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.

I was over in the GW 2014 financial thread and there was a bit of a discussion about how to keep veterans interested while still making the game accessible to newer players. One of the recommendation was that GW support a 40k format which focuses on smaller scale engagements. Not necessarily kill team, but more along the lines of 40k at the 750-1250 point range.

I've had the opportunity to play a few games at 1000 points and was pleasantly surprised at how fresh the game felt. Games are relatively quick - about 1-1.5 hours depending on the armies and how well the players know the rules. It is much easier to get a new player to buy into 1000 pts rather than 1750-2000. Most importantly it was a change of pace from the usual 2.5 hour grind. The only downside is that some armies perform better at the lower pt level (some FoC restrictions could solve this) and you don't get to use every one of your "shiny" units each game due to point limitations.

I'd be interested to see if this could one day become mainstream where people walk in with their 1000 pt list in hand ready to battle.

Yes.

Making troop choices a 1 min instead of 2 would help a long way for squeezing in that extra toy at 1000pts.

Have to keep an eye on the impact of Allies and Formations..............

Yes though below 1000 points, only allowed to field one of every unique unit.

Can include 3 drakes at 750 otherwise

I've always done 750 point games. In fact, the club I go to makes it compulsory to have a 750 point list!

so yeah, way ahead of ya...

G.A

 Blacksails wrote:
Yes.

Making troop choices a 1 min instead of 2 would help a long way for squeezing in that extra toy at 1000pts.

^This more than anything.
Even taking out the HQ element at under 1,000 would help alot.

 gossipmeng wrote:
The only downside is that some armies perform better at the lower pt level (some FoC restrictions could solve this) and you don't get to use every one of your "shiny" units each game due to point limitations.

I don't really get how this is as argument against it. Some armies perform better at higher points values, as well. I mean, you aren't talking the ultra-low end 500pt games where things like tervigon HQ choices used to be insanely OP (though you probably won't be able to make a legal list at that level with one now). Some armies will always perform better at various point levels.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Yes.

Making troop choices a 1 min instead of 2 would help a long way for squeezing in that extra toy at 1000pts.

^This more than anything.
Even taking out the HQ element at under 1,000 would help alot.

Yeah, I'd be okay with that.

What would be best is a rule set with different 'tiers' that had scaled FoC based on the codex. Firestorm Armada does this for three levels of gameplay that alter how many choices you can take at various levels.

Even a 'HalfQ' model (get it, HQ, but half...I'll be here till Thursday) would be nice for smaller level games. Things like a senior Sergeant for marines, as an example. A cheaper HQ model for each army at the 30-50pts level with one or two options included.

Yes, a game like 40k in the 750-1250 point range would be great. Thankfully, there is already a game like this - it's 40k. 40k scales down to low points levels very well (and with only the tiniest modifications even down to 250 point games, like the battleforce recon mission at the back of your BRB).

It's not all that surprising, though. 40k was the skirmish level game, and epic was the army-level game. What's happened is that epic has slowly but surely been shoehorned into the 40k rules set with ever-bigger units at ever-higher points levels. Play 40k as it was intended to be played in the first place (rather than as GW advertising execs think it should), and the game gets a lot better.

And I don't think the FOC needs to be modified for 1000 points (or even 750 for that matter). Part of the problem with playing 1850 point games is precisely because there are so many points to play with that you don't have to make any meaningful decisions about what to include and what to cut. At 1999+1, people just fills their HS as much as they can, and then spams the best unit in their codex lightly draped over min-sized troops. At 1,000 points, you have to actually make decisions, and units that don't work well at high points levels start becoming useful again, which makes the game more interesting for both players.

Our group actualy started to a mod for our games.
1 Troop Choice for every full 500 points is a guide we use.

JPong wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
The only downside is that some armies perform better at the lower pt level (some FoC restrictions could solve this) and you don't get to use every one of your "shiny" units each game due to point limitations.

I don't really get how this is as argument against it. Some armies perform better at higher points values, as well. I mean, you aren't talking the ultra-low end 500pt games where things like tervigon HQ choices used to be insanely OP (though you probably won't be able to make a legal list at that level with one now). Some armies will always perform better at various point levels.

I know what you mean about higher point games having their own balance issues. I was mainly speaking to the ability for some armies to spam heldrakes, riptides, etc.

I'm a supporter of a custom FoC for smaller pt games: 1-2 HQs, 1+ troop, 0-2 elite, 0-2 FA, 0-2 HS. A fantasy approach could work as well where each slot is alloted a certain percentage of the total pts. HQ up to 25%, Troops atleast 25%, Elite up to 50%, FA up to 50%, HS up to 25%.

 gossipmeng wrote:
I know what you mean about higher point games having their own balance issues. I was mainly speaking to the ability for some armies to spam heldrakes, riptides, etc.

I'm a supporter of a custom FoC for smaller pt games: 1-2 HQs, 1+ troop, 0-2 elite, 0-2 FA, 0-2 HS. A fantasy approach could work as well where each slot is alloted a certain percentage of the total pts. HQ up to 25%, Troops atleast 25%, Elite up to 50%, FA up to 50%, HS up to 25%.

I guess that would be an issue, at least for the helldrakes. I wouldn't think riptides would get enough markerlights in a low point game if spammed.

Besides, they are already issues when spammed, so that really wouldn't change much. It is a problem that spamming anything difficult to deal with is harder to deal with a low points. Even 2 land raiders would be hard to deal with.

Sounds to me like the discussion is about the "optimum" range for the game. The way I feel it, it is in the range of 600-1800 points, tops. No allies and reasonable armies (lots of foot-sloggers, 1-3 tanks, maybe 1-2 small gunships for CAS).

At larger games it turns strategy into statistics and with Superheavies and Flying Circus it becomes a question of "is everything in your army geared towards AT/AA?".

With all the random and heresy going around (Orks ally with Necrons? you get my drift) we are better off at smaller scales with less chances of 3 marauders and a baneblade thrown in for good measure.

Absolutely.

40k functions best at 750-1250. At 1750+ it becomes very cluttered and slow.

My club always plays 1000 ish points. We like that you cant take all the toys etc. Its fun making choices and the games are much better over all as the less models you have on the board the more you are relying on their strengths and trying to reduce your weaknesses. Unlike big games where it turns to move and shoot enmasse.

500-1000 is best and if we wanna show off nice models 1500 is plenty.

My issue is that I have 12,000 points of Space Wolves and I don't get to play with all of them.
If I could get 2-3 smaller games a day though I would be good with that.

1500 is plenty, and I enjoy smaller games. Yes seems like the overwhelming majority so far in the poll as well.

The game should support both. And it already does.
Smaller games can be really fun, but in the end, there is nothing like having massive Apocalypse games.
I massively enjoy both small and large point games, and to my knowledge, it is already possible to play 500-1000 points games in 40k. So what do you mean with 'a shift to smaller points games'?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The game should support both. And it already does.
Smaller games can be really fun, but in the end, there is nothing like having massive Apocalypse games.
I massively enjoy both small and large point games, and to my knowledge, it is already possible to play 500-1000 points games in 40k. So what do you mean with 'a shift to smaller points games'?

I think he what he means is that the current trend is to play 2000 points or more in 40k all the time. Whereas a push towards making most games smaller and those bigger games rare and special then he thinks not only will it be easier on everyones pockets but the games (in a lot of peoples opinions) would be more enjoyable. I think anyways.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The game should support both. And it already does.
Smaller games can be really fun, but in the end, there is nothing like having massive Apocalypse games.
I massively enjoy both small and large point games, and to my knowledge, it is already possible to play 500-1000 points games in 40k. So what do you mean with 'a shift to smaller points games'?

I think he what he means is that the current trend is to play 2000 points or more in 40k all the time. Whereas a push towards making most games smaller and those bigger games rare and special then he thinks not only will it be easier on everyones pockets but the games (in a lot of peoples opinions) would be more enjoyable. I think anyways.

I think this might be a good way to go.
We currently do 2,000 points as a standard with the ocasinal 3k here and there, but the smaller ones have been fun to.

Yes, I would say 750 - 1000 is fun, I have done that a few times.

I was able to play a small marine force at 500 exactly and had to lean on troops and a minimal HQ and still felt I had enough to play well.

We have played 8 player games at 1000pts each and had a blast. It works.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The game should support both. And it already does.
Smaller games can be really fun, but in the end, there is nothing like having massive Apocalypse games.
I massively enjoy both small and large point games, and to my knowledge, it is already possible to play 500-1000 points games in 40k. So what do you mean with 'a shift to smaller points games'?

I think he what he means is that the current trend is to play 2000 points or more in 40k all the time. Whereas a push towards making most games smaller and those bigger games rare and special then he thinks not only will it be easier on everyones pockets but the games (in a lot of peoples opinions) would be more enjoyable. I think anyways.

This is what I was getting at.

There is nothing stopping any of us from going down to our game spot and asking for a 1000 pt match. However, the trend is to build a 1500-2500 pt list and expect to face off against opponents at those point levels. Why not buck the trend and make it the standard to walk into your game store and be prepared to fight a 1000 pt battle. Many people seem to like the small matches, but for one reason or another they are a rare occurance. Someone randomly picked 1750 pts as a standard and people started to run with it. Then slowly the point limit grew and grew because people wanted to add the new shiny kits to their army, but didn't want to drop anything that was already in the list. You end up just playing games where its your entire collection vs their entire collection - the game bogs down, tables are too cluttered, and tactical decisions get lost in the meat grinder.

I play 1850 quite often and love that size. I could maybe do 1500 but... :-/

I can see why people may want to use all their models (as they have payed a lot for them) but once people realize how much they can get from a small game I think it will kick off.

Its like in video games where you are limited in what you can carry and what skills you can take, they put it in because it adds a new level of tactics and choice. Same with table top gaming.

It also limits things such as ally abuse and combos that make huge games even more annoying to play. When i first played 1500 was considered large and 2000 was huge and it really added something to the list building, rather than go "what can i take to fill 2000 points" it becomes "what should i take in 750 points".

I suggest everyone give it a go, after a while you will see why so many players suggest a small scale game. It adds to the gaming experience over.

As much as GW hates it, the more you take into a game, the less you take out of the game.

I build my armies to 2,000 points. But am more than happy to play anywhere between the two. I take the whole army with me and have army lists worked out from 250 points up to 2,000 so I am ready for anything.

With the allies rules I can go above 2,000 with some notice.

However, I have a good friend just starting out in the hobby and we have been playing 500 point games so he can get his head around the rules and building up slowly from there.

They are extremely quick and I find them a lot of fun, however, 500 points of Space Wolves vs. 500 Points of Eldar Guardians is murder.

Why not. At the 1000 pt level, one could certainly play more games in an RTT on a daily basis, say 5 games instead of 3 at a higher pt level.

I really enjoy games at this range actually. I'd absolutely love it if this was the norm.

I'd like something like KoW has where for every unit of a certain size you take, you can take a character/warmachine, in 40k terms that could be 1 Elite/Fast/Heavy for every unit that's at least 10 infantry or say 5 vehicle (e.g. Jetbike squad), so you can't take two tiny Troops choices and then 3x Riptides or something. Make it so you only need 1 Troops choice, and HQ is optional. No allies/fortifications/superheavies.

The problem is you get people who don't want to play that, they want minimum of 1500 so they can field all the bells and whistles.