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.

This post isn't about tournament/heavy competitive play.

So! Sub 500 points, who's played it?

I have, a few times now....actually, all my 9th ed games have been sub 25PL, so....huh...

Anyway!

The corebook suggest that games with a total PL of under 16(8 each) use Kill Team. At 1PL = 20 points, we'd be looking at Combat Patrol games between 8-25PL, or, 160-500 points.

Let's assume the Annihilation mission from the Open Play Hostility Mission Pack in the corebook.
Legends Allowed.
Non Battleforged armies allowed, but you then get no CP, and may not get many faction bonuses (although most armies keep something).
Add in Theaters of War? (Personally, I *love* them, as they help add spice and flavour to these small, quick games.)

I thought this could make for a really good discussion topic.

How's your experience with them? From the sound of it, you're having great fun. It'd be interesting to hear what aspects of small 40k work for you.

Personally I'd be open to play them with gusto if someone suggested it, but wouldn't often bring it up on my own as the game system feels more at home in the 1000-1500 points range. 40k is a pretty statistical game where player decisions are not emphasised very much, which I'd like to have when the number of game elements decreases. Skirmish games like Kill Team tend to fit that bill better for me.

They were ok when we played combat patrol, we found that some units tended to make it too swingy, i.e. if you lose unit A then my Unit X can't be stopped etc. so a little player discourse was needed

I found that for 8-10PL games, dropping to a 22"x30" board, with a solid mix and amount of terrain made that games super fun.

We normally just would run "can my Kroot breech the Necron tomb?" (a castle my spouse got me that's like 20"x20")

I'm trying to re math the deployment and objectives dropping from 30"x44" to 22"x30" for that specific mission (the Annihilation mission). Worst case, I say feth it, and we play on 30x44. If they're loaded up, it makes a nice sized battlefield.

I’ve been playing a lot of 25PL crusade at the FLGS.

With marines I was feeling the lack of boots if I wanted to field any special units. While a lot of units are 5PL, there are fewer that are 4 or less that would fit into a small game. So if I wanted to use my TDA captain, it made getting the rest of the list together rough. Larger lists can make good use of the cheeper support characters, but at this level I just needed more battle brothers. I felt that my lists headed by my chaplain did better. Just 5x5pl squads.

With nids I felt that putting a list together was a lot easier. I felt more restricted by trying to keep theme (and what I had painted in my collection) then points

Meh. It's one of those things that's better in theory than in practice. I appreciate GW at least attempting to make smaller games a thing but the execution is bad. Where are the list building restrictions that "small 40k" traditionally had? Maximum AV on tanks, no 2+ saves, etc. This was a solved problem, but now we're back to 500 points being unplayable unless you carefully negotiate what is allowed. Otherwise it's just a rock/paper/scissors game where you take a skew list (double tank commanders, 100 bodies, etc), hope your opponent didn't bring the counter, and win the game on turn 1.

 Blndmage wrote:
I found that for 8-10PL games, dropping to a 22"x30" board, with a solid mix and amount of terrain made that games super fun.

But why? 500 point games already have a problem with making range and maneuvering irrelevant, and going down to 22"x30" makes that even worse. Every unit starts in range, turn 1 charges are too easy, etc.

Non Battleforged armies allowed, but you then get no CP, and may not get many faction bonuses (although most armies keep something).

I would definitely not do this. The one balancing factor keeping 500 point games from being completely degenerate is the need to take your prerequisite HQ + troops instead of dumping all of your points into your death star.

I don't mind playing smaller games of such sizes on occasion. Like if I'm building to match what a new player can muster. Or in the initial weeks of a Crusade.
But in general I'd prefer larger games.

I prefer smaller games and enjoyed 500 pt games of 9th without CP and stratagems etc. with some additional constraints re unit selection.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Meh. It's one of those things that's better in theory than in practice. I appreciate GW at least attempting to make smaller games a thing but the execution is bad. Where are the list building restrictions that "small 40k" traditionally had? Maximum AV on tanks, no 2+ saves, etc. This was a solved problem, but now we're back to 500 points being unplayable unless you carefully negotiate what is allowed. Otherwise it's just a rock/paper/scissors game where you take a skew list (double tank commanders, 100 bodies, etc), hope your opponent didn't bring the counter, and win the game on turn 1.

 Blndmage wrote:
I found that for 8-10PL games, dropping to a 22"x30" board, with a solid mix and amount of terrain made that games super fun.

But why? 500 point games already have a problem with making range and maneuvering irrelevant, and going down to 22"x30" makes that even worse. Every unit starts in range, turn 1 charges are too easy, etc.

Non Battleforged armies allowed, but you then get no CP, and may not get many faction bonuses (although most armies keep something).

I would definitely not do this. The one balancing factor keeping 500 point games from being completely degenerate is the need to take your prerequisite HQ + troops instead of dumping all of your points into your death star.

"But why?"
Purely a pain issue, as I'm very disabled and that size let me sit on our couch, or even in bed on days I can't move, and still play. Solo games, or vs roommates. Also, this is for 160-200 point games.

"I would definitely not do this."
Giving up CP and strats apparently makes awesome units suck according to the boards. So it seems like a fair trade to take anything, but, honestly, I wanted to be able to make forces that made sense, and at this small, the detachments can hinder armies, so it's an attempt at parity. Like, max 10PL, is the trade off worth it?

 Blndmage wrote:
Also, this is for 160-200 point games.

If that's the case then shrug, it probably doesn't matter. You're so far away from a normal game of 40k at that point that nothing is going to apply to even a 500 point combat patrol game. And if you're playing at such a low point total at home I'm assuming you're collaboratively picking specific forces for each side and the "oops, I brought all tanks and auto-win" factor doesn't apply.

Smaller games are ideal for going solo, and have been enjoying it for a while now. Open play and house ruling comes alive...

I find 0 point games very tiring - the set up and tear down just don't feel worth it.

I don't like the big games 40K has become, I like 1K point and smaller games, though. I've played in a few escalation games that started as low as 250 points, they were interesting but too small to play all the time.

Question though, what IS the smallest point game you can play that actually meets organizational requirements?

 Stormonu wrote:
I find 0 point games very tiring - the set up and tear down just don't feel worth it.

I don't like the big games 40K has become, I like 1K point and smaller games, though. I've played in a few escalation games that started as low as 250 points, they were interesting but too small to play all the time.

Question though, what IS the smallest point game you can play that actually meets organizational requirements?

Probably an AM Company Commander at 35pts + 5 Scions (no upgrades) for another 45pts - so 80pts for a Patrol detachment.

 Stormonu wrote:
Question though, what IS the smallest point game you can play that actually meets organizational requirements?

5 points. Auxiliary detachment, one under-strength conscript unit of a single model.

Sure, if we want to go the understrength aux route, next week we can do a single gretchin at 4pts.

 Stormonu wrote:


Question though, what IS the smallest point game you can play that actually meets organizational requirements?

For a Knight player they would need at least 3 Armigers that come in close to 500 points. So to keep everyone happy they'd just go with 500 points for combat patrols.

Otherwise they would have to ditch matched play rules to make it possible at about 150 points for a single Armiger.

I have only been playing 500 pts against newbs for 3 months now I think. Sometimes no mission, sometimes Only War, sometimes with core rules Stratagems, never with codex Stratagems. Always with Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, relics and a WL trait.

I have about 0 interest in playing against someone who knows the rules at the moment. Too many broken codexes makes vict a dull boy. I plan on getting back into 2000 pts in July when the points update, maybe try going competitive for the first time in 9th.

 Stormonu wrote:
I find 0 point games very tiring - the set up and tear down just don't feel worth it.

I think Necrons win every 0 point game since they control all 4 table quarters and score 15 pts that way. I guess it's a decent way to show off the terrain you've been working on /sarcasm.

500 points/25 PL games have become quite common in our group, as they are quick games which allow you to get your dose of 40k when you don't have time for more.

Playing that level exclusively gets old quick though, as many armies only have one or two non-skew builds at that level and you end up playing the same game over and over again.

 Jidmah wrote:
500 points/25 PL games have become quite common in our group, as they are quick games which allow you to get your dose of 40k when you don't have time for more.

Playing that level exclusively gets old quick though, as many armies only have one or two non-skew builds at that level and you end up playing the same game over and over again.

Warboss, a unit of boyz and 1-2 units to flavor?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
500 points/25 PL games have become quite common in our group, as they are quick games which allow you to get your dose of 40k when you don't have time for more.

Playing that level exclusively gets old quick though, as many armies only have one or two non-skew builds at that level and you end up playing the same game over and over again.

Warboss, a unit of boyz and 1-2 units to flavor?

That's how every army at that level looks.

For orks you actually have a lot more options than most:
- wartrike, trukk boyz, two buggies of your choice
- foot warboss/beastboss, wurr boy, 2x 10 beast snaggas, 2x 3 squig riders, mek gun
- MA warboss, gretchin, deff dread, 3 KANz, 2 mek guns
etc, etc

 Jidmah wrote:
That's how every army at that level looks.

Almost every army. It's the ones that don't look like those lists that are the problem for balance. It's guard taking dual tank commanders or dual manticores, Tau crisis suit spam, any knight list, etc, where the troops and HQ are part of the death star and not a tax. That's where you get games that are decided on turn 1.

From the OP it's rather clear that we aren't trying to break the format.

 Jidmah wrote:
From the OP it's rather clear that we aren't trying to break the format.

Thank you for catching that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamusDrake wrote:
Smaller games are ideal for going solo, and have been enjoying it for a while now. Open play and house ruling comes alive...

Ya, 10PL games on a 22x30 board with a bunch of area terrain and such. Super fun for solo play. I'm trying to find CA18 for the open play advancement stuff. Don't wanna do Crusade, and thought it could really be fun. Finding CA18 is way harder than I thought.

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm trying to find CA18 for the open play advancement stuff. Don't wanna do Crusade, and thought it could really be fun. Finding CA18 is way harder than I thought.

Battle Honours? Have you looked on Ebay and Facebook groups for selling/trading/playing 40k?

I have that book somewhere, I can probably create a transcript of the relevant page(s).

Being stuck in bed from nerve damage and blood cancer means I've had to get creative with my 40k.

I found Kill Team (either version, but I prefered the old one as it was more synced to 40k) to be too fiddly.

This weird space of 8-12PL (per side) on the KT size board with easy to manage terrain (forests, water, bottomless voids, hills, geysers/vents with tall plumes of smoke (cotton pillars) for obscuring), no ruins. none.

Its simple and straightforward, I use Theaters of War frequently.

Or things like "can a small Kroot patrol take out a Monolith?" (Equal PL)
Kroot win: Necrons drop more, but the Kroot are prepared (Kroot have 1.5xPL)
Necrons win: begin the invasion, Necrons at 1.5xPL,
...
And so on..

Sometimes I go "ok my Kroot are Deamons, proxy time, Necrons vs Deamons"
And so I set up the board as the interior of a Tombwold and start at 8PL, see where the story takes us.

I proxy constantly. I lack the ability to build and paint. I've lost the motor control.

Micro 40k can be amazing as solo play to build a story of the various factions.

40k is the Apocalypse of Kill Team.

The micro 40k scale is like when you play Apocalypse at 100PL/side. Smoother, similar, but just a bit less granular.