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 remember one of my buddies playing back in fifth edition - pre game conversation over a 1000 point game.

Ork Player: "Sorry, I've got 80+ orks"
My Buddy: "Don't worry, I've got 60+ sisters of battle".

Note the apology from the Ork player. This was unusual at the time to see so many orks at 1000 points, but it could be done!

The game's always had horde options, just people didn't play them because it required you to paint lots more models, and the stronger, less numerous units were more worth taking. The wounding and armor system of the current edition favors mass shooting and resiliency through having wounds rather than armor/toughness, so hordes are stronger meta.

I can't answer the poll outright. I am of the opinion that there is a threshold for "just bodies" taking up the field which crosses into slow play, and also a threshold for skewed tankiness.

3x40 cultists, that's so boring to me. Especially if there are also poxwalkers just taking up time/space to shuffle around.

All knights with 2 Dominus, yeah that's iffy at 2K and cruel below.

It doesn't have to be all bad, movement trays can help a ton. When I recently bought 50 daemonettes I immediately bought 5 2x10 magnetized trays so it doesn't take ages to run around. but that's extra time and money :(

All in all, I'm ok with the size of a balanced army. Up to 4 tanks, 3 dreadnought equivalents, some squads of elite infantry, and up to 70 basic infantry (preferably in only 3 units). Actually I think number of units is a bigger deal than number of models. 6 sets of 5 fire warriors is more time intense than 3 units of 10, or 6 sets of 5 marines with a two different special weapons.

I'd prefer more granularity with the points, but I'm okay with the size of the games. People can complain about super heavy units all they want, but the truth is most of them aren't actually good. It's like getting mad at the Troop slot in 7th because Windriders exist.

It's all about unit balance, internal and external.

The reason of this is so GW gets more money, simple, we will end up in 20 years with marines being 1/2pts per model at this rate.

I fielded 60+marine armies in 3rd edition.

The number of times I saw 4000+ points lined up on each side of a terrain-light table in 2nd edition might shock you. "Slop-hammer" abounds in any edition.

There are numerous ways to solve your problem without blaming GW.

At the end of 7th the people at the store nearest to me had taken to playing 750 point games as the default size for pickup games.

I don't think there is any need for GW to increase the points of models or declare that 1000 points is the standard game size or anything like that. On the other hand I wouldn't mind seeing a more fleshed-out implementation of Combat Patrol or a similar format.

My son and I started 8th with a small army of about 1,000 points to learn the rules, with the intention of gearing up to 2K points as we got more familiar with the rules.

We quickly learned our 1K games were the right size for us and that bigger point games were just a waste of our time.

In fact, today I played a 500 pts. game with both my sons, and had a blast with just that.

There are definitely too many models in games now. Banish LOW to apocalypse and structure the core rules to infantry-based, for a start. There simply isn't enough room for all those toys for movement to matter.

This is not a conspiracy but simply a business practice.

GW benefits from more models being on the table - the more models, the more money. In turn, the more models on the table, the more deadly the game has to be to justify the 2-3 hour span most people expect from a game. Note how many (read: dozens and dozens) units gain bonuses - inexplicable ones - for having 20+ or 30+ models in a unit, etc.

Blastaar wrote:
There are definitely too many models in games now. Banish LOW to apocalypse and structure the core rules to infantry-based, for a start. There simply isn't enough room for all those toys for movement to matter.

That's a point worth considering, whether 1000 or 2000 feels like a lot of stuff depends a lot on your board setup. 2000 is waaay to much on a 4x6, but it's not a terrible amount on a 4x10 with diagonal deployment zones 48" apart and some center-line objectives. That sort of a setup makes maneuvering a lot more inportant and reduces model count since you have to take transports.

Blastaar wrote:
Banish LOW to apocalypse and structure the core rules to infantry-based, for a start.

This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. Apocalypse is unplayable, and GW is not going to tell their customers "sorry you bought this model, you don't ever get to use it".

 lolman1c wrote:
Problem I find is, at my place, the weekly community games are 2k points and there is nothing I can do to stop that. So I either cut down my games to friendly games I play maybe once or twice a month or I bring buckets full of orks every week and continue with the masses. XD

There's nothing forcing you to play with buckets of orks.
If you wanted to I'm sure you could make a non-hoard list. Or at least a much lesser sized hoard....

Also, if you believe there are too many models at present then hold onto your hat as rumour abound a new version of Apocalypse is coming.

Purely optional playstyle though.

This is another thread that is a ‘problem’ that players can solve between them. Not every pickup game *has to be* tournament rules 2K blind lists Rule Of Three or GTFO. Don’t like the model count at 2K? Play a lower points game. Agree what sort of lists you’ll take in advance so you don’t take 120 Cultists. Have a conversation about what type of game you want, and then have that game. Wanting GW to change the rules that currently sell more models for them is futile, as that’s their business.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is another thread that is a ‘problem’ that players can solve between them. Not every pickup game *has to be* tournament rules 2K blind lists Rule Of Three or GTFO. Don’t like the model count at 2K? Play a lower points game. Agree what sort of lists you’ll take in advance so you don’t take 120 Cultists. Have a conversation about what type of game you want, and then have that game. Wanting GW to change the rules that currently sell more models for them is futile, as that’s their business.

Nana, now JohnnyHell you should know, talking to your opponent beyond gloating isn't allowed in this social activity with 2+ people.

The Newman wrote:

That's a point worth considering, whether 1000 or 2000 feels like a lot of stuff depends a lot on your board setup. 2000 is waaay to much on a 4x6, but it's not a terrible amount on a 4x10 with diagonal deployment zones 48" apart and some center-line objectives. That sort of a setup makes maneuvering a lot more inportant and reduces model count since you have to take transports.

What's waaay to much/not terrible per board size is highly dependent upon what type of army you're playing.

Take the G.I.Joe out of my 40k. Yes there are a lot of models because they are getting cheaper. But the solution is not to cut down on models. That only promotes the use of more and more Knights and titans and other crap. Models are getting cheaper because for some reason the Castellan needs to fit in a 1000 pt game. What the heck for? Take that gak all the way up to 1500 pts per model, so you can't even field them in 1750 or 2000 games. Want to play with G.I.Joe? Set up an apoc game, be happy to accomodate you then and bring my hierophant. But normal 40k?

Damn there used to be a time where the carnifex was one of the biggest models you could field.

Since when is 2k the standard for 40k tournaments anyways? Wasn't it 2k for Fantasy and 1500-1750 for 40k back then?

And yeah, I agree completely. There are way to many models on the board. Not for imps or orks but for Marines and Eldar as well.

It’s been the standard since 8th was released.

Games of 40k definitely have too many models at the moment. While one solution is to talk to your opponent and play at smaller points values, that's not always a practical solution for everyone as in some places where the tournament scene leads everyone else follows so 2k becomes the de facto standard.

The most important point to me has already been mentioned. As model counts go up we see the amount of useable space on the table decreasing to the point where it's almost impossible to meaningfully move around for many armies, which turns the game into a boring, static shooting gallery. Additionally, the fact we now have everything from a Grot all the way up to Dominus-class Knights and Daemon Primarchs on the same table and represented using the same core rules is a huge problem. We're never going to see that change while the big models continue to sell but it's a contributing factor to the increase in model counts for sure.

I remember when 8th first came out and my first games were using roughly the same armies I'd used in 7th. I actually had to remove some models, mainly because vehicles became quite a bit more expensive. We went from playing at 1500 in 7th to 1750 in 8th and initially we still had slightly fewer models on the table. As points have been updated through both Codex and CA releases the points for everything have gradually come down so now I'm pretty sure we'd have points left over if we converted our old 7th edition armies to 8th.

One thing I'd like ot see to help deal with the problems described in my first point is for more TOs to run torunaments at different points values instead of everything being 2k all the time. More variety there would probably help demonstrate there are different ways to play to the players who seem to be stuck in the mindset of following whatever the "tournament standard" tells them.

There are as many models as you want to play with.

ccs wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Problem I find is, at my place, the weekly community games are 2k points and there is nothing I can do to stop that. So I either cut down my games to friendly games I play maybe once or twice a month or I bring buckets full of orks every week and continue with the masses. XD

There's nothing forcing you to play with buckets of orks.
If you wanted to I'm sure you could make a non-hoard list. Or at least a much lesser sized hoard....

That would require buying more models to make up the points... something I don't want to do as my army was fine for ages.

Anyway, as mentioned I have this problem with marines as well. I had a perfectly good 2k point army but it was reduced to about 1700 in the last CA. Now, if I want to continue to play at the stores nights, I'd have to go out and buy more models. This is something I refuse to do as it would mean GW gets what they want! Old players buying more models...

Yes, too many models. Epic is a good comparison - ignoring it breaks down when you go about arounbd a 100 units in a side - the unit density ensures you still have quite dynamic movement. In 40K you can have a litteral solid line of troops. This and the cover rules shuts down a lot of that movement making it far more of a static game where in most cases you head straight towards the enemy or objectives.

(Though I should add you can model your Epic Ork bases with more infantry on so you would in fact have more troops even if they were tiny... My dream of relaunching epic includes having a lot more variety in base sizes and basing - a combat squad of 5 marines, a base of 10 guardsmen, a base of 15-20 orks - and stat things on that basis, making some troops feel a lot stronger...

 Peregrine wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Banish LOW to apocalypse and structure the core rules to infantry-based, for a start.

This is never going to happen, and shouldn't happen. Apocalypse is unplayable, and GW is not going to tell their customers "sorry you bought this model, you don't ever get to use it".

I wouldn't call Apocalypse "unplayable." it may not be a good format, but if people enjoy it, let them.

GW removing the bug guys from "normal" games won't happen, to be sure, but it would dramatically improve gameplay. GW will do whatever makes them the most money for the smallest effort. Right now that's a ruleset made in a week and droves of new, often over-decorated and lifeless minis that still sell for some reason.

One thing we've found is that by switching to Tokenhammer (removing IGOUGO) you get a much better game with smaller points levels. Tokenhammer is inherently a bit slower, but you also don't need large point values to survive a turn.

Keep in mind that one reason why tournaments and big games are at 2,000 points etc. is so that the player who goes second at least has 1300-1500 points of models left on the table to take his turn. That's not a necessity when you don't use the usual IGOUGO format.

The problem with too many models is that it takes way too long to finish a match, it requires more endurance, more logistic and overall is less fun.

Hobby wise it also brings the drawback that we need to paint, convert and assemble faster, leaving us less time to spend in each individual model if we want to keep with the change ratio and overall been less satisfied with the display of our armies.

Waaaghbert wrote:
Since when is 2k the standard for 40k tournaments anyways? Wasn't it 2k for Fantasy and 1500-1750 for 40k back then?

And yeah, I agree completely. There are way to many models on the board. Not for imps or orks but for Marines and Eldar as well.

Locally at the start of 3rd 1000 points was the most common, and 2k was regarded as almost Apocalypse. By late 3rd/early 4th it seemed 1500 was the most common. On top of this infantry generally seems ~25% cheaper than in 3rd.

I'm not sure when 2k became standard or if my anecdotal experience was at all representative. Anyway, 2000 has been standard for quite a while.

40k would be a much healthier and diverse game if GW had more points granularity and hard walls on certain things not being in a standard game. As long as LOWs are common and high strength low AP weapons are handed out like candy your going to have huge amount of units that are just not useful and there is no way to fix that.

The current rules are trying to cover to much and we end up with this weird epic lite that doesn't do anything particularly well unless you have a very like minded opponent. The last time I felt that 40k could pull of a decent pick up game without a pre game discussion was way back in 5th, when the games scale was a lot smaller.

However GW has no real incentive to change this since MORE MODELS means more sales and I'm sure knights and other LOW have a high money return for GW. So they will continue to release more and more of those and continue to push point costs lower and lower and upping more and more lethality to help balance how long a game takes versus how much stuff I take for a standard game.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Since when is 2k the standard for 40k tournaments anyways? Wasn't it 2k for Fantasy and 1500-1750 for 40k back then?

And yeah, I agree completely. There are way to many models on the board. Not for imps or orks but for Marines and Eldar as well.

Locally at the start of 3rd 1000 points was the most common, and 2k was regarded as almost Apocalypse. By late 3rd/early 4th it seemed 1500 was the most common. On top of this infantry generally seems ~25% cheaper than in 3rd.

I'm not sure when 2k became standard or if my anecdotal experience was at all representative. Anyway, 2000 has been standard for quite a while.

I remember doing mostly 1500-2000 pt games in 2nd edition with friends, not sure where we got the size from, that wasn’t competing anywhere. In 3rd friends mostly did 2000pts, but local tourneys were 1500 for time. All I remember of 4th and 5th was people debating 1500 vs 1750 vs 2000 for events and Ard Boyz being 2500, so it’s not like 2000pts is a new thing.

I do like the idea of increasing the points of models for the sake of granularity, but that's a different issue than total number of models. They could double the points of all the units and double the size of the standard game to 4k, and that wouldn't by itself change the number of models but might give them more room to adjust points on the low end.