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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Avor wrote:
It been a while and I always played 1000 point games. I missed a editions by I've seen this site holds alot of 2000 point armies. Is there any reason behind this? Or something should look out for?

Just enough points to capitalize on all the cool stuff your army has, while not being too over the top.

I kind of miss 5th's 1.5k standard. Just enough points for a cool thing or two, but ultimately forcing you to be thrifty and more tactics focused than unit combo focused.

I recently came back in to 8th after leaving around the start of 6th, when my local GW was still playing 1.5k. I recently learned that they've since moved to 2k, and while I'm okay that it means there's more room for stuff, it's also meant more stuff I have to lug around. Right now I can comfortably fit 1.5k in a single standard KR card case. Moving up to 2k means busting out my double-depth aluminium case and lugging that around between bus stops and through town. I wouldn't have even minded too much if it wasn't solely for the fact that 2 Doosmday Arks take up an entire case by themselves.

It's a great job I don't like big models or LoW, else I'd need a case to hold all the cases I'd be bringing. I was so pleased to find out that my 1.5k force fit a standard one, so learning that 1.5k isn't the going rate there anymore was a blow to morale, so to speak

This is is sounding more and more like the old problem of people wanting it all. You say that people want all the cool things from their army. But I know that it sucks the skill of list building out of the game if you get everything. It's nice to have some cool units on the table, but has created of seeing the same Tau arny over and over?

I think 2,000pts was adopted as standard size initially back in 3rd edition, due to White Dwarf battle reports on average being that size.

Previously in 2nd it was 1,000pts, the scope of the game changed dramatically during the jump from 2nd to 3rd.

Some editions since 3rd altered the standard size, but not by as much.

2,000pts gives a player enough leg room to try out new lists with out their choices being stagnant.

Personally I think the game can work at anywhere from 1,000pts and above. Smaller games tend to be more intense as players may not have every tool available to them for the issues they face.

 stonehorse wrote:
I think 2,000pts was adopted as standard size initially back in 3rd edition, due to White Dwarf battle reports on average being that size.

Previously in 2nd it was 1,000pts, the scope of the game changed dramatically during the jump from 2nd to 3rd.

Some editions since 3rd altered the standard size, but not by as much.

2,000pts gives a player enough leg room to try out new lists with out their choices being stagnant.

Personally I think the game can work at anywhere from 1,000pts and above. Smaller games tend to be more intense as players may not have every tool available to them for the issues they face.

1500 used to be long the standard. Later 1750 and some 1850. Then 8th ed came and GW upped points but people didn't want to scale down models and wanted all the toys so up to 2k. And then GW cheapened models so now I find myself running even bigger armies than 7th ed with individual turns taking longer than ever(partially due to reroll everything syndrome 8th ed suffers)

I like 2000 points because it allows you to take more toys but still feel like you can't have everything you want. 1500 points is alright but below that I just feel that after my troops and HQs I don't have that many points left to play with. (and don't tell me to use a different detachment because eldar need the CPs)

Also 2000 is enough points to include redundancy into your list, so if your opponent brings a skew list like all tanks they can't just take out your only good anti tank unit and just win.

Another reason is that I get 1 game per week at best, so when I play I want to play with as much of my stuff as possible.

I personally think that 2000 allows you to put together more balanced and interesting/fluffy lists that are able to actually perform on the table to expectations and ideas.

Sure, not all the armies are currently equal and one fluffy army vs another can see massive differences, but with 2000 points you’re able to get flexibility.

1000 points doesn’t give you much in a lot of armies and I feel like it dramatically increases the likelihood of a rock-paper-scissors style of play due to the increased chances of skew lists. You might have a bigger unit count discrepancy in some cases at 2000 points, but, you also then have the flexibility to overcome those discrepancies.

That said, you also have those options at 1750, and maybe 1500 at a push, but, the lower you get the more “focused” your list has to be.

tneva82 wrote:
1500 used to be long the standard. Later 1750 and some 1850. Then 8th ed came and GW upped points but people didn't want to scale down models and wanted all the toys so up to 2k. And then GW cheapened models so now I find myself running even bigger armies than 7th ed with individual turns taking longer than ever(partially due to reroll everything syndrome 8th ed suffers)

I think this view is screwed since 7th was an edition which encouraged fielding expensive models and death stars, while 8th basically forces you to bring some chaff units with less than 10ppm as screens, objective holders or CP generators.
Also you are setting down a lot more models on the table since transports have almost universally disappeared from competitive gaming, where previous editions had large amount of the commonly played infantry hidden away in transports.

If I compare a 5th edition leaf blower list to a 8th edition 2000 pure AM army, the leafblower would have almost the same amount of models as a modern AM list, except most of them were hidden in chimeras.

For what it's worth, I mostly play 50-100 Power Level games. My current sweet spot is 60/75.

Again, 2000 became the standard because GW and the playtesters decided it would be. Not because people all miraculously decided the same thing after tallying up old armies. Because they were told 2K was going to be the new standard.

It’ll be interesting to see if GW run more 1750 events after their tourney that’s using that limit.

My area has switched to a 1750 point standard after the heats were announced to follow that format.

It's an interesting point level, those 250 points are actually felt on the firepower but not on the durability (players prefer to remove the risky glasscannons more than core stuff). The game in general is a bit less killy as a result.

We usually use 1750-point armies, but play anything between 750 - 2k. The 2k "standard" is pretty much entirely down to tournaments. You see it in other games too, where the tournament standard becomes the de facto game standard. I'd love to see more variety in tournaments, if only to try to dispel the myth that 2k is somehow the standard, but also to make things more interesting. Armies at 1750 are much different tot hose at 2k, and the same applies to 1500. They're not better or worse, but I do think varying the points limit would possibly put more emphasis on list-building skill at least at the outset since it's more difficult to netlist at non-standard points.

I'd like to see more tourneys run at like the 750pts region, maybe tag team?

Speaking only for myself and my experiences, as I lack the god-like power that allows other dakkanauts to speak for everybody, 2000pts has been standard for me and every meta I've ever played in, all the way back to 1996.

The game tends to feel more balanced at 2k compared to lower points values. When you get to 1k points or less, suddenly certain big monsters or certain units with special abilities become extremely powerful and impossible to kill. Lower points values favor tough, resilient units more and more, with some armies like Necrons basically becoming unstoppable in say 500 pts games, simply due to there not being enough points to focus down a unit.

You also run into more issues where it would be considered bad form to run double daemon primarchs or something similar in a 1k pt game without first notifying your opponent. 2k pretty much allows for people to take whatever they want while being reasonably confident that their faction will have the tools to deal with their opponent's list.

Point per model went up in 8th with the release of the Indexes, and only started dropping after the first few Codexes cake out. 2000 points in 8th is roughly 1750 in 7th. Not sure where people think 8th had a significant points drop when 8e Drop Pods cost 85 ppm, or Land Raideare are almost 500 ppm. Are people not adding weapon cost to their guesstimates?

SJ

Because, truth be told, GW knew what they were doing. 2000 points is where most armies REALLY begin to shine or this is the point where allied Detachments become a valid option.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Though you'd figure with half the points on the table, there'd be half the firepower removing points from the opposite force. Which is reasonable mathematically, but probably doesn't quite work that way because some units scale to be more effective in small games. With different limitations by way of detatchments or unit restrictions you could probably find something that would work.

Thats not true tho. in a 1k game its Ro2 not Ro3, but a Ynnari Dark Reaper with Yvarine will still do the same amount of damage in either 1k or 2k.

Lower level games are extremely Rock, Paper, Scissors even moreso than 2k games are. At 1k many armies cant not even counter some units where in 2k they can, those units being so costly you only take 1 anyways, like the Castellan Knight.

Yep, many units and faction abilities in the game are simply not balanced around 1k or less points. You'd have to ban a lot of units or create otherwise severe list restrictions to make it work.

Otherwise you can pretty much Necron warrior spam or LoW spam your way to victory every time. Even cultist spam at 1k points would be insane to deal with. Speaking purely in a competitive sense.

For example, how many people at 1k points are realistically going to bring a list that can deal with 200 fearless cultists?

Although this actually got me thinking. At 2k points, what list can realistically deal with 400 fearless cultists? Someone needs to bring that to a tourney

2K feels the most balanced. Its where you can field almost any force and be around the same ability. Smaller games start to really favor some of the elitething like Custodes, and Knights, where larger causes Hordes power to go overboard.

Also At this point, 2K games take about 2 hours. Not much more time, not much less.