Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/12/31 12:58:29
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
My preference would be 1250; small enough to not take all day, not be stupid expensive to get, able to theme an army and still field that one centerpiece model. 1850 is the "golden number" largely because it is what tournament standardized on and most people who play 40K seem to want to mimic that approach even though the game in my opinion is completely unsuitable for serious tournament play. I frequently see a lot of people who refuse to play less than 2000 because they are unwilling to not use all of their toys or whatever formation they want to use. I've never heard of this 1650 or whatever new value being used but it sounds interesting.
My general preference is smaller points though because it allows for faster more narrative games and then you build extra things not to expand your army size but to have more variety in what you can field. Which also has the added effect of being able to have a 1250 point army and then swap out a unit or two depending on the game so you are not feeling the exact same thing all the time, which also adds to the narrative style of play.
Sadly I have found woefully few people who agree with my viewpoints on how the game "should" be played
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 12:59:14
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/12/31 20:31:21
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Guarding Guardian
Boulder
|
That seems like a broad statement. Although I must confess I am not too familiar with the Imperial armour books, I am considering using a Wraithseer in my list and I fail to see what is broken about said rule set. I welcome any clarification on the subject.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/12/31 20:47:18
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
uberpollo wrote:
That seems like a broad statement. Although I must confess I am not too familiar with the Imperial armour books, I am considering using a Wraithseer in my list and I fail to see what is broken about said rule set. I welcome any clarification on the subject.
Slayer-Fan was being sarcastic. As you day, nothing about forge world is inherently silly or over the top.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/01 07:33:48
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer
|
Nvs wrote:
The problem with FW is that when they started being accepted mainstream and more and more players had them is when we started seeing internal balance really start to slip and GW no longer even attempted to care what they released rules wise. Now we see people try to justify how CSM are 'fine' because you can always take 3 different GW books and an IA book to make a list. People may not remember it because it was nearly 20 years ago... but we used to play this game with 1 book and a single case of minitaures. What's so wrong with wanting to return to that? Returning to a day where Eldrad didn't lead every Eldar army?
One book? You must be talking about release day of 40K, because there was Chapter Approved, Lost and the Damned, etc...
|
It never ends well |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/01 08:50:57
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Daring Dark Eldar Raider Rider
|
I'm a big fan of 1500 and 1250 for pickup and tourney play, and 2500+ if we're bringing all our toys.
|
P'tah Dynasty
Iron Warriors
Dark Eldar
" It is always good to remember WHY we are in this hobby, and often times it is because of the PEOPLE we share our time with" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/02 01:52:27
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Stormonu wrote:Nvs wrote:
The problem with FW is that when they started being accepted mainstream and more and more players had them is when we started seeing internal balance really start to slip and GW no longer even attempted to care what they released rules wise. Now we see people try to justify how CSM are 'fine' because you can always take 3 different GW books and an IA book to make a list. People may not remember it because it was nearly 20 years ago... but we used to play this game with 1 book and a single case of minitaures. What's so wrong with wanting to return to that? Returning to a day where Eldrad didn't lead every Eldar army?
One book? You must be talking about release day of 40K, because there was Chapter Approved, Lost and the Damned, etc...
I remember when 3rd edition came out with the "get you by" army lists in the back of the BRB. For one brief moment, things were actually relatively balanced, if not a little bland (because remember that was basically 2nd edition stuff ported over). however, it was glorious while it lasted, for about a month (then Codex: Space Marines came out, first of course).
Giving it some more though, I think 1650 is a nice spot. The key seems to be that games shouldn't take all day; there's one guy who ever week goes to my GW store, I chat with him frequently, and every week he plays like a 2k point game or even larger (so his wife can team up with him, he has Marines she has Guard). Every single week i think they get to like Turn 3 and then the store closes. Every. Single. Week. I don't get how he goes every week to play, and the battle never finishes. I could never do that, there's no resolution other than "Well, time's up lets count who did the most damage and say they won the game". But he is adamant about playing 2k points because he only uses one formation (some drop pod Marine formation and some flyers) and hates playing less than that. He's a great guy, I enjoy talking to him, but I can't help but feel that I would consider it a colossal waste of time to to to a store and play for like 5-6 hours and still not actually resolve a game.
As a result I prefer smaller games, also in the interest of fairness since my GW only has 3 tables so I would not be hogging the table all day long. But this 1650 point thing sounds like it might be a real "sweet spot". It's enough so you still get a nice sized army, and can still take SOME toys, but not all of them, and not be so cumbersome as to take a huge amount of time. Sadly I find most people are willing to not give a damn as long as they can field whatever super-powered things they've bought in every game, and will vehemently argue to play higher points games so they don't have to think of a different list other than the one they are so used to playing.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/02 14:03:46
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Stormonu wrote:Nvs wrote:
The problem with FW is that when they started being accepted mainstream and more and more players had them is when we started seeing internal balance really start to slip and GW no longer even attempted to care what they released rules wise. Now we see people try to justify how CSM are 'fine' because you can always take 3 different GW books and an IA book to make a list. People may not remember it because it was nearly 20 years ago... but we used to play this game with 1 book and a single case of minitaures. What's so wrong with wanting to return to that? Returning to a day where Eldrad didn't lead every Eldar army?
One book? You must be talking about release day of 40K, because there was Chapter Approved, Lost and the Damned, etc...
There was also the first few months of 2nd and 3rd editions, before the Codex books were released. And I suppose, for the lifetime of those first three editions, one book was all you needed; the army list books were optional, really.
But ... 20 years ago I was playing 2nd edition - with three or four codexes and probably a White Dwarf or two, so the "good old days", often weren't so good.
I don't think I've ever played 1850 points. The only time I considered such an odd number was when I was building 2700-point Epic Armageddon armies, but that didn't last long; I rounded them all up to 3000. For me, it's 1500; that's as big a game as we can fit into a three-hour club session.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/03 06:04:01
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Guarding Guardian
Boulder
|
Wayniac wrote:My preference would be 1250; small enough to not take all day, not be stupid expensive to get, able to theme an army and still field that one centerpiece model.
My general preference is smaller points though because it allows for faster more narrative games and then you build extra things not to expand your army size but to have more variety in what you can field. Which also has the added effect of being able to have a 1250 point army and then swap out a unit or two depending on the game so you are not feeling the exact same thing all the time, which also adds to the narrative style of play.
Sadly I have found woefully few people who agree with my viewpoints on how the game "should" be played
I had the same feeling when building to 1300. Its like 1000 but with more freedom to buff units
Having gotten back into 40k, pointwise this feels like the ideal force size for picking up an army in a short amount of time, while still enjoying more specialized units. (1250/1300)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/03 06:04:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/04 09:29:11
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
London UK
|
Galef wrote:I think 1850 is the most common for several reasons.
Back in 5th ed, my group most commonly played 2k games, but once 6th dropped and allowed double FOC at 2K, the norm became 1850 as it "felt" similar to 2k but restricted lists to 1 FOC. 1850 was essentially 2k with the fat taken out, or it is like a 1750 list with added extras, depending on your view point.
Also common at during this transition was 1999+1. If you ask me, that is more annoying than 1850.
With the increased complexity of the rules, 1850 just seemed to stick around, even though the "restricting lists to 1 CAD" ship has sailed
-
This is exactly the reason. 1850 was the maximum feasible number for the popular armies for single FOC. It takes a long time for community thinking to adapt to rules changes and its become accepted norm. It seems to favour stronger army types imo
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/04 14:02:44
Subject: 1850 (the golden number?)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Tournaments used to be 2000 points.
Then people felt it was somewhat stale and thought to reduce it a bit to break the existing combos, 1850 became the standard.
For at least a year now, people have felt the same about 1850: it's become stale, all the 1850 combos are perfectly known, and it's still a bit too big for 3h tournament games.
So people have been moving to 1650.
I find it interesting that in a way we're going back to the roots of 40K when for so long things drifted up (I think it even went up to 2500 for some really big v4 / v5 tournaments).
Good stuff ! maybe I'll be able to finish a tournament-sized game within 3h some day lol.
|
|
 |
 |
|