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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.

This isn't a blanket anything.

Bharring wrote:
UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

You might notice Ultra marines have nothing on that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Another blanket fix by morons. Fix points balance. Points level is fine at 2000.

This isn't a blanket anything.

Dropping the points level for an event is a blanket fix.

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

 Xenomancers wrote:



Dropping the points level for an event is a blanket fix.

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

It's their event. They didn't make a suggestion. They're in their rights to do what they want at their tournament just as any other TO.

If they want to get a good set of data on games at 1750 - there you go. Plenty of games to review.

Bharring wrote:
UltraMarines
Alpha Legion/Zerkers
CWE Reapers/Spears
IG
Demons

What do all these have in common? They were top dog at some point.

What is the most common int hat list:
-Horde of super-cheap GEQ
-Invuln saves
-A 3+

I'll give you a hint - it's the Power Armor.

Power Armor itself might not be that good, but most of the things that have been top dog this edition have been forces with lots of 3+s.

If you think the 3+ save had anything to do with why those lists were good, i don't even know what to say.

I think it's good. It will definitely help shift people to playing smaller games,which are usually more fun, and makes people need to think harder about list building.
Yes skew lists may reign supreme, but cover-all bases lists suddenly become even more complicated.


It's annoying though, because having already written a 2k list to get ready for the GT, I know need to change it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

First idea does not change game takes more time in 8th it did in 7th ed AND army sizes went up because gw wanted to sell more models. 2k isn't holy size that always was and allways will be.

Second affects odds etc so now we aren#" even talking same results...say hello to gaming that.

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.

1750 points may be fine for tournaments, since there are time limitations. A regular game is perfect with the 2000 points format.

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.

American ones have, sure.

dkoz wrote:
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.

Recent research, or 5th/6th/7th edition?

1750pts is certainly worth a trial run. If it doesn't work out they can always up it again and try something different.

It's subjective, but in my experience "big models" with piles of wounds like knights, nauts, land raiders or battlewagons tend to have more impact on games at 1500 than they do at 2000., simply there is less d6 damage rolled against them.

Not sure if this actually has an impact on competitive games at 1750, but it is surely something to keep in mind. Most of those models aren't doing well on the tabletop right now.

1750 was standard size in the Uk for most of the last few editions don't see it as much of an issue and may make things better.

Sucks for the index armies that have not had there codex point drops yet but that should resolve itself pretty quick.

 Crazyterran wrote:

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.

American ones have, sure.

Ok so yes the best and most important ones
Now I'm not sure but t I've played on 2 different continents and granted it's just anecdotal but most people always preferred to play with more of their toys not less. Also human nature is human nature no matter what country you're in people will use as much time as you give them and still not finish a game.

I like the idea of 1750, I would love to try it in a competitive game or 4...like in a few weeks when my local ITC event has said they are reducing to 1750 and giving it a shot.

2,000 is just too big to play in a short amount of time unless you are playing an elite army. I can usually get my Green tide lists to turn 4 but that is with a lot of hustling and with throwing dice ridiculously fast.

Before a bunch of people who don't play orkz come in here and start telling me how to play my army "Then don't bring a Green tide n00b! L2P!" I don't care what your thoughts are in regards to how I play my army in a competitive environment.

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

I'm going to a small 20 man charity tournament in September that has decided to use the GT 1750pts limit.

I'm... Glad. I know a couple of the people going and they are the low key WAAC types, but not obnoxiously so. Still didn't stop them from complaining on the tournaments Facebook page tho!

 Blndmage wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I don't think its a good idea because:

...

6. They are cutting their potential sales to competitive players by an 8th if this becomes adopted widely.

...what? That is, like, the last consideration anyone but sales rep should have while attempting to balance the game

Actually, if 1,500 becomes standard for tournaments, then it opens it up to people who can't afford a 2,000 point army. You actually get more sales, as more people are playing,

The gap between tournaments and causal becomes less and thus more folks are comfortable entering in tournaments.

While many tournaments day they welcome allskill levels, the attitudes of layers that focus on tournaments does not. This might help, as it beings the two closer.

Yes, which is why complaining points were cut reducing need to field mountains of models is so dumb. The game needs to be more accessible, not less, and anything that stops the race to turn every army into horde army is welcome...

Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

Oh plenty of games went to objectives in 7th, i mean you had ONE unit to play with. You played that way for 5 turns and then split the unit to cover the objectives.

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know just an odd thought but how many games in 7th ever went to time? how many of them were just slug fests looking for a table rather than objectives or slow play victories?

7th also had trouble with time at 1,850, but this was perceived as being because of the cumbersome rules system.

Then, as now, lowering points just hurts elite armies and bolsters skew lists as well. I played a 2k game with two mid-sized armies in 47 minutes once. All 5 rounds less than 1 hour with 8th's ruleset. Last year at NOVA, I only had one game the entire time that didn't finish with a good 30-45 minutes to spare. It's absolutely a player issue, not a points issue.

tneva82 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Want matches to be faster? Give players an individual time limit and enforce it. Allow large sums of dice to be cut in half when rolled and double results. Don't reduce the points for everyone and still allow slow play as usual. I could slow play at 750 if I wanted to.

First idea does not change game takes more time in 8th it did in 7th ed AND army sizes went up because gw wanted to sell more models. 2k isn't holy size that always was and allways will be.

Second affects odds etc so now we aren#" even talking same results...say hello to gaming that.

army sizes went down dramatically. Case and point a LR used to cost 260 with a multi melta - now it cost 380.
a rhino used to cost 35 points now it 72.
I could go on and on but the general idea is most things except for base infantry cost got higher. thats why 1850 became 2000 and still - your 1850 in 7th was bigger than your 2k in 8th.

Also - how could you suggest that a time limit for each player that is actually enforced would not speed up play? You lose if you run out of time - people will play faster out of necessity.

Good, IMO its better for the game. Less models/dice/time, and each unit is more impactful.

Honestly when playing 1500/1750/2k its not much of a difference, i play each point level weekly and its fun to change it up time to time, might be me b.c i have huge amounts of games played in 8th already.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Good, IMO its better for the game. Less models/dice/time, and each unit is more impactful.

Honestly when playing 1500/1750/2k its not much of a difference, i play each point level weekly and its fun to change it up time to time, might be me b.c i have huge amounts of games played in 8th already.

Couldn't agree more. Now go tell GW to write me a damn Ork codex that doesn't rely exclusively on taking 120+ infantry to every game or lose by turn 2.

Damn so much for a competitive Deathwatch List. Maybe I can return the book.

( looks sorrowfully at his Deathwing and WolfGuardWing armies).

General Hobbs wrote:


Damn so much for a competitive Deathwatch List. Maybe I can return the book.

( looks sorrowfully at his Deathwing and WolfGuardWing armies).

No ur supposed to use allies

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.

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.

Just FYI the 40k GT sold out within a day with an additional heat compared to the last round. At least for GW events the points drop has had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT on attendance. I can't speak for other events but nobody is obliged to reciprocate in making events 1750 points.

Ok so as soon as the tickets go on sale they disappear.


Fantastic

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CassianSol 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.

Just FYI the 40k GT sold out within a day with an additional heat compared to the last round. At least for GW events the points drop has had NO NEGATIVE EFFECT on attendance. I can't speak for other events but nobody is obliged to reciprocate in making events 1750 points.

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.

Should have gone to 1500.
1600 maybe max.