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 used to write 1850 standard for 6th and 7th. 2000 became the norm for 8th edition...

1750 may feel a bit cut and dry, but for my new gaming club with time restrictions, just might work out anyway.

Played a 3500 pt game 2 weeks ago and got really spoiled.

1750 just feels way to small for me. I'm playing my first 1850 event this weekend, and I'm not exactly happy with it.

I definitely feel 2000 is an adequate point level for this edition.

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

I said for GW Events it is not an important factor for attendance. Also that is a stupid argument about the slow playing.

I don't really get why people care all that much. Traditionally independent circuits have not followed GW's approach for tournament play and there is no reason they have to right now. Surely it is a good thing that GW are trying out different things? When we've seen the outcome then we can decide what works and does not work. (I'm not hugely wedded to 1750 fwiw. I'd have gone to 1500 or 2000 with longer round times)

Is it 2000points of 4ppm or 2k of 50ppm.
The problem I have is that play time doesn't scale so much with points but more with model count, I'm not going to say that 2k points 100 model's limits are the answer as I think it's wrong to force players unto mono build to be competitive. More varity and options to do something different and to have to show ability to adapt and overcome is great. But right now 2k points of cheap spam is too slow (or too easy to hide slowplay in) for a tournament with time limits.
Short of a rebalancing of cheap troops the options are reduced points to limit the maximum delays or introducing model count limits which would suck. Lower points limits also makes the event scene a little easier to enter, ideally I wish morr tournaments would have game points classes, but I doubt that is likely.

But again to agree with other people if TO's won't address slowplay playing, adjusting points limits won't solve the hardcore problem slow players.

Points limits solve the problem of average players not finishing a game. Actively judging and enforcing the rules solves the problem of slow play. One is a game design issue, the other is cheating.

CassianSol wrote:

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

You can get additional spacing.

I said for GW Events it is not an important factor for attendance. Also that is a stupid argument about the slow playing.

It may be it may not be, we can guess but we don't know.

It may be stupid but it's exactly the same as the argument I quoted. They're both stupid.

I don't really get why people care all that much. Traditionally independent circuits have not followed GW's approach for tournament play and there is no reason they have to right now. Surely it is a good thing that GW are trying out different things? When we've seen the outcome then we can decide what works and does not work. (I'm not hugely wedded to 1750 fwiw. I'd have gone to 1500 or 2000 with longer round times)

I don't find any problem with GW unbalancing it's Heats against elite armies. I DO have a massive problem with people trying to condition the player base at large to fit their subjective definition of fun.

By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

CassianSol wrote:
By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

Not when they clone what's already popular. That was Already determined to be fund by a majority of the player base.

That said, you have to realize intent is a huge part of this. I was specifically responding to a post that thought it was good to lower the maximum Point values because it would condition people to start thinking differently and finding fun differently. You just make your tournament ex set of rules and it is what it is. Where I would draw the line deliberately making your tournament in order to try and change people's perceptions using official GW Fiat.

Audustum wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
By that logic any tournament they run is conditioning the player base to fit their definition of fun.

Not when they clone what's already popular. That was Already determined to be fund by a majority of the player base.

what? no lol, all tournaments makes house rules and missions that they feel is best for the players, the players dont decided, we may ask to change things but doesnt mean it will be changed. And just b.c it is normally also doesnt mean the majority thinks its the best way, many feel it can be better, all the Ork players wishes some "tournament rules" didnt have "Score 1VP for each 10 models in a unit killed".

Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

Sumilidon wrote:
Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

Its normally 1 unit less, its not lower levels of tactics... if you think having 4 Troupes vs 5 Troupes against a Ork player with 5 Boyz compare to 6 Boyz is any different tactics then thats messed up lol.

You can still have CWE with Ynnari Dark Reaper unit, Shiny SPears, WS's Farseers, Rangers x3, the difference? You dont have a 2nd unit of Dark Reapers lol.

Lower points levels also make bigger models like Knights etc more efficient, as the enemy has less to deal with them.

I think to truly test the skill of players they should lower the points to 1000 and double the number of games.

General Hobbs wrote:


Lower points levels also make bigger models like Knights etc more efficient, as the enemy has less to deal with them.

I think to truly test the skill of players they should lower the points to 1000 and double the number of games.

Pre knights and other solo hard squew armies exsisting that might have been a fun way to go, but now a 1k tournament would be a game of rock paper scissors, forget trying to bring a tac list. Have 1k of ork boys or IG Infantry squads to enjoy fighting nothing but knights. You can't skill or tactically play your way of of those extreme match ups.

Sumilidon wrote:
Must admit, I'm not a fan. I like a nice quick and low point game, but in my opinion, lower points means lower levels of tactics, that said, I don't think chess clocks would work as the time wasters go from playing their turn slowly, to playing their opponents slowly with saving throws, checking data sheet etc.

At which point you flip the clock while they do that. If you think your opponent is taking too long to take an action then make sure it's on their time. It also makes it abundantly clear that you are awaiting their input.

Besides what's the issue that some tournaments lower it? Room for both. Ideally there's both 2k and smaller tournaments. 2k for those who want to play only 2-3 turns per game, smaller for those who would like to play full games that end when scenario indicates it should end. Best of both worlds.

Audustum wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally I like the idea of different events running different point limits, and the limits changing each year, doesn't have to be by much, but if it gets people thinking about a list as opposed to copy & pasting one I'm all for it

This is the best idea so far. I also play X-Wing, and I probably enjoy the alternative Escalation format more than the regular 100-point games. Why? Because it forces you to think more about list building and presents a different puzzle to the largely solved 100-point meta that really sorts out the people who can build and use lists well from those who can copy winning lsits and watch YouTube videos.

I'm also pretty sceptical about claims events would suffer if they dropped from 2000 points to something lower. Sure, surveys might have said people would prefer 2k but I really don't think we'd see people boycotting tournaments if the points were lowered. Just forcing people to get out of a mindset where 2k is all they play would be a good start, which would have the added benefit of making building a tournament-ready army seem more achievable.

I'm glad you can decide what's 'fun' for the rest of us and believe we should be coerced into adopting a new mindset. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but this post reeks of gamer paternalism.

The last ITC survey I saw did have a big favor towards 2K. This was back in 7th since I only keep a rough eye on them. It's what they think is fun so let them have fun with their plastic men their way.

Using the same logic as your post, any one of them could say just getting you to accept a standard 2k format is a good start because then players could re-use the same army between events without alteration.

No idea what "gamer paternalism" is supposed to mean. Also no idea how you interpreted my post as trying to impose my idea of fun on other people. I'm offering an opinion, which is kind of the point of a discussion board, no? I even provided some evidence from personal experience. As far as "coercing" people into a new mindset, that seems like an overly sinister description for a suggestion that varying the points limits at different tournaments might be a good idea. We also don't know if the surveys we see from the current 2k tournaments are self-selecting and therefore skewed. If people who don't like playing at 2k don't go to a 2k tournament their opinions are never recorded.

I also have no idea what the last sentence even means. The point about using the same army without alteration is weird though, since I specifically mention that as something I think is actually a bad thing so I don't know how your "logic" follows from what I said.

1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

Audustum wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

Not necessarily related. For all we know, it could have been even bigger if done at 2k. By the logic you're using here, the previous champion winning the tournament through slow play (intentionally or not) had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT so we might as well ignore and keep allowing slow play.

It couldn't have been bigger. It is at max space .

You can get additional spacing.

Unlikely - they run the GT at Warhammer World, and the gaming area has a fixed volume of space to work in.

Pancakey wrote:
1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

How does this work exactly? I mean, why should I pay 50 points for a CP if I could buy 3x10 gretchin and two big meks for 200, yielding 5 CP for 40 each AND units.

I believe I heard that you can pay points in Age of Sigmar 2 for Command Points.

Pancakey wrote:
1750 is to prepare for the switch to “pay points for cp” that will be coming in the future.

Pretty sure this is just petty trolling. We already have the ability to pay points for CP - they are called units and there's a wide selection.

CassianSol wrote:

I believe I heard that you can pay points in Age of Sigmar 2 for Command Points.

It's one of the spoilers for the next edition.

AoS has no detachment system though, and one CP in Sigmar is worth about 3-4 CPs of 40K in terms of effects you can unleash.

I realize this breaks the whole perceived time benefit of going to 1750, but most 40K tourneys really need another 1-3 games to winnow the field. There's too many people tied at the top.

Also, as noted, the lower the point values, the easier it is to run a skew list. But, if you have to play more games, the greater the odds of your skew running in to your hard counter skew and the more appealing a TAC list is. The format itself would dampen the crazy lists somewhat.

*side note to the few who seem to insist otherwise, clearly it's easier to skew at lower values. There is some unit in your codex that is the best at doing X. You take 3 of those. Then there is the 2nd best at X, you take 3 of those, etc. Your last 250 pts are either the least efficient or, more likely, you've used those 250 points for shoring up a weakness and inherently become more TAC. Or, in the case of armies like Knights or Custodes, those first 3 units eat the entire point limit, so the list stops there instead of going in to a more variable addon segment.

Most list variability is going to be in the last few hundred points, not the first, so it seems likely lists will look more similar the lower you go.


All that said, to me personally, I don't play tourneys so the greatest impact is the more split the scene, the more random it gets for open play local games where people tend to want to copy whatever the tourneys offer. If you show up with 1750 pts of models and I show up with a 2000pt list, depending what my list is, it might be hard to on the fly shave the points to play you.

Skew lists are literally the only reason I can play competitively with my Ork army right now. Hell, even before 8th, in 7th the only way to play orkz was as a skew list. Spam infantry or spam vehicles, or spam Warbikes. That is basically the only thing I had going for me in those editions.

I said this as soon as people swapped over to 2k, and had a bunch of people tell me how wrong I was.

Now everyone is claiming this will improve the game. Yeah, no gak.

How much influence do tournaments have on how the game is being played outside of them, besides people coping winning lists?

Does it often happen that if a large tournament moves to more or less points, a whole country starts playing that many points too? Or is it something that GW sets up?

So, imo, this needs to be tested as an alternative, but, I believe GW have done it for the wrong reasons.

This change has come pretty much as a result of games not finishing in the GW Heats and Finals. Obviously something needs to be done to attempt to rectify this. The ITC are moving towards chess clocks and no points changes, so I suppose the other “testing” option available is to lower the points. I’m not suggesting that GW and the ITC are working alongside each other to test 2 different options, but, at the end of the day it gives everyone an opportunity to assess the outcomes of the 2 options.

Alternatively, GW could fix their game in regards to hordes, but that would take a hell of a lot more work than just dropping the points limit.

I kinda agree with another poster, that lowering the points limit will help the average player out in regards to time, but, I don’t think it is going to have the massive impact I think GW is expecting. In some cases, it might even cause no change for the average player, as they then subconsciously slowdown, due to the perception of having “more time per unit”.
For most armies, 250 points is 1-2 tanks/walkers/elite units. Troop wise, maybe 2-7 basic min model squads. Loosing a Predator and 1 squad of 5 scouts, isn’t going to suddenly make a game end within the time limit. Loosing 1 Hemlock Wraithfighter, isn’t going to make the game end on time. Loosing 45 Guardsmen (and 2 commanders) isn’t going to suddenly make an army with another 120+ basic Guardsmen and several tanks, finish a game on time. Loosing 41 Ork Boyz, likewise, isn’t going to make a green tide list suddenly also finish on time.

If we take the list that won the finals, cut 250 points, and then re-run the match, do you really think that the game will still go beyond turn 3 and end naturally?

Taking away points, takes away options. Unfortunately, the cost of weapons designed to counter each type of weapon, is generally way more expensive to take than the unit it is there to counter. This then leads to the whole conclusion, that the best anti-horde, is actually another horde due to the weight of dice. We also know, that a full horde army, can happily counter dedicated anti-tank units, simply because their weapons are reduced to removing 1, 1 wound, model a shot for the same price of doing up to 6 damage to a tank. Hordes, generally then have a distinct advantage when it comes to table control. As such, the “competitive” game will tend to move towards being a horde vs a horde. This is then counter-intuitive to the whole “reduce points to increase games finishing”.

It doesn’t matter how many options you have. If you cannot kill 150-200+ models in 2 turns, the chances of you ending the game naturally within the time limit are seriously slim.

The issues lie with the amount of time turns 1 and 2 takes for hordes – in a lot of cases. These generally eat up so much of the available time assigned to BOTH players, that the opponent often just doesn’t have the chance to even the odds.

I think we’ll see 2 very different metas – potentially more (depending on what ETC does), competitively going forward. ITC is going to see a lot more varied top table lists, simply due to the input of chess clocks balancing out time, whereas the GW meta will be way more of a rock-paper-scissors, often with the bigger hordes coming out on top.

For example, at 1750, I can take 3 Knights, 2 Armigers and <300 points of Guard for CP. Alternatively, I could take 2 Guard battalions and 1 brigade (including 6 basilisks) for the same points. With everything going into the basic infantry, I could reasonably expect to kill around 60 turn 1. I then need another 2 turns, to kill the rest of the basic infantry that have now spread out across the table – without taking into consideration the damage done by 6 Basilisks and weight of dice from 120 remaining Guardsmen. If I was smart, I’d ensure, as the Guard player, that the only things left alive were the 3 main Knights, which would mean the damage output would drop to 40ish models turn 2. At this point, it doesn’t matter what the time limit is, or what the point limit is, the Knight player simply can’t kill enough to win the mission (unless of course it was just 100% kill points and nothing else….)

Obviously, this is one of the more extreme examples, but with the release of the new Knights and their codex, we are going to see this played out a fair amount (at least initially). Space Marines are going to struggle to chew through the horde – and if they focus completely on killing the horde, they won’t be able to kill a Knight – let alone 3 – whereas the Knight can happily kill marines. Chaos, could be reasonably ok, they have cultists etc to spam. Drukarhi and Craftworlds have some options, but, again, while their “all comers” list can beat the Knights, their options for 180 guardsmen etc is limited. You can still take 150 Ork boyz for 900 points. Those 150 Boyz are still going to take a lot of time to move and kill.

Karol wrote:
How much influence do tournaments have on how the game is being played outside of them, besides people coping winning lists?

Does it often happen that if a large tournament moves to more or less points, a whole country starts playing that many points too? Or is it something that GW sets up?

Well people like to practice for tournaments or play against people who do.

Also can't copy list if point limit isn't same.

Kdash wrote:
So, imo, this needs to be tested as an alternative, but, I believe GW have done it for the wrong reasons.

This change has come pretty much as a result of games not finishing in the GW Heats and Finals. Obviously something needs to be done to attempt to rectify this. The ITC are moving towards chess clocks and no points changes, so I suppose the other “testing” option available is to lower the points. I’m not suggesting that GW and the ITC are working alongside each other to test 2 different options, but, at the end of the day it gives everyone an opportunity to assess the outcomes of the 2 options.

You spent a lot of time analysing this, but the reality is the heat size is decided by the WHW event team and not the design studio.

I've been playing most of my games at this point level and I adore it. I feel as though it gives you enough points to bring some nice toys, but not so much that you can maximize ALL of your armies toys. It forces me to pick and choose. I really hope ITC adopts this.