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.

Edit: random duplicate post

Karol wrote:

 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.

Your reasoning doesn't even make sense

The way I see it is that you're not actually playing 9th unless you at least occasionally play at all four sizes; GW put time, effort and development into making missions for all 4 sizes; I think if you fully want to understand their design choices, you need to at least explore everything they offer. The rules quirk that you think sucks at 1500 might be the best part of the game at 3k, but you'll never know if you don't at least try a 3k game or two.

Of course everyone's going to have a comfort zone and a preference, and that's cool.

Personally, I've got 4 armies- that I hope to grow from Kill Team to Apocalypse size using Crusade, so I'm in for the full scope of the game.

(SoB, GSC, DE, Slaanesh Chaos Soup)

I think I'm going to stick to even smaller games than 2k most of the time. 1000-1500 and try to get multiple games against multiple opponents in every night. less units=more important decisions

By that logic you also wouldn't be playing 40k properly unless you play every single unit in the game from time to time

Feth no, screw that. Like I need 6 hours games. the new 2k on a 60x44 seems fine.

Probably gonna stick with 1750 points.

Honestly, while a 9th Ed. 1750 army is slightly smaller than a 1750 army played 4 weeks ago, it's still larger (!) than a 1750 army played at the start of 8th Edition 3 years back.

PenitentJake wrote:
The way I see it is that you're not actually playing 9th unless you at least occasionally play at all four sizes; GW put time, effort and development into making missions for all 4 sizes; I think if you fully want to understand their design choices, you need to at least explore everything they offer. The rules quirk that you think sucks at 1500 might be the best part of the game at 3k, but you'll never know if you don't at least try a 3k game or two.

Of course everyone's going to have a comfort zone and a preference, and that's cool.

Personally, I've got 4 armies- that I hope to grow from Kill Team to Apocalypse size using Crusade, so I'm in for the full scope of the game.

(SoB, GSC, DE, Slaanesh Chaos Soup)

I will never play a 3k game. I don't need to blow an entire day on one game. Small games are boring, you spend two turn pew-pewing at each other and then everything's dead. I personally consider all the time they put into the other 3 point sizes a massive waste they could have put into fixing their repointing, however I know that's not the majority opinion.

If you want to play different size games then more power to ya, but it's not 'real' 9th anymore than it is 'real' 4th.

I'll continue playing whatever sizes. 1000, 1500, 2000, 2371 because that's what another player had finally painted, why not.

Mostly I prefer the 1000-1500 range with occasional bigger game in the mix, as long as the terrain and scenario setups are interesting and company good. There are other systems like Epic or Apocalypse to scratch the itch for bigger forces, 40k just falls apart if taken outside its comfort zone at platoon level operations.

No, bring the standard back down to 1750.

Sadly 1750 isn't supported for the Eternal War missions.

Definitely not going up. Will happily consider going down.

For a lot of the reasons already said- more interesting decisions, less bloat, time*, etc

*when I get back to game nights, I'd really love to be able to consistently get 2 games in. Maybe even 3!


I also don't think larger games will even work. The switch to 5 turns does some weird things, and it gets weirder the bigger you get.

I'll stick with 2000 for competitive games since that's what tournaments will be.

I expect to play a bunch of 25PL narrative as well.

I've always preferred smaller games, which prevents either player from bringing every trick in their book and so breeds more interesting and tactical games. At 2k I brought 3 killtanks full of orks, and steamrolled the opponent. at 1250, taking one killtank would be something of a gamble, 2 is impossible.

I prefer smaller games - more room to move, outrange, otmaneuver. you know, taktiks.

Voss wrote:
I also don't think larger games will even work. The switch to 5 turns does some weird things, and it gets weirder the bigger you get.

What sort of quirks have you observed?

Might do. Been using Tabletop Simulator to play 25PL combat patrols on the new sized map. Out of five matches, the game has been over by turn 3 on 4 of them. New smaller maps are brutal!

I'll reserve judgment until I play a few games using my current 2k list w 9th rules.

but I could see ~1500pts on a 6x4 and 2k up on 8x4.

We will not be using the new arbitrary board size.

I will be using 2000 points still, I prefer smaller games were you have to make choices in list building and can´t just take it all. Some of my friends wanted to move to 3000 though, so I expect locally there will be a mix of both sizes being played once 9th drops officially.

Our group was considering it prior to actually playing 9th. It's not faster than 8th, and (depending on the armies present and how some of the morale phases go) generally takes about an equal amount of time so far, so playing bigger games isn't really desirable for us. That was over the weekend.

Having seen the new points, going UP in point levels just to get back that one or two squads isn't something we're really going to care about. We also found that 9th feels kind of odd at the bigger sizes, so we'll probably actually go smaller.

When checking across my gaming group who play all sorts of armies, most of their previous lists fall into the 2000 points naturally when you drop the extra troops and HQs you were bringing to generate CP in 8th. Some have to cut a HS or FA slot here and there.

This is more about people being unwilling to adapt to change than about anything else.

 Jidmah wrote:


Your reasoning doesn't even make sense

People bought an 8th 2000pts list want to us the army they bought. If the 8th ed 2000pts lists cost around 2200pts for multiple factions, more then a few people decided they want to play 2200 or 2250pts.

Plus people don't like the fact that some people maybe able to play the game with a smaller point investment.

Sorry, Karol, but I'll call BS on that.

The whole new edition itself, like every edition before it, will force you to build your army in a different way than you did until now. That alone will force you to change up your 2000 point army you magically managed to pilot during the last three years despite CA and big FAQs shaking up the game and changing point costs.

Many 9th edition people need to be shelf certain units and change a good part of their armies if they want any hope of winning. You need a lot less troops, you have less HQ, FA and HS slots, less detachments and soup is severely limited. If anything, reducing points will make building a proper 9th edition army easier.

If you refuse to change your army to go with the new edition, you will do nothing but lose. You and the worthless pile of Grey Knights you were conned into buying are proof of that.

probably wont help that since hes a student without cash to change it he'll be in an even worse position.

I'll need to change my list just due to differing structure of 9th, but have neccessary variety of models to do so.

this move will hit players like Karol hard and even harder if they have the meta he does.

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.

Looks like your group is a bunch of

Nope I liked it when you played 1500 on an 8x4 table. Give me room to manoeuvre!

Racerguy180 wrote:
probably wont help that since hes a student without cash to change it he'll be in an even worse position.

I'll need to change my list just due to differing structure of 9th, but have neccessary variety of models to do so.

this move will hit players like Karol hard and even harder if they have the meta he does.

What move? He literally argued that he wants to field more models than necessary.

I can sort of understand Karol's argument, he (and others perhaps) spend what little money they had to get the army they wanted to play and now they are told that tough luck champ you can't bring them all anymore. For these players it makes sense to play 2250ish games come 9th.
Me personally, I prefer not being able to fit my limited collection into one list, because it means I can move things around and play with a different army from time to time without actually changing codex/army. I would love to have 10,000 points in a single army like one of my friends and being able to field whatever combination I want to try out that day.

I don't understand the one army to fit them all argument at all. There are more than one size of games that can be played and for those unable to afford more than a certain amount of models, playing with a bit less is only a good thing because now they too have choices available. You can shuffle your list around from time to time unlike before, when what you had was all you had.

Think I'll go to 1000 actually. I don't need 10 super heavies in every game.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I don't understand the one army to fit them all argument at all. There are more than one size of games that can be played and for those unable to afford more than a certain amount of models, playing with a bit less is only a good thing because now they too have choices available. You can shuffle your list around from time to time unlike before, when what you had was all you had.

Eh? Playing at a different points level has been an option since the Rogue Trader army lists. Not sure what the 'unlike before' is in reference to.

Voss wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I don't understand the one army to fit them all argument at all. There are more than one size of games that can be played and for those unable to afford more than a certain amount of models, playing with a bit less is only a good thing because now they too have choices available. You can shuffle your list around from time to time unlike before, when what you had was all you had.

Eh? Playing at a different points level has been an option since the Rogue Trader army lists. Not sure what the 'unlike before' is in reference to.

Regarding Karol's statement above, where the Polish folks apparently are stuck with one list that must never change.