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.

Drager wrote:

 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.

1750 hurts soup builds in general (not much though).
Those 250 points less force you to do some difficult choices when you take 3 detachments, especially now that the Castellan costs even more. Just to make an example, Minimum IG brigade and a Castellan already cost you out of a third detachment, if you want to give a minimum of teeth to the IG like a LRCT or a couple of Basilisks.

Surprised to hear that anybody truly thinks the game is more balanced at 2k than 1500-1750. It's just simply not true. Most of the armies in the game can compete at 1500, but only a few rise to the top when you pump up the points. Higher points also fundamentally benefit soup players more than mono faction.

I mean I can see why you'd want to play higher points even with a mono build, you get to use more of your collection after all, which is fun. Just don't try and convince us that the current 2k meta is in any way shape or form the fairest way to play Warhammer 40k.

Zarkro wrote:
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.

2000 points is still the ITC 'standard' and so tends to be the default in North America. I think it could still be said that 2000 points is the standard in North America.

I am seeing a lot more 1750 point tournaments in the UK than 2000. The influence of the ETC and the ITC is very much to be seen and therefore you will still see a decent number of 2000 point tournaments so players can use their ETC/ITC lists. At this point there is no single standard in the UK, there is a tendency for each of the big gaming centres to have their own standard which they usually stick to.

You can see some of that split in the comments on the thread if you look at the nationality of the people commenting.

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

 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.

1750 hurts soup builds in general (not much though).
Those 250 points less force you to do some difficult choices when you take 3 detachments, especially now that the Castellan costs even more. Just to make an example, Minimum IG brigade and a Castellan already cost you out of a third detachment, if you want to give a minimum of teeth to the IG like a LRCT or a couple of Basilisks.

And rightly so, I don't like the ability of cherrypicking the best units to the point they overpower the meta.

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

 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.

1750 hurts soup builds in general (not much though).
Those 250 points less force you to do some difficult choices when you take 3 detachments, especially now that the Castellan costs even more. Just to make an example, Minimum IG brigade and a Castellan already cost you out of a third detachment, if you want to give a minimum of teeth to the IG like a LRCT or a couple of Basilisks.

But does 1750 skew against soup more than 2k skews for it? That is closer to what I'm asking, although it still misses a bit of the nuance.

 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.

In 7th 1750-1850 was usual. Then came 8th and GW upped points. Players responded by upping point level to compensate. Then GW started dropping points in codexes but players kept 2k and needed to buy more models. Now it's "because it's always so".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:


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

And 2k benefits certain armies more than others. So? Every point value favours certain armies more than others.

I would say there's a difference between 'favoring' and 'hammering'. Even 1,750 REALLY squeezes Custodes, while Astra Militarum could still take a battalion, Knight and melee force.

I mostly play around the 1k mark. We only have space for a couple of 4x4 boards where I play. 2k seems... excessive to me most of the time. Too much firepower to let anything really shine. I think between 1000-1500 is the sweet spot really. Below 1k makes it quite hard for some armies to form a coherent force, above 1500 and you might as well play Apocalypse because even Knights and Daemon Primarchs fold like wet paper under so much firepower (now that that 3++ Castellan has been done away with at least, the last unit that had good survivability in a 2k game).

I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

I like 2v2 games, at my club often we play 592 points per player per side. why 592 you ask... well it used to be 750, but 592 means nobody can bring a Castellan

Cynista wrote:
Surprised to hear that anybody truly thinks the game is more balanced at 2k than 1500-1750. It's just simply not true. Most of the armies in the game can compete at 1500, but only a few rise to the top when you pump up the points. Higher points also fundamentally benefit soup players more than mono faction.

I mean I can see why you'd want to play higher points even with a mono build, you get to use more of your collection after all, which is fun. Just don't try and convince us that the current 2k meta is in any way shape or form the fairest way to play Warhammer 40k.

1750 is essentially 2000 prior to CA/Codex points revision.

Current 2k list allow about 2300-2400 pts pre-point drops. So yeah, it's just another power creep to add another 250-400 points worth of stuff, which is roughly how many points power players were short in min/maxing to the... max?
.

Wish it was 1500 - I can't finish a 2000 point game in the two hours play time most seem to gravitate towards!

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

It's understandable that you want to rig the system to favor your army. However the truth is that at higher point lvls each player is able to bring more options. This wider verity means each of you needs to think more about what moves you make throughout the game. Arguably if you manage to pull of a will with unfavorable conditions at your lower pts lvl it's due to luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

Actually ITC doesn't dictate anything one of the first things the have in the ITC guide lines is that these are not hard & fast rules your LFGS can run an ITC event with what ever charges it like.

Then I wonder why the ITC crowd is so dead set on 2k being "the" tournament standard. It sure seems like they have some desire to push that as being the accepted norm for games.

Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

It's understandable that you want to rig the system to favor your army. However the truth is that at higher point lvls each player is able to bring more options. This wider verity means each of you needs to think more about what moves you make throughout the game. Arguably if you manage to pull of a will with unfavorable conditions at your lower pts lvl it's due to luck.

I'm convinced you're being obtuse on purpose now. How does bringing more options onto the table stop you from rigging the system? Surely having the points to counter all your armies weak points (by design no less) is rigging the system more?

Having factions and playstyles that can be beaten with hard counters creates a dynamic and rolling meta. Guy turns up with flyers, wipes people out, people bring out AA units, someone else then rolls out a horde army they aren't prepared for and so on. It's how the game played for many editions.

Events/Tournaments at 1999/2000 with Lord of Wars is common in my area

90% of my "pick up" games at the FLGS is 1500-1750. I still prefer 1500 as the best point level to play 40k with as long as you dont add LOW in

Having factions and playstyles that can be beaten with hard counters creates a dynamic and rolling meta. Guy turns up with flyers, wipes people out, people bring out AA units, someone else then rolls out a horde army they aren't prepared for and so on. It's how the game played for many editions.

That leads to a meta-game where people only ever have 0-10% games or 90-100% games, and the only joy is found in cranking out enough games to get a fair shake of both sides of the coin toss. That sounds absolutely miserable.

Near my FLGS there's a trend toward more 1250-1500. Which is actually fairly comfortable as I'm seeing more fully painted armies and the focus on a core force and single 'trick' or two actually gives most armies a theme. Shorter game times and a lower threshold for new players is also nice, though as some have mentioned you have the chance of just running into a skew list without the tools to properly deal with it.

Now 2k is just fine as well, it doesn't feel like adding points increases the overall balance of the game and someone approaching me asking for a smaller game not due to time or model constraints but trying to rig the game in their favor has happened about as much as someone trying to play a bigger game for advantage... maybe the meta's not competitive enough over here.

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

Tighter points means you get your CP farm and your rule of 3 pick and you're out of points. Most armies don't have choices until their last 500 points between mandatory characters and their one great unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

Having factions and playstyles that can be beaten with hard counters creates a dynamic and rolling meta. Guy turns up with flyers, wipes people out, people bring out AA units, someone else then rolls out a horde army they aren't prepared for and so on. It's how the game played for many editions.

That leads to a meta-game where people only ever have 0-10% games or 90-100% games, and the only joy is found in cranking out enough games to get a fair shake of both sides of the coin toss. That sounds absolutely miserable.

Yeah, that guy was completely wrong. Hard counters actually suck. Even RTS games with flyers don't let the flyers run totally roughshod over ground armies because that would be stupid. Soft counters are where strategy can come in. 'I have X and you have Y so I win' isn't something that should be in any game but rock paper scissors.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Then I wonder why the ITC crowd is so dead set on 2k being "the" tournament standard. It sure seems like they have some desire to push that as being the accepted norm for games.

Because it's the largest point level that can reasonably be expected to complete a game in 2 hours and 45 minutes. That's all it is. The people who play ITC like using their toys, this lets them. It's not any more complex or malicious than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

The GW GT can determine the standard when it's not a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event.

Besides that, it's not just ITC. Nova, Adepticon, ATC, and every other big event in the country do 2k. And while ITC may be the be all end all where you're from, these other events are more important to my area. If Adepticon went to 1750, most of the midwest would too.

Well, most tournament players would ask to go back to 2k, but if adepticon was firm it would 1750.

ERJAK wrote:

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

Tighter points means you get your CP farm and your rule of 3 pick and you're out of points. Most armies don't have choices until their last 500 points between mandatory characters and their one great unit.

Or it forces you to diversify your lists more and not rely on CP farms. If you need 1500 points to build a net list then my suggestion is stop playing net lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

Having factions and playstyles that can be beaten with hard counters creates a dynamic and rolling meta. Guy turns up with flyers, wipes people out, people bring out AA units, someone else then rolls out a horde army they aren't prepared for and so on. It's how the game played for many editions.

That leads to a meta-game where people only ever have 0-10% games or 90-100% games, and the only joy is found in cranking out enough games to get a fair shake of both sides of the coin toss. That sounds absolutely miserable.

Yeah, that guy was completely wrong. Hard counters actually suck. Even RTS games with flyers don't let the flyers run totally roughshod over ground armies because that would be stupid. Soft counters are where strategy can come in. 'I have X and you have Y so I win' isn't something that should be in any game but rock paper scissors.

I agree. Which is why you need to take that smaller amount of points and make more difficult choices to build a TAC list that has an answer to what might be coming at you. If you make a one trick pony and get hard countered then it's your fault for throwing all your eggs in one basket. Don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Then I wonder why the ITC crowd is so dead set on 2k being "the" tournament standard. It sure seems like they have some desire to push that as being the accepted norm for games.

Because it's the largest point level that can reasonably be expected to complete a game in 2 hours and 45 minutes. That's all it is. The people who play ITC like using their toys, this lets them. It's not any more complex or malicious than that.

I agree. It's just people wanting to use all their stuff.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I'd greatly prefer 1750. But here in the USA, it's what ITC dictates, not what GW dictates (as crazy as that is) and the ITC people want to keep it 2k. Every time there's a poll or something asking, 2k always wins, so everyone keeps it at 2k to not rock the boat. Despite the official GW GT being 1750, which should be *the* standard.

The GW GT can determine the standard when it's not a pathetic joke of fluff bunny event.

Besides that, it's not just ITC. Nova, Adepticon, ATC, and every other big event in the country do 2k. And while ITC may be the be all end all where you're from, these other events are more important to my area. If Adepticon went to 1750, most of the midwest would too.

Well, most tournament players would ask to go back to 2k, but if adepticon was firm it would 1750.

I get that the tournys set a standard for the players that go to tourneys but the tourney players are a minority of players. It doesn't actually matter to most of us what you guys do.

Personally I'd say I like 1500-1750pts for events. It's easier to finish your games on time. You can't take every single unit you want so you have to build a strategy with more limited resources.

Additionally if you just give infinite points to everyone it just becomes a case of beating your opponent over the head with your codex. Something that used to happen quite a bit in previous editions where the codex power levels could vary extremely far. Though soup does make the larger points more enticing as it lets you have multiple small armies with all the best units. Something not every faction can claim to do.

Perhaps smaller points are more balanced, giving mono codexes a bit more competitiveness?

I've played in many 1000-1250 games, and I have no idea what people are talking about when they mention all these "hard choices". If you're not IG (who have no such hard choices to make anyway) then the lists always build themselves - you cobble together a battalion for CP and Objec. Sec., you max out on that "that one unit" (every codex has it), and then maybe you get to pick which flavour of autopilot you're running. The only difficulty is wanting to play such stale lists.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I've played in many 1000-1250 games, and I have no idea what people are talking about when they mention all these "hard choices". If you're not IG (who have no such hard choices to make anyway) then the lists always build themselves - you cobble together a battalion for CP and Objec. Sec., you max out on that "that one unit" (every codex has it), and then maybe you get to pick which flavour of autopilot you're running. The only difficulty is wanting to play such stale lists.

My 2 current armies are Tau and Nids. I have enough points to build about 3 different Tau lists in the 1500 point range depending on sept and unit mix I feel like.

I own somewhere between 6-8k of Nids. I can build pretty much whatever kind of list I feel like. There is no "that one unit" I would ever bring with nids. Any "that one unit" will get decimated and take a 3rd of my points with it by turn 2.

Further, at 2k points Jormungandr I can bring multiple 6 model units of nid warriors with venom canons and deathspitters. Deepstruck with Ravenors with deathspitters, and a prime equipped in his best. Backed by 2 units of 3 hiveguard, supported by several neurothropes, an exocrine, and some swarms just to fill in my deployment zone and ensure that 1 I can put "half my army in reserves" and 2 my deployment zone is entirely encased with no room for anyone to deepstrike on me.

At 1250 I have to start shedding warriors which means I loose a 2 venom canons. The ravs have to get smaller and maybe they don't get their death spitters. I can't bring as many swarms so by backfield isn't an impenetrable box. I have to choose between hiveguard who don't need LOS or the shoots twice and generally pretty great (but also a target) that is my exocrine.

Those are the hard choices. I don't get all my bells and whistles. I can't deck out every model with the perfect equipment. And my unit sizes need to be less than what I would hope for.

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

Fewer options means you must put more thought into your choices (at list building) as you have to cover the same array of possible enemy units without the ability to bring as much to bear. You're both right, sort of. I think the extra flexibility of your force at 2k reduces the skill level more than the extra flexibility of your opponents increases it as compared to 1750. I don't think this is true as compared to, say 750. I think 2k is more skill testing than 750 (which is more heavily luck dependant) and 1750 is more skill testing than both.

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

 Lance845 wrote:

dkoz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha dkoz. You so cray cray.

More room for more options means more room for mistakes, redundancies, and indiidual decisions have less overall impact. There is no reasonable discusion with someone who is making baseless acusations, so at the very least you and i are done here.

I'm sorry but your clearly being stubborn so as not to have to admit your error. More options means you must put more thought into your actions because your opponent has the possibility of countering with something unforeseen.

1) There is no countering. 40k is 2 players sitting across the table from each other taking turns swinging a club that is their army.

2) If your opponent has something unforeseen either A) you failed to read his list or B) he cheated and didn't put things on his list or C) you're an idiot. 40k is dirt simple. Shoot the best guns at killing your priority target at your priority target. It's a simple math equation determining what is most likely to cause the most damage at each swing of your club.

What game are you playing?

Do you play with no terrain or movement? There's a lot more to 40k than that. Also by unforseen I assume he meant prior to you seeing the list...

My 2 current armies are Tau and Nids.

And THERE'S the issue - ofc you're gonna think 1250pt games are swell and dandy when your Battalions can cost less than some people's Troop choices, and "hard choices" consist of picking which unit gets the special weapon.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:

My 2 current armies are Tau and Nids.

And THERE'S the issue - ofc you're gonna think 1250pt games are swell and dandy when your Battalions can cost less than some people's Troop choices, and "hard choices" consist of picking which unit gets the special weapon.

1250 is too low, but 2k is too high in my opinion. 1750 is nice.