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.

It seems that 1250 point 40K events are becoming a thing. Faster games? Less buffoonery?

Eldar players have realized that they win more at lower point values, especially in maelstrom.

Locally we still play in the 1.5-2k range, but I'd imagine it's because the games are quicker and there is less silliness involved in what you can bring, especially if you're running a CAD.

I haven't heard of any 1250 tournaments, but I enjoy games around that points range. Games run faster and more smoothly, every unit feels like it matters more, and you're less likely to run into hard counters for units that might not see as much use otherwise. I find at 1250 that I can bring a little of everything (provided I don't run a deathstar unit) and have most of it do reasonably well.

I'm a proponent for 1000~1250 point range and moving the game to a two list format. Much easier to accommodate "all comers" versus the OP power skew lists that exist in the world. It would tone down those harder lists just the sheer knowledge that everyone likely has a loaded list with their name on it.

The barrier to entry for the game is lowered, games are shorter, and you can still use a wide array of miniatures. The game is way too bloated and, sadly, if you want a good game, you gotta apply a lot of restrictions yourself.

What is a two list format exactly?

 KiloFiX wrote:
What is a two list format exactly?

Everyone has two pre-made lists that they can play instead of one. It's a way of allowing for flexibility and less bad match ups in a tournament setting without people being able to tailor every list for each game.

It's a Warmachine tournament format; you bring two complete lists at X points. You and your opponent exchange lists and then made a decision on which one you'll play simultaneously.

It ensures no one gets hosed in a proverbial bad match up because, if you did your homework right, you'll have two armies that cover each others' weaknesses. Thus likely to not get "ROFL" stomped. It's not perfect as list chicken scenarios arise (his list 1 beast my list 1, but my list 2 beats his list 2.... what's gonna happen?!), but it'd go a long way for 40k.

The reason why folks push for bigger points levels is it allows both more toys on the field, but gives you the ability to cover all your bases effectively with redundancy. In smaller games, not having all bases covered or redundancy means outright failure in 40k land. However, with two lists, you can build List A, to say, cover infantry/volume of models very well and List B, to cover cracking vehicles/hard targets very well.

Thus you can still play games with all your toys in smaller points level and encourage more balanced list design. Skew lists (all Knights, all MCs, 200+ bodies) will still happen, but you're more likely to have something to discourage that being played if you prepare.

I see. That 2 list thing is new to me. Thanks for explaining and I will suggest it to my group for smaller engagements.

So folks have figured out that 1000 to 1250 is about right for it?

No idea, it's just a thought. Never exercised it because my local game scene is predominantly Warmachine.

@TheKbob

I like the two list idea, especially for more competitive settings. However, I'd like to address the point you made about smaller lists meaning you can't cover as many bases and thus leading to one-sided games more easily.

I'm a big fan of simply talking to your opponent before a game and discussing your respective lists to try and find a relatively balanced matchup. If one player really wants to try out the new flyers he bought, and the other guy really wants to try out a gunline, he gunliner can bring some flakk missiles, or the airforce guy can tweak his list to be not curbstomp the gunliner.

Some people look down on intentionally softening up a list for your opponent, but I always just saw it as a way to make sure the game is more balanced and fun between friends.

This is especially helpful in smaller games where you can try out quirky lists that work relatively well provided your opponent doesn't intentionally or accidentally bring something to curbstomp it.

Maybe I want to bring Baharroth and several squads of hawks to a 1250 game. By talking to my opponent, it's easier to make sure that he doesn't bring a deathwing that I'll never be able to hurt out-in-the-open squishy things that I'll devastate with my grenades.

I dislike toning down lists as this usually means the game is the failure, not the individuals. The stance of other games is either firmly printed in the rulebooks or given up front in the scenario/mission packet. Warmachine has Pg. 5 and Steamroller, Infinity has ITS, and Malifaux has their unique game structure.

Meaning, if the game is made right, it shouldn't be necessary to talk to my opponent versus list size and rolling up a scenario. I bring two lists to my normal game days that are not tournaments simply because it's more fair. The other bad side about "talking to your opponent" is list tailoring, for better or for worse.

I play games for a competitive challenge. If you want a narrative encounter, playing an RPG is cooperative which allows for a better narrative experience and drastically lowers the cost. Tabletop wargames are best served from tight rules and less player ability to obstruct clean play. Sadly, 40k has the softest barriers for this and frustrates a lot of players.

The other sad side is that in any game sometimes you don't own the right models to make an army work yet. That happens, and toning down is fair there. However in 40k, sometimes you're just stuck with a mediocre army for years because of the awful rules versus just not buying the right models. Another failure of the game.

Fair points, TheKbob. I guess I've just never really expected especially well-balanced rules from GW, an I don't care as much about the competitiveness of the game. If I want something competitive, I'll generally look to other games. If I want something that lets me see a cool little battle unfold between space orks and space elves, I turn to 40k. To that end, I'm happy to use less potent options for the sake of making it a more interesting game for myself and my opponent.

If I was aiming to bring something competitive, I could collect a net list and call it a day. I prefer seeing unusual options that are well balanced against each other going at it.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Fair points, TheKbob. I guess I've just never really expected especially well-balanced rules from GW, an I don't care as much about the competitiveness of the game. If I want something competitive, I'll generally look to other games. If I want something that lets me see a cool little battle unfold between space orks and space elves, I turn to 40k. To that end, I'm happy to use less potent options for the sake of making it a more interesting game for myself and my opponent.

If I was aiming to bring something competitive, I could collect a net list and call it a day. I prefer seeing unusual options that are well balanced against each other going at it.

For truth, exalted!

When I want to play something truly competitive, I far prefer games on the PC, because to me, even if there are perfect rules with excellent unit balance, playing in real life is practically difficult to find close matchups.

Put another way: I really have zero desire to play a competitive game against a player that is inferior, skillwise, as there is no particular joy or sense of accomplishment in the win. It's just a combination of feeling like I wasted my time and feeling bad that the other guy bungled it up.

The reverse is true too, though it doesn't happen much in 40k. To take the example of another game, I don't like playing chess against players much more skilled than I, not because I lose horribly, but because I'm essentially wasting their time.

What TheKbob says is true too -- your opponent may simply not have the right models to counter your units. How fun is it to stomp them because they have nothing that can hit your Flyrant?

In contrast, with a game like StarCraft 2, the system finds you a suitable play partner, where both players have a reasonable chance of victory. Ditto with Hearthstone, versus MtG. Hearthstone is very nice, because I can spend a night enjoying many competitive games with people of roughly the same skill level, as I climb (or drop from) the ladder.

Now, that's not to say that I don't like to win in 40k. I like to win as much as anyone else, but I'm happy to bend the rules (in terms of points and point handicaps) to make it interesting and challenging. Mostly, I find tabletop wargaming (and even TCGs) a social experience, whereas computer PvP gaming a competitive one.

PC games have not always been balanced either though. I remember the days of Red Alert 2, where the first person to build 5 prism tanks won the game.

Poly Ranger wrote:
PC games have not always been balanced either though. I remember the days of Red Alert 2, where the first person to build 5 prism tanks won the game.

I remember that (the game, not really the prism tanks)

I agree. However, there are very well balanced PC games, with excellent matchmaking services, where you wait seconds to start up a game. This is just not practical in tabletop. If I go into a game with a fully competitive mindset, as I did when I went to University and played at the wargaming club there, many nights, I'd be disappointed -- not by "rules" or whatever, but just because of bad matchups.

Now, I mostly play with people that I want to play with, so regardless of whether they are strategic geniuses or not, we have a riot -- simply because they're good friends and it's social. That part is pretty hard on competitive RTS type computer games. I mean, sure, you can play with SC2 with a friend, but it's not even close to the experience of 40k on a table. The former is entertainment and the latter is a real treat.

What do you suppose someone who plays non tournament games and her opponents lists codex are better or are hard counters?

1250 is good if you want games to run quickly, and can work ok on a smaller 4x4 table. This is especially useful for tournaments when you need to get a lot of games done in a day and may not have a ton of space.

I really prefer 1500 point games (not too far off from 1250 though). Gives you enough points to bring most any type of unit you want, but still restricting enough so that you really have to make decisions on what to bring. Even if someone wants to bring a crazy deathstar or high point cost sillyness their list will be balanced since the rest of their army will be rather lacking.

partninja wrote:
1250 is good if you want games to run quickly, and can work ok on a smaller 4x4 table.

I'm guessing that's the main reason it's being done. 1250 is 2/3 of 1850, so you can expect a similar density of models on a table that is 2/3 the size.

Where are all these 1.25k tourneys? I don't see them around here, online, or at GTs.

Check the batreps and lists on this very forum. I didnt say anything about GTs btw.

My local FGS is putting up a 1250pt RTT in March as well. Im just throwing up a question. Guess you don't see any 1250pt games. Thats ok too.

 Byte wrote:
Check the batreps and lists on this very forum. I didnt say anything about GTs btw.

My local FGS is putting up a 1250pt RTT in March as well. Im just throwing up a question. Guess you don't see any 1250pt games. Thats ok too.

Sry if it came across as a challenge, I was genuinely asking, as it's not something I've noticed.

 Byte wrote:
It seems that 1250 point 40K events are becoming a thing. Faster games? Less buffoonery?

Both answers seem likely, and desirable. Well till 1250 spam lists grow common.

I would like to see these smaller game sizes become more standard. It helps combat the many years and editions of army and points depreciation. I know people like playing with all of their big toys at once, but I feel a good side effect would be to help draw in more new players, since sticker-shock is such a prevalent problem nowadays and this could lower investment to start.

Well an IK Ad-lance still fits in 1250. Yuk.

Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm a big fan of simply talking to your opponent before a game and discussing your respective lists to try and find a relatively balanced matchup. If one player really wants to try out the new flyers he bought, and the other guy really wants to try out a gunline, he gunliner can bring some flakk missiles, or the airforce guy can tweak his list to be not curbstomp the gunliner.

That would actually accomplish the opposite of what you are trying to do. It ends up with one person saying "Im bringing X" and their opponent bringing the counter for X.

Plus doing that at a competitive event is impossible, you'd have way too much time spent drawing up a list each round to finish on time. Plus it would make cheating easier as the whole thing would be much more confusing.

we play standard games starting at 3k and have brought on 4 new players in the past month.....

i really dont understand the desire to play small games as its so unbalanced at those point levels.

also all the builds that get labelled as broken never seem to be an issue in our games as you always have something to deal with everything and multiple stategies to throw into place during the course of a game.

 tenebre wrote:
we play standard games starting at 3k and have brought on 4 new players in the past month.....

i really dont understand the desire to play small games as its so unbalanced at those point levels.

also all the builds that get labelled as broken never seem to be an issue in our games as you always have something to deal with everything and multiple stategies to throw into place during the course of a game.

So GW's rules aren't terrible, it's just meant to be played with several thousand dollar armies in order to be balanced? Just as planned, GW!

 Zewrath wrote:

 tenebre wrote:
we play standard games starting at 3k and have brought on 4 new players in the past month.....

i really dont understand the desire to play small games as its so unbalanced at those point levels.

also all the builds that get labelled as broken never seem to be an issue in our games as you always have something to deal with everything and multiple stategies to throw into place during the course of a game.

So GW's rules aren't terrible, it's just meant to be played with several thousand dollar armies in order to be balanced? Just as planned, GW!

i agree the game was written to be played at the 3k-4k rangek plus. (and honestly you can get to that level under $500 for most armies, as our players have done) But yes Warhammer is and always has beena very expensive game/hobby, so onthing new there.