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.

So, 1750 points or 2000 points doesn’t really bother me either way – BUT with the new CA changes, a good chunk of 2000 point armies are now ~1750 so, maybe we’ll start seeing more of a shift down, depending on how things go.

I agree that the ITC doesn’t enforce points or missions etc. They have their own missions, but that is their own preference. Over here in the UK I’ve been to several events this year, all giving ITC points and all being run slightly difference. Some are 2k straight ITC missions. Some are 2k ETC missions, some are 1750 points GW missions etc. ITC is the US “standard” for events, the ITC is just a ranking format.

In regards to games timing out. Heat 3 was 1750 points and 2.5 hours per round. Each round, 2-4 games got timed out (out of 60). Most of those games across the rounds had the same reoccurring people playing them. However, GW digs themselves a hole in regards to dealing with it by asking people that report it, “Are they playing slow, or are they slow playing?” Bit of a non-question, but gives them a reasonable opportunity to let the issue slide 90% of the time.
Other events I’ve been to at 2000 points, running 3 hours per game have also had similar results. 95%+ of games end early/on time. I do accept that this is/feels drastically different for events in the US, but, the introduction of chess clocks, especially state side, is adjusting that. Yes, certain matchups and armies are slower to play, but it doesn’t mean it is impossible to finish on time one way or another. That said, games have now got slightly bigger, but, generally this results in 1-3 extra units for most armies. It adds time, but, it shouldn’t add that much.

Vakruz wrote:
It would be nice, but nobody here will listen to you. This forum is so completely stuck on 2000 point armies.

I think it's just easier to say nobody here listens...that's it.

Togusa76812210265996d11efb9cda4e461147d7d7ddec3a6cee.jpg wrote:
You said it. The resistance is from the power gaming community, they get really mad when you limit how many over powered units they can bring to a game.

BUT MAH SPAMS?!?!?!?

Vakruz wrote:
Feels kinda nice to have someone not blast me for my opinion for once lol You made my day, thank you sir

Don't worry. Plenty of people here LOVE to blast free thinking.

Just out of curiosity I looked up some of my older lists to compare to my current ones. My first 2000 pt army was for 5th edition Blood Angels, and it contained 49 models in total. My current 2000 pt Blood Angels army contains...49 models.

2000 points were pretty much mandatory when the edition dropped because a lot of stuff was extremely overcosted in the indexes. A tipycal 7th edition 1850 points orks list became closer to 2500 points than 2000 in 8th.

I remember how I feel gutted when I made my first lists with orks, drukhari and SW and was forced to left too many things out because they had insane points prices.

Now that basically everyone has a codex and most points costs were adjusted smaller formats are fun to play.

And IMHO playing a full 1500-1750 points game is way better than stopping a 2000 points one because there's no time left.

1750 should be the standard for Organised play IMHO and 2000 for friendly pick up games.

 Blackie wrote:
And IMHO playing a full 1500-1750 points game is way better than stopping a 2000 points one because there's no time left.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1750 should be the standard for Organised play IMHO and 2000 for friendly pick up games.

Agreed on both counts.
It SUUUUUCKS to not be able to go to at least 5 turns. I'd much rather play smaller if it means actually finishing the game.

Organized play at 1750 hits that mark, I feel.

But as a counter argument, I still don't understand how players can't finish a 2000pt game in less than 2hrs. The only times that has happened to me (outside of casual games where we aren't in a hurry) was because my opponent took nearly 30mins per HIS turn. Sometimes intentionally slow playing, sometimes just because of unfamiliarity with his own or my army.
I personally feel like anyone should be able to complete THEIR turns in less than 10-15mins. If you cannot, you shouldn't play in a tourney as that isn't fair to your opponent.

I don't think chess clocks are a good idea (more for practical reasons), so lowering the points from 2000 to 1750 not only restricts options (therefore less abuse and more tactical thought in list building), but makes the game go faster.

And don't bring up Horde armies. I started with Nids and regularly took 100-200 model armies and still was able to finish 5-6 turns in 2.5 hr rounds
You plan out your turn as the opponent is rolling dice in their turn. Then move, shoot assault with all those choices.

-

Yeah I do find it a little odd that the "solution" to games not taking so long was to use chess clocks rather than drop the points of events so things can finish faster. Towards the end of 7th there were some tournaments experimenting with 1650 points and the results showed that like over 90% of games reached their natural conclusion (did not go to time), while at 1850 I think it was like less than 50% of games completed without hitting the time limit.

That idea was never really heard from afterward because 8th came out and it was 2000 points. I think there is more than enough evidence to show that 2000 is not the ideal points value because of the time, and the answer isn't to borrow Deathclock from Warmahordes.