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.

The current 1850-point game of 40k is increasingly long, convoluted, and impractical. Modern armies are becoming more and more composite and less bound by any force org.

Does this move towards increased complexity mean that a 1000-1250 point game could be more suitable for competitive play?

It seems to me that smaller games have many advantages, such as decreased play time, decreased game complexity and decreased opportunity to min-max certain builds.
Obviously this wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might be able to minimise some of the issues in tournament 40k.

Does anyone have thoughts on the matter?

I know what you mean, and to many extents, I agree.

Proportional force changes heavily at the 1,000 to 1,500 point levels, compared to 1,750 to 2,000.

At the lower levels, Lord of War units (some of the, at least) become unsupportable, and can be singled out more easily, and you cannot turn the entire table into a moonscape of D blasts.

However, some things will become even more OP at these levels, such as anything that requires about 1,000 points worth of fire to kill, while costing less than a third of that. Or other out of proportion units.

The game certainly gets faster though.

I much prefer low points games, It really makes you think about point allocation more to cover all the bases.

The only problem is when someone brings multiple helldrakes or knights or formations which mean you don't have to pay a troops tax.

Yeah, but a lot of formations get invalidated, too.
The Spess Mehreen "free carpool 4 lyfe" thingy would not fit, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*at around 1k points

 Selym wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of formations get invalidated, too.
The Spess Mehreen "free carpool 4 lyfe" thingy would not fit, for example.Automatically Appended Next Post:
*at around 1k points

I think it might, but only just. and isn't that kind of a good thing? wanna take 2 demi companies and get free transports? fine but you'll have to be stingy on upgrades.

Eh. Getting hundreds of free points, it's not really what could be called fair.

The game becomes less broken (ie, a bit more balanced) at larger point levels.....
but then the game becomes increasingly unweildly and tedious.
A catch 22 in a way. A game should be designed for a certain size. (roughly)

A lot of it depends on you and your opponent's knowledge level. I've played 7 turns in under 2 hours, and had 2 hour games that only got through turn 3. How comfortable you are with the rules and your army makes a lot of difference. If the complexity of army construction is a problem, then the really simple solution is to restrict it, either with source limits or limiting people to a single CAD, for example.

As a point of reference, back in 5th and early 6th 2000 pts was a common point limit, and games went just fine. In my opinion, the current 1850 level is actually a sad example of incredible TO bias, because 6th ed Eldar and TauDar hit their max efficiency at 1850.

 greyknight12 wrote:
A lot of it depends on you and your opponent's knowledge level. I've played 7 turns in under 2 hours, and had 2 hour games that only got through turn 3. How comfortable you are with the rules and your army makes a lot of difference. If the complexity of army construction is a problem, then the really simple solution is to restrict it, either with source limits or limiting people to a single CAD, for example.

Conversely, I've had 500 point games that took over 5 hours, because my opponent would not just shut up an throw the dice. It's an annoying two-parter of time wasting when that happens, and you then have to look up some rules...

Taffy17 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of formations get invalidated, too.
The Spess Mehreen "free carpool 4 lyfe" thingy would not fit, for example.Automatically Appended Next Post:
*at around 1k points

I think it might, but only just. and isn't that kind of a good thing? wanna take 2 demi companies and get free transports? fine but you'll have to be stingy on upgrades.

It fits. I think the math breaks down to 800 points or so to get it in.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Yeah, but a lot of formations get invalidated, too.
The Spess Mehreen "free carpool 4 lyfe" thingy would not fit, for example.Automatically Appended Next Post:
*at around 1k points

I think it might, but only just. and isn't that kind of a good thing? wanna take 2 demi companies and get free transports? fine but you'll have to be stingy on upgrades.

It fits. I think the math breaks down to 800 points or so to get it in.

The cheapest you can get 10 free transports with is 880 + 165 for the cheapest auxiliary. (As the battle company MUST be part of a gladius. It says so.)

You can knock off 60 points by taking 2 single attack bikes instead of the asm squads, bringing you to 985 with ZERO wargear, but only getting 8 free transports instead of 10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
The current 1850-point game of 40k is increasingly long, convoluted, and impractical. Modern armies are becoming more and more composite and less bound by any force org.

Does this move towards increased complexity mean that a 1000-1250 point game could be more suitable for competitive play?

It seems to me that smaller games have many advantages, such as decreased play time, decreased game complexity and decreased opportunity to min-max certain builds.
Obviously this wouldn't solve all the problems, but it might be able to minimise some of the issues in tournament 40k.

Does anyone have thoughts on the matter?

I agree that the 1850 tourney game is getting too unwieldy to fit in the typical 2:45 round time limit. Battle company vs anything complicated, decurion mirror matches, and any matchup with rampant close combat gets insane quick. Multiple barrage shots take forever also.

As for balance though, the game gets less and less balanced the smaller you go, and also presents players with fewer strategic options. If you ever go to the extreme and fully play out a giant apocalypse game like at 6k points or something, you'll find that dice, mean combos, and undercosted units are barely noticeable anymore. Strategy rules the day at that point.

I disagree that smaller games limit your ability to minmax. From a real world money standpoint, it's even easier. (Eg I own 3 Knights, but not 5.). Also in bigger point values you eventually run into a force org limit. 50% of your list being riptides in 1000 points and in 1850 are two different things, and the second is near impossible without devoting multiple detachments to the cause.

All in all I wish the point limit was bigger while game complexity was kept toned down to keep the game up to speed.

Lol.

I think some armies do better at higher or lower points values. I think there may be a tendency for people to view the range that favors them as "the most balanced."

Personally, in a competitive event, I prefer 1500-1850. Smaller or larger events are fun once in a while, but I think that's the best mix for a default points band.

I enjoy playing at anything from 500 to 3000 points, I think anything bigger than that is a little unwieldy. I think smaller games can be a lot of fun as long as nobody is being a massive butthole about unit choice (bringing a Knight at 500 points should get you slapped out of the room).

Current point levels as they are fit pretty well. You go to far up game goes to long, while going lower quickly opens up the way for cheese spam, especially with Unbound. The point level is fine, it's the rest of the game that needs fixing.

 saithor wrote:
Current point levels as they are fit pretty well. You go to far up game goes to long, while going lower quickly opens up the way for cheese spam, especially with Unbound. The point level is fine, it's the rest of the game that needs fixing.

If I'm playing in a basement with friends, I prefer larger points values. My past two games have been 2500 points, and didn't feel as if they went too long at all.

 greyknight12 wrote:
A lot of it depends on you and your opponent's knowledge level. I've played 7 turns in under 2 hours, and had 2 hour games that only got through turn 3. How comfortable you are with the rules and your army makes a lot of difference. If the complexity of army construction is a problem, then the really simple solution is to restrict it, either with source limits or limiting people to a single CAD, for example.

As a point of reference, back in 5th and early 6th 2000 pts was a common point limit, and games went just fine. In my opinion, the current 1850 level is actually a sad example of incredible TO bias, because 6th ed Eldar and TauDar hit their max efficiency at 1850.

This is so true! I see some people play and I am just amazed at how fast they move their units. It's a whirlwind. I can't even measure that fast. Then you have turtles like me that just hold everything up. But what helps a lot if you have some beginners is to pair us up, and we make our moves at the same time.

IMO, a truly competitive environment should be MORE restrictive, not less. Think about just about any competitive sport, there are a lot of restrictions. Racing is an excellent example because there are tons of limits on what you can bring to the track in an effort to make the competition about driver skill and less about money or who broke the combo to make the car faster.

To get a truly competitive environment, I think you scale down the game, impose heavy limitations, up to and including banning units, combos, and formations that throw the game out of balance. This would never be a blanket ban either, issues would need to be revisited regularly and reassessed. It would be a lot of work, and, until it gained traction as a prestigious way to play the game, would be incredibly unpopular.

 Selym wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
A lot of it depends on you and your opponent's knowledge level. I've played 7 turns in under 2 hours, and had 2 hour games that only got through turn 3. How comfortable you are with the rules and your army makes a lot of difference. If the complexity of army construction is a problem, then the really simple solution is to restrict it, either with source limits or limiting people to a single CAD, for example.

Conversely, I've had 500 point games that took over 5 hours, because my opponent would not just shut up an throw the dice. It's an annoying two-parter of time wasting when that happens, and you then have to look up some rules...

I hate it when the other person has to explain every detail of what is going on and the back ground behind the rule and why he chose to bring that specific unit and the rule changes from previous editions.......

 FTGTEvan wrote:
IMO, a truly competitive environment should be MORE restrictive, not less. Think about just about any competitive sport, there are a lot of restrictions. Racing is an excellent example because there are tons of limits on what you can bring to the track in an effort to make the competition about driver skill and less about money or who broke the combo to make the car faster.

To get a truly competitive environment, I think you scale down the game, impose heavy limitations, up to and including banning units, combos, and formations that throw the game out of balance. This would never be a blanket ban either, issues would need to be revisited regularly and reassessed. It would be a lot of work, and, until it gained traction as a prestigious way to play the game, would be incredibly unpopular.

To make this work, you really need the support of the parent company (preferably DIRECT support). But shockingly, I agree. A single regulatory body (or hell, two or even three) with competitive restrictions, clear and frequent FAQs, and a willingness to revisit old decisions would be a Godsend for this game.

I've only been in 2 tournaments, and the points were 2000 and 2250. With all the people that signed up, both events took way too long to complete.

More recently, the flgs has moved to 750 point tournaments, with the following rules:

-No Unbound
-No Lords of War over 200pts.
-No Super heavies
-No Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures

I kind of like these rules for low points games.