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.

First off, I plan on continuing to use 2000pts as our standard limit.
2k in 8th was starting to feel bloated and with the points increases and different way to build your army (specifically needing less "tax units" to fill out detachments) 2k in 9th feels right.

But with 2001-3000pts games getting 18cps, do you think any groups might start playing "2001" pts limit games?
Kinda like the opposite of 5th or 6th (can't remember at this point all prior edition blue together) in which tourneys were doing 1999+1pt games because at 2000pts you could take 2 detachments, so making it 1999+1pt, you force everything into 1 FoC.

With so much more requiring CPs, like Overwatch and putting units into Reserve, it actually nets most Armies LESS CPs than they would have had in 8th.
So to offset that, do you think 2001pt limits will become a thing?

-

I really really hope not.

I'm sure some people will want to.

But trying to weasel out of restrictions that tighten up the game doesn't appeal to me.

I hope not because it also changes the table size which undoes most what what 9th is trying to accomplish.

Technically the edition doesn't even come out until Saturday. Let's play a bit with the rules before we worry about house ruling everything.

There's a thread about this in the tournament discussion board. Concensus is that it's a bad idea.

Don't battles need to be 3000 points before you get 18 CPs though?

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Don't battles need to be 3000 points before you get 18 CPs though?

No. The levels are for 1 point higher than the previous to the number given.

And the only reason people want to play at 2000+1 is because they want 18cp's and that's about it really.

Just play with more cp if you and your opponent want more cp.

Personally though I'm looking forward to games where everyone's CP is capped at a more reasonable level. Games are more interesting when you have to make meaningful decisions about things like this imo.

imo 40k needs less CP / Stratagem-shenanigans, not more.
9th is a step in the right direction, and it's a clear indication that GW is of the same mindset.

*In before all Codex-Stratagems becomes one use only in 10th Ed.*

I doubt tournaments will go 2001, but if you and your opponent both want more CP there's nothing that prevents you.

 MinscS2 wrote:
imo 40k needs less CP / Stratagem-shenanigans, not more.
9th is a step in the right direction, and it's a clear indication that GW is of the same mindset.

*In before all Codex-Stratagems becomes one use only in 10th Ed.*

I doubt tournaments will go 2001, but if you and your opponent both want more CP there's nothing that prevents you.

I'm actually a bit disappointed that 9th didn't require players to select a deck or hand of stratagems. It would somewhat cut the power disparity between factions that have 40+ and the factions that only have around 20.
Pick 10, and that's what you can use for the game.

2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

If anything I think the new standard should be 1500 or 1750. In fact assuming the Strike Force is the standard we get the same amount of CPs, max number of detachments allowed and min table size if playing 1001 points games and honestly I don't see why the standard should be set at the upper limit. Shouldn't it be something in the middle?

18 CP is ridiculous for 2000 in my mind. Having played games in 9th I find 12 CP strikes a balance that allows you to do pre-game upgrades as well as a combo or two in the game. Anymore and you start to see super combos every single turn and the game becomes "Ultimate Stratagem 40k", and if you are one of the few armies that has a plethora of powerful stratagem they are going to be able to dish out some serious power compared to other less endowed armies.

People need to remember that a 2000 point game is technically 17 CP as you get a CP per turn.

 Galef wrote:
First off, I plan on continuing to use 2000pts as our standard limit.
2k in 8th was starting to feel bloated and with the points increases and different way to build your army (specifically needing less "tax units" to fill out detachments) 2k in 9th feels right.

But with 2001-3000pts games getting 18cps, do you think any groups might start playing "2001" pts limit games?
Kinda like the opposite of 5th or 6th (can't remember at this point all prior edition blue together) in which tourneys were doing 1999+1pt games because at 2000pts you could take 2 detachments, so making it 1999+1pt, you force everything into 1 FoC.

With so much more requiring CPs, like Overwatch and putting units into Reserve, it actually nets most Armies LESS CPs than they would have had in 8th.
So to offset that, do you think 2001pt limits will become a thing?

-

Been trying 3k, lists feel a bit more different since you can actually have variety instead of "get the immediate best units till you finish your Points and rule of 3"

ITC will, because it's run by idiots.

 Blackie wrote:
2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

Does it really though?
I mean, I keep reading about how every things going up in points, how a 2k pt army really only = about 1850 pts or so worth of 8e stuff, how people are having to cut this or that unit from their existing lists, etc.
In addition none of our existing 4x6 or 4x8 tables have magically shrunk.

So if I just keep my existing 2k pt list as-is but recalc the pts for 9th ed.... Be it 2k pts today, or 2150 pts come Sat, my army will still be taking up the exact same footprint on that 4x6 or 4x8 table.

That is what people around here do, 2200 and 2250pts games on old 6x4 and 4x4 tables.

 buddha wrote:
I hope not because it also changes the table size which undoes most what what 9th is trying to accomplish.

Technically the edition doesn't even come out until Saturday. Let's play a bit with the rules before we worry about house ruling everything.

The old board is still just as valid as before. New board sizes is minimum. Not even recommended. Minimum. And chosen not for what's good for game or what's balanced but for £££££££££££(especially for ITC who chose that purely for PROOOOOOFIIIIIIITS!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

Does it really though?
I mean, I keep reading about how every things going up in points, how a 2k pt army really only = about 1850 pts or so worth of 8e stuff, how people are having to cut this or that unit from their existing lists, etc.
In addition none of our existing 4x6 or 4x8 tables have magically shrunk.

So if I just keep my existing 2k pt list as-is but recalc the pts for 9th ed.... Be it 2k pts today, or 2150 pts come Sat, my army will still be taking up the exact same footprint on that 4x6 or 4x8 table.

Well minimum for the 18CP level is 44"x90". While 44" isn't issue as standard size so far has been 48" the 90" minimum is bit harder to fit. So far people have been playing 6'x4' boards so while 2k minimum(44"x60") so can be played just fine the onslaught sized minimum requires going for bigger board than we have been using in 8th

If you have minimum 44x90 board fair play but I know we don't We'll be sticking to our 6'x4' boards which works with 2k but bigger than that we aren't fitting minimums.

No, just go to 2500pts then and make it worth the 2,001+ bonus. Players that want 2,001pts are players i don't want to play with.

2001 point games would leave a bad taste in my mouth, CP's can already skew the game and I think games are better when CP feel rare and those stratagems are really pivotal, as opposed to 2001+ levels of cp where is descends to "Well this unit is double shooting every turn all game, in addition to all these other strats!"

Wouldn't it have to be a 2002 point game to be fair?

what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Seems to me like there's A Certain Sort Of Player that really doesn't like the game requiring them to make any difficult decisions in terms of resources. It's the same mentality that leads to people always wanting to play massive games because they don't want to have to leave any unit options at home. A "more is more" approach, if you like.

The Eternal War missions don't allow you to have 2001 point games, so I won't be doing this.

I've not heard anyone local or future TO's advocate form 2001mor higher at this time.

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Uuuhh what you are talking about? If you agree 2001 pts game both have 2001 pts to spend. You most certainly don't have half that!

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Uuuhh what you are talking about? If you agree 2001 pts game both have 2001 pts to spend. You most certainly don't have half that!

Hmm... looking back at the article, it only said total PL, not total points.

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
what on earth that extra point does? Going from 2000 to 2001 increases your CP and board minimum. Going from 2001 to 2002 gives you extra point to spend. Woo!

It allows each player to have 1001 points, as opposed to 1000.5

It's not a worthwhile difference, but you know...

Uuuhh what you are talking about? If you agree 2001 pts game both have 2001 pts to spend. You most certainly don't have half that!

Hmm... looking back at the article, it only said total PL, not total points.

For whatever bizarre reason GW likes to use both sides combined to describe games in Power Level, rather than the way we've done it since the 80s where the limit is per player. I guess it's to allow "underdog" games. They do it in Apocalypse too, the minimum recommended game size is 300PL, which is the total PL of all armies, not per army.

tneva82 wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I hope not because it also changes the table size which undoes most what what 9th is trying to accomplish.

Technically the edition doesn't even come out until Saturday. Let's play a bit with the rules before we worry about house ruling everything.

The old board is still just as valid as before. New board sizes is minimum. Not even recommended. Minimum. And chosen not for what's good for game or what's balanced but for £££££££££££(especially for ITC who chose that purely for PROOOOOOFIIIIIIITS!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
2001+ points game require huge table though, so they're not gonna get the standard game format thankfully.

Does it really though?
I mean, I keep reading about how every things going up in points, how a 2k pt army really only = about 1850 pts or so worth of 8e stuff, how people are having to cut this or that unit from their existing lists, etc.
In addition none of our existing 4x6 or 4x8 tables have magically shrunk.

So if I just keep my existing 2k pt list as-is but recalc the pts for 9th ed.... Be it 2k pts today, or 2150 pts come Sat, my army will still be taking up the exact same footprint on that 4x6 or 4x8 table.

Well minimum for the 18CP level is 44"x90". While 44" isn't issue as standard size so far has been 48" the 90" minimum is bit harder to fit. So far people have been playing 6'x4' boards so while 2k minimum(44"x60") so can be played just fine the onslaught sized minimum requires going for bigger board than we have been using in 8th

If you have minimum 44x90 board fair play but I know we don't We'll be sticking to our 6'x4' boards which works with 2k but bigger than that we aren't fitting minimums.

Yeah, that's what I said. No matter what GW asinine ideas on this matter concerning pts/CP/board dimensions, the tables we have access to won't change size. So this 90" minimum for 18cp? Doesn't mean anything.
Because come this Sat. when I field the exact same # of models as I did last week, trust me, no matter how many CP I have they'll still fit nicely on the same 4x6 table I fought on last week.
The only difference? Instead of saying "This is my 2k pt SW list" I'll be saying "This is my 2ksomething pt SW list."