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.

As the points increased for everybody to make games "faster" (meaning: smaller) my gaming group decided to increase our games to 2500p.
We simply didn't want to have smaller games as the scale of the battles greatly helps with immersion, different tactics and just using the models you spend so much time painting.

With 2.500p we will also not be scaling down the boards as it would become too cluttered.
We will be using more than average terrain though to help assault armies. Lots of large LOS blocking buildings.

How are you reacting to the points changes and the smaller scale gw is trying to make?

I might give it a try, but more than likely I will be playing less. Probably about 1750.

If anything I will go down in points. 2000 already felt cumbersome at times.

I enjoy smaller games (1750 and below) more.

We'll stay the same for now. For larger games there's Apocalypse.

Well, I'll try to stay at the 2000 pt level.
Depends a bit on the army and unit selection if your current 2000 pt army goes up in pts that much.

a_typical_hero wrote:
If anything I will go down in points. 2000 already felt cumbersome at times.

I enjoy smaller games (1750 and below) more.

A lot of my latter games in 8th ended up being at 1500 and they were a lot of fun, quick too!

Nope. I already favoured 1750 pt games so 9th changes are fine with me.

Lower points costs force you to make choices, rather than bringing all your toys. I like that added layer of tactics.

I wasn't a fan of the scale creep and I preferred the time when a Land Raider, Leman Russ or even a Dreadnaught was the centrepiece of the army. So I think I will keep playing in the 1 - 2k ballpark.

Not to say I don't enjoy the occasional epic battle, but there's a time and a place (a whole weekend at a friend's house with some beers and pizza).

Nope from me too. I generally played 1'250 to 1'500, so no interest in 2'500. Even with the spanking my Drukhari got, at that points total you aren't making any interesting decisions about what to field, and the games go loooong.

EDIT: Somehow double posted, admin please delete.

Gonna stick to 2000 pts in 9th, which is pretty much the equivalent of 1750 pts in 8th.

2000 pts in 8th was too much.
When I could fit in everything I wanted in a list and still go "huh, I still have 400 points left...what to do, what to do", I knew something was wrong.

Playes 1.250 to 1.500 in 8th... going to stick with 1.000 to 1.500 in 9th... since i guess points are going down again on the following CAs 2021 and so on...


I still ask my self, why GW didn't just multiply points by round about 20. They would have more room for fine adjustments and well, we could play at about 40.000 points.

1000 for evenings and 2000 for weekends.

Games last long enough as they are, inflating the size because people want to bring all their toys rarely makes for good games. The only reason for me to play 3k is 2vs1 games.

@OP: Why 2500? GW now officially supports 3000 with missions and rules, why not use that?

 Jidmah wrote:
1000 for evenings and 2000 for weekends.

Games last long enough as they are, inflating the size because people want to bring all their toys rarely makes for good games. The only reason for me to play 3k is 2vs1 games.

@OP: Why 2500? GW now officially supports 3000 with missions and rules, why not use that?

Because 2200-2300 is going to be close in model count to 8th ed 2000pts list?

A lot of people around here are going to play 2200pts, but ther are also people who want to try the 9th 2000pts which is probably around 1750-1800 in 8th points.

Not many people are willing to have bought an army and now arbitraly not able to use the models for it.

I like the idea of playing less units. 40K is a skirmish game to me, it's not fit to play an actual battle.

I think 40k works better at smaller points, 1000 -1250 before ninth edition points changes.
For bigger games we never bothered too much with points anyway as the games never got finished and weren't played that competitively.

I was already trying to permanently switch to 1500 points games in 8th, now with the new points costs the aim is to settle at 1750. 2500 points games require huge tables, hence zero interest in a format like that except maybe a single special event.

I'm hoping people stick with 2k here. I already had to buy, paint, lug, and shovel off the table more models than anyone else, so I'm honestly kind of looking forward to the change of going back to 5th ed style "only put infantry on the table for a second after their transport is destroyed" for a little bit.

Really it depends alot on your army, what I will say is trying to play 2.5k the minimum table is pretty big. And I dont want to try playing in on the new smaller 2k table size.

I'll be stickijg to 2k on the minimum size table for now as the table size does seem to have quite the effect on the way the game plays.

No more artillery hiding on corners uninteractive for the entire game.

I'm just going to ignore the new nonsensical points.

If GW wants to repoint things they can do in it in a proper Codex.

Was playing 1000-1250 points for 8E, if I try 9E probably won't be increasing that.

I always found that 1500 was the tipping point where unit spam just started to ruin the game. You had everything you needed, everything else was just spam the best of your units. With games lower than that, you couldn't have all the tools at your disposal, which made the game more interesting, IMHO.

I'm going to play 3k games off the bat, more for the CPs than the points themselves (even though with few monsters and vehicles 3K are easily reached)

Oh hell no. No no nononono. Bigger does not mean better. Bigger means more time consuming and mentally exhausting. People want big games, good for them. Not me. I'll take doing 2 or even 3 smaller games in the time it takes to do 1 larger game.
No thank you, I'll be sticking with 1-1.5k games at most.

Given they made the table smaller 9th 2k is about right. Usually, this would be the equivalent of 1750-1850 8th points. I figure play the game as designed first before I start worrying about modifying.

Quote from Karol (I messed up the formation and I am on my phone):
"Not many people are willing to have bought an army and now arbitraly not able to use the models for it. "




Which is something I can't really comprehend. What's the point in always playing ALL your available models? With lower point size, I can try out different lists and choices matter more, instead of just throwing my whole collection on the table everytime I play.

Heck no, honestly 18+ CP is to much IMO for normal games. And that is like 2250 for old rules, so it'll take longer.

1500-1750 for me but only if my necron collection aren't continuing to be the jobbers of the 40k universe. If they continue to be garbage in a powerlisting environment I will continue not playing.

We were playing at 1000 and looking at maybe switching up to 1500 since some of the bigger toys are hard to work into a 1000 point list. 9th might be the excuse we need to make that jump since it's only 1300ish 8th ed points.

Aeri wrote:
As the points increased for everybody to make games "faster" (meaning: smaller) my gaming group decided to increase our games to 2500p.
We simply didn't want to have smaller games as the scale of the battles greatly helps with immersion, different tactics and just using the models you spend so much time painting.

With 2.500p we will also not be scaling down the boards as it would become too cluttered.
We will be using more than average terrain though to help assault armies. Lots of large LOS blocking buildings.

How are you reacting to the points changes and the smaller scale gw is trying to make?

I'm confused here, you don't want to use fewer models or a smaller board because it's too cluttered. But you're putting more terrain onto the board and more models than a 2k 8th ed army would have making it.... just as cluttered?

Aeri wrote:
As the points increased for everybody to make games "faster" (meaning: smaller) my gaming group decided to increase our games to 2500p.
We simply didn't want to have smaller games as the scale of the battles greatly helps with immersion, different tactics and just using the models you spend so much time painting.

With 2.500p we will also not be scaling down the boards as it would become too cluttered.
We will be using more than average terrain though to help assault armies. Lots of large LOS blocking buildings.

How are you reacting to the points changes and the smaller scale gw is trying to make?

No, I will not be increasing the size of games played.

I've been trying to get my playgroup to reduce the size of games for the general health, play-ability, and strategic & tactical depth of games.

2000 points is simply too many models in a 6'x4' board area, and has the issue of never having to make compromises in your list. Reducing the game size opens up space for tactical maneuver and lends increasing relevance to where you are committed strategically.


The size creep of standard games is one of the worst things that has been generally happening in 40k, IMO, and needs to be reversed. I'd advocate cutting size down to 1500 points.