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.

Anyone here has a good way to convince people to switch from 2250 to 1750pts? I don't really want to buy more models till GW fixs my faction, and at more points am getting blown up by a 240pts difference between my army and those of other people. I am looking for good argument to convince people to switch to smaller games.

Sounds like the best argument is the fact that you don't have enough models. Are your opponents really not removing units to match your.points costs? That's incredible TFG behavior. Of course they're gonna crush you with a massive point deficit. Jeez why do people play like this?

I miss 30 pt marines, 10 pt guardsmen, squats somewhere in between, tanks that cost over 400 pts on an 8' x 4' board. You could sneak a squad around the end, while engaging the main body of your opponent, and trying to prevent them from doing it to you. Sitting on 1 exp bike warlord, 3 heavy bikes, over 30 rec bikes, 30 heavy bolters with a nice mix in of las cannon for the occasional dreadnought.

2000 pt game with 5pt guardsmen and 13 pt marines, tanks under 200,
(WHY ARE YOUR GUARDSMEN SO SHORT? ARE YOU MODELLING FOR ADVANTAGE? WHAT ARE SQUATS?)
on a 4' x 6' board. Talk about tripping over your buddies. But you NEED more models.

So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

What tank cost 400 points? The Land Raider cost 220 in 2nd ed iirc.

Sorry, I'm old, didn't have a land raider then, so points were not seared into my brain. I just remember, the good old days like other old farts with bad memories.

My point was smaller army, bigger table, very different than what I see now.

Indeed, every new codex release is filled with people saying “awesome, they dropped the points on x-y-z,” release after release. At some point the tactical improvements of cheaper models is going to be outweighed by the sheer number of models necessary to play the game.

At some point, they will have to multiply all points by 10 so they can keep dropping points

Mournssquats wrote:


So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

D)Less list diversity.
E) Stores get less sales
F) Some armies become unplayable in tournaments.

General Hobbs wrote:

Mournssquats wrote:


So fewer models means
A) more hard choices in list building.
B) deployment MATTERS
C) not to mention range and LOS

Yes I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow.

D)Less list diversity.
E) Stores get less sales
F) Some armies become unplayable in tournaments.

This might be true for 1500 and under, but 2000 vs 1750 isnt that big of a deal, it really only makes you have 1 or 2 less double up units, like for me, my DE list basically is 1 less RWJF and Talos, otherwise its still the same.

Its more impactful on spam and HQ soup, than anything else, we wll still see its, but now you might not want 3 units of Dark Reapers (this is just an example) b.c you need 2 Wave Serpents, so you need to make a choice. This foes for armies like BA/IG, might not get to have that extra character they wanted, might only have 1 captain so you can still fit in that battalion of IG.

Over all, it most likely wont have a huge effect other than speed up the game by 10% at max

Well, one issue I do have, I think many of us secretly or openly love big models. Look at imperial knights, and all the superheavies like tesseract vaults, wraith knights, lord of skulls, renegade knights, baneblades, etc etc.

2000 makes it easier to field such big units who can become the centerpiece of your army. Its just very cool to have such a big model as the centerpiece. I am not saying 1750 can't also field such big units, but then the rest of your army start looking more threadbare.

I mean, superheavies are cool but they look cooler when set up alongside smaller models which can then truly show off their scale. Just my 2 cents.

If people are fielding 3+ on 2k list 1 in 1750 is hardly "no room for others".

Players are funny. Always complaining hobby is too expensive. But what are players doing? "LETS MAKE HOBBY EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE!". Literally. Players are making game more expensive themselves and then complain game is too expensive.

dkoz wrote:
It's likely a foolish move that will end up costing them attendance. Many other tournaments organizers have done the research and have the numbers to support that most people dislike playing with fewer points. 1850 to 2000 is about the best level for attracting the most players. If they are worried about time limits then decreasing points won't stop people from taking up an unequal portion of time and only getting to turn 3. The only way to make people play to a reasonable speed is to force them to track their time and I force a penalty if they go over their allotted amount.

indeed if i want i can bring at 1750pts more than 100 models anwyay and force my opponent to play 3 turns, i can do that at 1500 too, playing demons/chaos with cheap troops i haven't any problem, i can keep bringing hordes and make you play 2-3 turns, so please guys reduce tournament points is only an advantage for who can bring cheap hordes, the gap between hordes and elite will get just deeper, i laugh thinking what a marine a pure custodes or a Gk can bring on the table with 250-500 less points, at 2000 i still win with them (but at least they can put up some fight) at 1500 i crush them with no mercy, so pls do it.
A competent player play fast regardless of points, uncompetent player play slow, period, im playing since 1998 and i faced same opponets many times when they brought different armies on the table, hordes or elites, and games was always about 3 turns, cause they are basically slow, this edition is slow cause buckets of rolling dice, reduce number of dice and poof edition will speed up. There are some lists which roll 150+ dice in a single shooting phase, then wound then armor save, that's where you waste ton of time. Last but not least some units will become broken if you lower the points, think of Magnus at 1750 or worse at 1500 with lot less firepower to handle him, and i can grant if you want you can play it., ppls wanting point reduction to compensate lack of playing skills sometimes, my suggestion is, train a lot with your army, play fast and anything will improve, if then you are one of those changing list every week, well that's not other players concern or Gw fault. My 2 cents.

8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

tneva82 wrote:
8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

The problem is that both number of dice and time per turn doesn't scale linearly. You can half the points but the game doesn't take half the time. It drops circa 25% less time.

The fastest way to reduce game time is reduce/remove the throw 30-40 dice. Reroll dice that meet conditions, remove fails, roll, reroll, add effects, roll save, roll FNP's remove models. Repeat for other x units on the board.

8th is a volume edition its throw lots of dice lots of times & hope you can do it better than the other guy. Untill the amount of throw rethrow mechanics are reduced or balance is adjusted to favour volume less its just not going to get faster bar the players getting more efficient.

Hoards still take way longer than elite armies and it doesn't really address the main reasons that hoard armies and 3 turn games aren't balanced, but conversely 7 turn games are fairly rare with the amount of high alpha damage builds.

tneva82 wrote:
8th ed takes longer time per turn than 7th ed on equal points. Makes no sense whatsoever to just up the point costs when army sizes grew anyway. People played 1500-1750 pts in 7th ed so why people can't play that in 8th ed when points have gone mostly down?

It's just people folllowing GW's marketing ploy like lemmings and then forgetting they used to play with smaller points before just fine.

And any attempt to claim bigger point level doesn't take more time is just flat out stupid lie.

And fasten game by reducing dices...Well GEE NO KIDDING! That is what DROPPING POINT LEVEL IS ABOUT! Less points, less dices, faster game. That's like duh the most obvious thing in the world.

Have points gone mostly down? I would say that a lot of individual unit shave seen point decreases but vehicles have gone massively up.