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.

 jasper76 wrote:
What I mean is that below 3,000 points, the game is kind of closed and balanced and predictable.

As the majority of criticisms levelled at 40K consist of it being too random, unbalanced and there being too many mini books, dataslates and supplements to be familiar with it all, I'd suggest your experiences aren't typical.

I'll echo those saying they actually prefer smaller games, we've been running an escalation league, with a 250pt jump every 3 weeks since the New Year, and the sub-1000pt games were the ones I enjoyed most. Now we've hit 1500, some of the familiar issues are now starting to emerge again (although minimised because fortunately we only really have one player who actually cares about winning, most of us will just cobble together a list and duke it out, which IMO is the only way 40K can work as a fun game right now)

I'm afraid the thought of a 3000 pointer just doesn't appeal, but if you've found a way to enjoy your time playing, more power to you!

Id go for it. The amount of orky goodness I could bring makes me smile green! Junkas with deff rollas, big trakk squads with suppa shootas, mekka and mega dreads, Bw... the list goes on and on.

 Xerics wrote:
Games become longer at higher values sure. But it becomes balanced in the end, even more so then at low point values. in 1500-2000 point games if you brought rock and your opponent brought paper you are gunna lose 9/10 times. But with higher point values you have all of your utilities available to you making the general of the army (the player) matter more as its now more strategy rather than if you brought the right tools. At high point games you always have the tools. Now you just need to know how to use them.

I wish i could get more games at my point value. I have 15000 points of Eldar when all is said and done. and only 4 of those are super heavys. 2 Rev and 2 Scorpion Tanks.

I agree with your core point, however don't forget the table dimensions. At higher points values, the game has more units which are more crowded together. This alters the dynamics. If you use a larger table, the dynamics alter again because of movement and weapon ranges. So while the availability of types of units apparently becomes easier and therefore more balanced at higher points levels, the game overall is not necessarily more balanced.

I've gotten to the point that I like to play the speed chess version of 40k.. you get 15 min to complete your turn... not done in that time.. too bad... turn changes... This is at 2k... we cut it to 12 1/2 per turn at 1500 to 1850.

So, to the OP.. nope... can't say I agree.. at 3k points.. I'd want turns to be 20 mins max.... can't say I could tolerate more than 3 hours for any one game.

Personally, I prefer large games. Apoc games are my favorite thing about 40k. It makes it more fun when you are in the mindset of just throwing everything on the table and watching stuff blowup.
As for playing standard 40k at 3k points, I haven't really done that much. But I think that it would be enjoyable. With more points, I believe it would push people towards more TAC lists rather than specific, powerful builds. I'll have to try it at my FLGS, if I can find someone willing to spend 3-4 hours on a 3k game.

If you're playing a 3k game, you better be playing on an 8x6 table minimum.

I don't think the actual issue is the point limits. I think the real issue is the FOC. Other than an HQ and a troops choice I'm not sure there should be any mandatory units or even limits, which is why I like Apoc rules. We've been using Apoc's "take whatever" even at 1500 point levels and have had a blast.

The guard codex is a prime example of what I'd like to see the others do. Namely all of the heavy options or 0-3, so you could take an actual mech guard army with 9 LR's if you wanted. The platoons are such that you could feasibly put 12 (or more) scoring units on the table and cover the field with bodies.

As a counter example, my DE can only take 3 Ravagers, which makes taking a flier or MC a very very difficult choice. I like my MC's, a lot. They are very effective in certain situations. However, the Ravagers are also effective in completely different situations. I'm not entirely certain they even belong in the same category but my choice is that I either build a Rock, Scissors OR Paper but due to the unit restrictions my ability to build a TAC list is greatly diminished.

In other words, DE's FOC heavily constrains what my army could potentially look like while the IG/AM dex gives you a huge range of options. At 2k points I can double up, at Apoc levels I can ignore those restrictions and build an army you'd likely see in one of the books. Which means higher point levels are a band aid over the problems; but the problems aren't the point limits.

Now, if GW had balanced the books such that 200 points of troops from one codex would be approximately the same power level as 200 points of troops from another then this wouldn't be an issue. But they haven't. They could even have helped each book with their style of fighting by changing the FOC chart on a per army basis... but they didn't. So, yeah, I'm hoping a good bit of Apoc type rules find their way into regular 40k.

 Roci wrote:
I've gotten to the point that I like to play the speed chess version of 40k.. you get 15 min to complete your turn... not done in that time.. too bad... turn changes... This is at 2k... we cut it to 12 1/2 per turn at 1500 to 1850.

So, to the OP.. nope... can't say I agree.. at 3k points.. I'd want turns to be 20 mins max.... can't say I could tolerate more than 3 hours for any one game.

You're going to hate the number of gaunts I can field by getting lots of endless swarms.

180+3-9 models for about 1000 points.

All the scoring I'll ever need.

I prefer 1500-2000 normal games, or 6000+ per player Apoc games (minimum 2 players per side).

Everything in between is silly!

As a Tyranid player I like the 500-1000 point range as most players are limited in what sort of shiny toys they can bring.

As an Eldar player I enjoy games where I can field most of what I have. Even if they are not always effective.

I played a 4900 point game on an 8x4 table. Don't need to increase the map size! Make it a meat grinder!

Makumba wrote:
Games cap at 1999 here. No one I know owns 3k points in one army , not to mention 3k points of optimised list . It would be rather crazy with multiple FoC , multiple ally and possible D spam . Who ever has more cash to buy D weapon carriers and void shields from ebay would win .

Ahhh, one of those groups eh?

I would love to play a 12,000 point game with no superheavys. just can't find anyone to match my points value. I only have about 6 wave serpents so I do put down alot of footdar. 80 guardians, 40 storm guardians, 30 swooping hawks, 30 fire dragons, 10 dark reapers, 50 dire avengers, 30 wraithguard, 6 wraithlords, 4 warwalkers. I have alot of non skimmer units. I think i have near 20 warp spiders but i havent looked in a while. Deffinately have 4 fire prisms tho. That would be fun

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO the game plays best at 1,000 to 1,500 points, at least it did in 5th edition.

The new stuff that has been put in -- aircraft, D weapons, etc -- makes things more difficult and upsets the balance at normal point levels, but the game system fails to scale well above 2,000 points.

This.

1,500 points has been the ideal points value for 4 editions running.

Games i tend to play are the 1850-2k bracket though i have no problems with bigger games...

games at small point values just arent fun, leaves me with boxes of unused stuff and who gets the nice shinies to NOT use them.

iv played a few games at the 3k a side mark, and thats good fun, though at those points levels you want to have a superheavy to flesh out 500 points or so. though i do spose that without them its not too bad

To add though i have more table space and terrain than i will normally need, so if we decide for big games, my 6x4 can become a 6x9 with enough terrain to fill the table.

as to the notion of "speed chess" games... never even occured to me for good reason i think, i cannot in any way shape or form see the purpose behind, "gotta get this game over" if your playing for fun you have to enjoy it, i can see lots of stuff damaged in the rush to move things no time for banter etc etc.. just def not my cup of tea with a game that as beer and pretzels as 40k is

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

The 1500-2000 range is the sweet spot for 40k. Playing higher brings in the "everybodies toys!" syndrome and also further increases the cost to actively play the game; read the barrier to entry just rose again before a new player feels satisfied with their army.

I'd push for more 1500. It doesn't solve the problems of 40k, but games are quicker and less powerful items are less of an issue. Deathstars lose a lot of support options when played at this level, meaning a better likelihood of an opponent's ability to spread out, mitigate deathstar damage, and remove supporting elements/troops making it a much more balanced game.

Speed chess 40k, or timed turns, works in games like Warmachine because everything about a player's turn is dictated by the active player. This does not work for 40k as you have the concept of opposing dice rolls, saves, and other situations. The game itself would break down using this method for certain forms of attacks, like multiple barrages and their wound allocation, or units with a complex mixture of saves. Managing "Look Out, Sir!" rolls for a unit lead by a special character, rolling saves 2-3 at a time, makes this unlikely to work.

Finally, adding in the "slow play" aspect, which is hard to prove, of dropping dice, missing the table, rolling for cocked dice, etc. also doesn't make it fair. Any rule that allows the opponent to perform actions during your turn eats your time, defeating the purpose.

Warhammer would have to shift a Warmachine "Defense Value" type system versus the "Save" style it is now.

I actually tend to play somewhere between 500 to 1000 points and have a blast. At smaller point games its harder to feild huge cheese (at least it seems when I play) and allows for some fluffy armies to be played at a solid winning level

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
3K is apocalypse level. I would imagine it starts to get nuts there.

2K is apocalypse level nowadays.

This. Back when I played units cost more (or I seem to believe so anyway!).

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
3K is apocalypse level. I would imagine it starts to get nuts there.

2K is apocalypse level nowadays.

This. Back when I played units cost more (or I seem to believe so anyway!).

They actually did cost a lot more points for what they did.

GW has been trying to file down the points every edition so everyone would need more models to play.

WHFB is another example where it's gotten to the point that some units can have decimals in their points cost (especially the really spammy armies like Skaven).

By the time 40k hits 8th edition, don't be surprised if you see 1 point grots.

3K = Tanks and vehicles errrrrrywhere and I don't like that.
750 is one of my favorite points level then 1500 is good.

Best game I ever had was 1v1 7500 points. Game really does balance out better at bigger points.

Orks especially go from the weakest codex in the game to solid when you remove the force org issue.

People who say the game is the most balanced at 1850 clearly don't give a gak as to whether my army is playable or not, only that it works for theirs.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Best game I ever had was 1v1 7500 points. Game really does balance out better at bigger points.

Orks especially go from the weakest codex in the game to solid when you remove the force org issue.

People who say the game is the most balanced at 1850 clearly don't give a gak as to whether my army is playable or not, only that it works for theirs.

Plus, a pile of Orks stretching from wall to wall just looks so...right.

40K isn't even balanced at sub-3000 points. The game basically breaks past 1500, with 1000 being arguably the most balanced points-level. At post-1500, you have too many points to use, and can spam the powerful units (riptide/knight equivalents, death stars), without having to sacrifice on troops.

At lower points levels, taking a powerful unit actually has an appreciable risk/reward factor. Sure, you could take three heldrakes in a 1000 point game, but when I'm slowly demolishing all your troops in melee by the end of round 2, you'll be wishing you hadn't.

We probably do an even split of 1500 to 2000 games vs 3000 - 5000 games (not always apoc.). This weekend will be a 3k game. There may be another player who will bring 2k, so I'll have another 2k on hand just in case.

I like playing both ways. I don't find it terribly difficult to keep up with or track.

Recently we did 8000 point a side game of Chaos vs all and Chaos has 40+ psychic powers (not to mention all the gifts).

I think 2k, no doubling of the FOC is a good compromise. Enough to let people use their shiny toys, but not enough to see spams of 5 oblit cults, 5 helldrakes and so on.

It also allows for some flexibility once the key slots are filled. Ordinarily, I would not bother fielding a Hellbrute, despite loving the fluff and the model; I need those points for stuff that kills stuff and holds ground! But once I have enough troops and fill my FOC with the basics, I can give it a shot and not feel I handicapped my army.

3K is indeed a bit too much. I don't doubt the rules still hold, but just the hassle of moving that much stuff makes games get too long.

Sadly, I think the game is -really- unbalanced under 1k points. It's too easy for someone to just roll out 3 leman russes and a giant blob of fearless infantry and still have points to spare, or cover the table with ork boyz and power claws, while other guys will struggle to fill out their basic troop choices with something worthwhile, let alone enough killing power to nuke 3 AV 14 tanks or 2 Riptides.

I like playing large points games, and I've yet to play with any of the expansion rules, but from my experience it's really up to the player to have fun and not the models. The only gripe I have about large games is they often turn into 2-3 day affairs. Which is okay but then what happens is I'll have 2k+ points on the table and someone else will show up for a game and I have to build a list out of the previous battles casualties!

Actually one time that turned out to be quite fun too because we had about 1500pts on the big table, my Tau buddy showed up with another 15k and we ended up playing a full match on the table usually reserved for kill team. You can imagine how that went, 3k points crammed onto a 2x4 table, it was pretty hectic!

I can see your point OP, but I prefer lower point games so I can simply lose faster. Losing hurts less when I get it overwith quickly. Oh salamanders...

 BladeTX wrote:
I can see your point OP, but I prefer lower point games so I can simply lose faster. Losing hurts less when I get it overwith quickly. Oh salamanders...

i hope this isnt a serious attitude.... because if it is, WHY even put models on the table....

The game does not "open up" at 3K points, it becomes "who has the most D-Weapon platforms" at 3K points.

Me, I don't like playing anything above 1500 points, and even that is often a slog. Give me a 1K or 750 point game to kill an hour or two with, and I'm good.