher points level allows for.

Reecius, big fan (love the battle reports, jealous i don't live near your shop), but I have to disagree a little in terms of the best player mostly winning... Most of the best players will bring the best armies, so naturally they compete. With that said, here are my thoughts on why longer rounds are needed at higher point levels (and im afraid this same problem exist at lower point levels for the reasons below):

2.5 hour rounds really really benefit some of the current stronger armies (in my opinion) as they know exactly when they have to expose their weaker units, which tend to be their scoring units. Without random game length (as there usually isnt in 2.5 hours round tournaments) the current Tau and Eldar armies know exactly when they have to push their relative small and vulnerable points investments (usually 2-3 squads of kroot or guardians) onto the objectives, with the rest of their points able to be spent on further bolstering their offensive output. Additionally, denial units can play for turn 5 (such as a riptide), able to stay out of assault range for most the game only to jettison onto an objective turn 5 with only the possibility of a 1 round assault phase (if they went 1st). This is really troublesome for some other armies which have to make greater points investments into scoring units (which typically don't have the strongest offensive capabilities) or fear loosing them quickly to the fire/range capabilities of the current top armies.