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.

Question is the title. I know GW seemed to want to shift people to 1750...but did it work? Locally I still only see 2k, although those are longggg games usually.

Ha, I wish.

2k is definitely the norm. I think it's bad for the hobby though. As much as I like big games, it's pretty disheartening for new players to perpetually get turned down because they can't make a "full army" yet.

Tournaments could definitely do with a downsizing of games, IMO, since they're already under time pressure.

1500 is IMO probably a good size for normal games. 1000 is too small, 2000 okay for an single game in an evening, but I sometimes feel that it's too much for games on a time limit. Sometimes it's even too big, I've had games end because my opponent needed to go home. 2500 is way too big.

I still prefer 1250-1500. Tighter points means harder choices and more interesting lists.

 Lance845 wrote:
I still prefer 1250-1500. Tighter points means harder choices and more interesting lists.

Totally agree. And, as mentioned above, it’s not good for getting new people into the game to have such a huge initial buy-in. Never understood why everyone’s so obsessed with 2K pts. But then, I’m not sure why people think there needs to be a single “standard” points value. Work out whatever works for you and your opponent when you arrange the game.

It's not the standard, but it is the sweet spot for me. I haven't played a 2k game in a long time. I would if we were using super heavies but otherwise no real inclination to.

1500 is a nice size game too. I think the meta balance is best at this point range.

2k is the norm at my lgs'. I like 2k games and would like to play larger games but it's hard to get someone capable of doing larger in the time frame necessary to play.

2,000 points has been the standard in my community, but we have a tourney a year at the 1,250 level. I have to say, I like the smaller points level! Maybe variety is the key?

lower points games benefit certain armies more. 2000 let's everyone play.

2000 benefits certain armies more. 1750 let's everyone play.

1750 benefits certain armies more. 750 points means Custards can't play.

I do personally wish the standard was 1850 however. But given how lethal 8th edition is you need 2000 points just to get to turn 3.

I prefer larger games. Most of the time me and my mates are playing 2500 points. Big games are more fun.

Due to space limitations my flgs plays at 1250. We use 4x4 areas but anything goes. I've seen IK players and horde players. If anything, I'd like to play on a normal 4x6 board since it's hard to adapt some of the scenerios to the smaller board.

Thankfully 2,000 pts is still the norm & everyone gets to bring a lot more cool stuff. Unfortunately you still have a very small but whinny minority that keeps trying to lower it to benefit their armies. With ITC being the biggest tournament circuit & it supporting 2K pts we are unlikely to see a change which is a good thing.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I still prefer 1250-1500. Tighter points means harder choices and more interesting lists.

Totally agree. And, as mentioned above, it’s not good for getting new people into the game to have such a huge initial buy-in. Never understood why everyone’s so obsessed with 2K pts. But then, I’m not sure why people think there needs to be a single “standard” points value. Work out whatever works for you and your opponent when you arrange the game.

I can explain that.

At 1000 points you can basically set up your army to be a 1 trick pony that does a single thing really REALLY well.
At 1500 your 1 trick pony has some lesser tricks up their sleeves to round them out and deal with other issues/act as support.
At 2k You can build your army to do 2-3 things really well. You might not have EVERY bell and whistle you want but you can pretty much bring all the toys for all the tactics you feel like.

2k is the standard because most players, wanting power fantasy, don't want to sacrifice strengths or make hard choices. They want all the things to do all the things. 2k more or less lets them.

dkoz wrote:
Thankfully 2,000 pts is still the norm & everyone gets to bring a lot more cool stuff. Unfortunately you still have a very small but whinny minority that keeps trying to lower it to benefit their armies. With ITC being the biggest tournament circuit & it supporting 2K pts we are unlikely to see a change which is a good thing.

And here is dkoz to prove my point. It's not about what actually makes for a better or more interesting game for them. It's about throwing down "more cool stuff". Like what you like. Id rather have a more engaging game.

I find 1500 too small but maybe because I play Adeptus Custodes mostly. I prefer 1750 because those 250 points make people have to make harder choices.

With my tau for example after CA point drops it doesn't matter if I'm playing 1500-1750 or 2000 I can bring everything I want.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I still prefer 1250-1500. Tighter points means harder choices and more interesting lists.

Totally agree. And, as mentioned above, it’s not good for getting new people into the game to have such a huge initial buy-in. Never understood why everyone’s so obsessed with 2K pts. But then, I’m not sure why people think there needs to be a single “standard” points value. Work out whatever works for you and your opponent when you arrange the game.

I can explain that.

At 1000 points you can basically set up your army to be a 1 trick pony that does a single thing really REALLY well.
At 1500 your 1 trick pony has some lesser tricks up their sleeves to round them out and deal with other issues/act as support.
At 2k You can build your army to do 2-3 things really well. You might not have EVERY bell and whistle you want but you can pretty much bring all the toys for all the tactics you feel like.

2k is the standard because most players, wanting power fantasy, don't want to sacrifice strengths or make hard choices. They want all the things to do all the things. 2k more or less lets them.

dkoz wrote:
Thankfully 2,000 pts is still the norm & everyone gets to bring a lot more cool stuff. Unfortunately you still have a very small but whinny minority that keeps trying to lower it to benefit their armies. With ITC being the biggest tournament circuit & it supporting 2K pts we are unlikely to see a change which is a good thing.

And here is dkoz to prove my point. It's not about what actually makes for a better or more interesting game for them. It's about throwing down "more cool stuff". Like what you like. Id rather have a more engaging game.

This is good example of the type of power gamer that wants to build a one trick pony for an army so they don't have to think about strategy just wind up your toy and let it go. At 2000 pts you get to bring more cool stuff but you also have to ensure you prep correctly for the cool stuff your opponent can do.

That doesn't make any sense dkoz. A 1 trick pony gets decimated by it's counter. At a lower points cost you have to list build very intelligently to make a TAC list and that includes making sacrifices to ensure an all around viability.

And a power gamer that wants to bring less powerful things and make hard choices? What definition of power gamer are you running off of? lol

Good attempt at a rebuttal dig. But it's ONLY an attempt. Not even a clever one.

In my experience, 2000pts is about the right level at which you can freely put a game together with friends without certain codecies being unduly throttled or buffed, but I'm always happy to go down to about 1750. I also agree with the sentiment that below 1500 points, army lists start turning into glass cannons with bubble-wrap and the game gets WAY more skewed. A key issue with 8th edition is that some armies have to make a lot less of a sacrifice to pay their HQ/Troop/Anti-tank taxes than others so I also reject the idea that 8th edition needs to be EVEN MORE focused on the list-building stage, because good googly grief am I sick of that.

 Lance845 wrote:
That doesn't make any sense dkoz. A 1 trick pony gets decimated by it's counter. At a lower points cost you have to list build very intelligently to make a TAC list and that includes making sacrifices to ensure an all around viability.

And a power gamer that wants to bring less powerful things and make hard choices? What definition of power gamer are you running off of? lol

Good attempt at a rebuttal dig. But it's ONLY an attempt. Not even a clever one.

I'm running off the definition where a power gamer wants to lower points because their army is nearly unstoppable at that lower lvl and they can just wind it up & let it go with out having to think. At higher point values players can build counters into their armies & that leads to a more tactical game not just an OP army dominating the lower points lvl.

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That doesn't make any sense dkoz. A 1 trick pony gets decimated by it's counter. At a lower points cost you have to list build very intelligently to make a TAC list and that includes making sacrifices to ensure an all around viability.

And a power gamer that wants to bring less powerful things and make hard choices? What definition of power gamer are you running off of? lol

Good attempt at a rebuttal dig. But it's ONLY an attempt. Not even a clever one.

I'm running off the definition where a power gamer wants to lower points because their army is nearly unstoppable at that lower lvl and they can just wind it up & let it go with out having to think. At higher point values players can build counters into their armies & that leads to a more tactical game not just an OP army dominating the lower points lvl.

And which army do you think I am playing that I could just "wind it up and let it go"? The only one I can think of that functions like that at 1000 points or less is necrons. But again, I said I prefer 1250-1500, where necrons kind of even out. At 1750-2k their RP gets paid for in points and is absolutely useless on the table (I don't own necrons anymore btw).

Lets be clear here. 40k is about as tactical as a slice of bread. IGOUGO ensures that 70-90% of all games are determined by who goes first with decently ranged guns. You are not getting any more or less tactical because you got to bring more toys. Arguably, if you have less toys and still manage to pull a win with unfavorable conditions then you could argue that your tactics played a part.

i feel that GW/ITC etc should try to change the points every season, just to mix things up. 2000pts, then 1750pts, then 1850pts, etc.There's no one right way, no matter how many people here argue over it.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I still prefer 1250-1500. Tighter points means harder choices and more interesting lists.

Totally agree. And, as mentioned above, it’s not good for getting new people into the game to have such a huge initial buy-in. Never understood why everyone’s so obsessed with 2K pts. But then, I’m not sure why people think there needs to be a single “standard” points value. Work out whatever works for you and your opponent when you arrange the game.

Because an army can be best optimised at 2000pts. And when people do buy their 2000pts of optimised army, it is very hard to make them want to play something else. As either the point cost of unit is not easy to fit in to 1500 or what ever other point someone else may want to play, and which is just as important makes them feel as if they wasted their money buying 2000pts, when everyone just wants to play 1250.

Arguably, if you have less toys and still manage to pull a win with unfavorable conditions then you could argue that your tactics played a part.

I don't know man, I played very few non 2000pts game, but then ones I did just had the good armies cut out of fluff out of the lists and leave the meat. Makes armies that were based around one super powerful unit work better too. Because now they may not have the support artilery, or 100models of chaff in front, but the stuff that did good killing at 2000pts is still there rocking it up at 1000pts.

Ive rarely played a game in 8th where someone stuck some kind of "deathstar" unit in their list to be all powerful and killy that didn't just get focus fired immediately and wiped off the board by turn 2.

Everything dies faster in 8th and the AP mechanics help make everything vulnerable. There may be big super killy things but there are VERY few nigh invulnerable things.

In smaller point games they may be just as killy, but they also have less chaffe to protect them and less support. And once they die the rest of the army has less to carry their torch.

Good example is all the nid players who love their Genestealer/swarmlord combo. Great for first turn if you go first. Decimated and wiped off the board first turn if you don't. Massive waste of points that leave not much left to keep the game going. I love my kitbash swarmlord model. I never play it. It's a expensive liability.

You never played a game of w40k with a castellan or a unit of 10 s spears in 8th ed or 3 units of reapers?

1750 has been the norm in Rome for the last year.

Plays much better in my opinion.

1750 or 1850 was always a good level I thought and locals I used to play at had that as the standard but when 8th rolled around 2k rose its ugly head.

Lower points makes list choices more meaningful and tactics makes a difference over steamrolling your opponent if you happen to get first turn with a 2k army.

1000-1250 is incredibly fun though!

I enjoy the 1200-1700 range as the norm. We do play a lot with asymmetric points values too, though, so something like 1500 vs. 2000 in a siege game is often on the menu.

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That doesn't make any sense dkoz. A 1 trick pony gets decimated by it's counter. At a lower points cost you have to list build very intelligently to make a TAC list and that includes making sacrifices to ensure an all around viability.

And a power gamer that wants to bring less powerful things and make hard choices? What definition of power gamer are you running off of? lol

Good attempt at a rebuttal dig. But it's ONLY an attempt. Not even a clever one.

I'm running off the definition where a power gamer wants to lower points because their army is nearly unstoppable at that lower lvl and they can just wind it up & let it go with out having to think. At higher point values players can build counters into their armies & that leads to a more tactical game not just an OP army dominating the lower points lvl.

What Lance845 is suggesting (to give an exmaple) if you play 1250 and stack vehicles so you're immune to most small arms, all it takes is for another player to rock up with heaps of anti-tank or haywire and your list is redundant. At 2k you can take the infantry AND the tanks, which suddenly means it harder for a list to have hard counter.

This is only on the most generalist level however, if you want a power gamer perspective, look at the old castellan meta. What if you had to chose between your loyal 32 or your smash captains? You either lose your melee punch or your screens, opening a chance for a counter from your opponent that otherwise wouldn't be there.

I like any point value from 1000-2000.

My friends and I like to start a cycle a month, first match is 1k, then 1250, 1500 and 2k so everyone gets to bring different things and it really keeps the game fresh with also varied narrative games sometimes and plenty of changing missions.

Also double games are common, 4 players 2v2 each bring 1k with modified detachments. Watching me and the other Daemon player bring like, 90 Bloodletters each is GLORIOUS!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1750 benefits certain armies more. 750 points means Custards can't play.

I do personally wish the standard was 1850 however. But given how lethal 8th edition is you need 2000 points just to get to turn 3.

750 means custards can't play, but they can at 1750. I don't think that I believe your assertion that 1750 skews things more than 2k on a comparison of which and how much armies benefit, but I could be persuaded.