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.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Ban units that cross a certain treshold of points. No LoW.

1 HQ
1-3 Troops
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast Attack
0-1 Heavy Support

What would the points threshold be, in your best estimation?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I was listening to the latest Preferred Enemies podcast, and they make the case for lowering the expected game size to 1,000(ish) points as a way of making the game more accessible in the face of the upcoming price hike. As someone who tends to prefer smaller games, I'd be all for such a change, but I recognize that some aspects of the game would likely need to be tweaked to accomodate such a playstyle.

Supposing 1k games became your new normal, what Nephilim/AoO style adjustments would you want to see? Would you embrace Boarding Actions style minimum unit sizes? Adjust the way CP is generated? What would secondaries look like? How would you handle armies like knights that just don't fit into small games very well?

I'd divide the points costs in half, then finagle all the CP and such as if it was a 2K Points game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Ban units that cross a certain treshold of points. No LoW.

1 HQ
1-3 Troops
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast Attack
0-1 Heavy Support

What would the points threshold be, in your best estimation?

The important thing was the FOC. No Bubble, no Command Squad stuff, only one Elite. No Non-standard armies. Everything will be cookie cutter, and only the armies I like get to use their build shenanigans. Nids and GSC are probably happy. And we can slide the points threshold to nail Aeldari and their Avatar.

a_typical_hero wrote:
1 HQ
1-3 Troops
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast Attack
0-1 Heavy Support

That's too few units for most non-Marine armies, unless you're fielding large units. Too restrictive.

Something like this would be better:

1-2 HQ
2-6 Troops
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast Attack
0-2 Heavy Support


Some of the killing-oriented secondary objectives would need to provide more VPs in smaller games. In their current form, Assassinate, Bring It Down, Thin Their Ranks and Abhor the Witch wouldn't grant enough VPs in a 1,000 pt game to ever be worth taking.

Maybe there could also be a secondary for killing Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support units? This would favor players who make Troops their bread and butter, and punish those who rely overmuch on fancy specialist units.

.

Sure, if the proposal is too strict for some armies to even fill up 1000 points, it should be adapted.

Something like you proposed or lowering the Troops to 1 and handing out a second FOC once you exhausted the first.

Single Elite characters could be handled by allowing one of them taking up no slot per 1 HQ selection.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What would the points threshold be, in your best estimation?

To be frank I'm too out of touch with the current point costs to give you a good number. I would need to inspect all armies first and see where the "problematic in my opinion" stuff lands.

Breton wrote:


The important thing was the FOC. No Bubble, no Command Squad stuff, only one Elite. No Non-standard armies. Everything will be cookie cutter, and only the armies I like get to use their build shenanigans. Nids and GSC are probably happy. And we can slide the points threshold to nail Aeldari and their Avatar.

Good to know you admit thinking personal gain over good game

Tend to agree that skews are an issue.
Sure, if people come with two balanced lists containing a range of unit types, its fine. And sure, competitively, people might enjoy hard rock-paper-scissors encounters.

But I can think of a range of armies built on a "2 HQs, 3 troops, some elite assault infantry, a transport, some bikers and a tank/monster" having nothing much to kill LoW with. Sure you can play "I'll just hide and hope to win on objectives" - but that's not very fun.

tneva82 wrote:

Breton wrote:


The important thing was the FOC. No Bubble, no Command Squad stuff, only one Elite. No Non-standard armies. Everything will be cookie cutter, and only the armies I like get to use their build shenanigans. Nids and GSC are probably happy. And we can slide the points threshold to nail Aeldari and their Avatar.

Good to know you admit thinking personal gain over good game

That was sarcasm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Tend to agree that skews are an issue.
Sure, if people come with two balanced lists containing a range of unit types, its fine. And sure, competitively, people might enjoy hard rock-paper-scissors encounters.

But I can think of a range of armies built on a "2 HQs, 3 troops, some elite assault infantry, a transport, some bikers and a tank/monster" having nothing much to kill LoW with. Sure you can play "I'll just hide and hope to win on objectives" - but that's not very fun.

Some lists/themes are just built with skew included. The problem is the TAC lists should but can't handle Skew well. 2 Aux GL's with 1 Frag or Krak each isn't really enough. I think GW is finally figuring out with the way they're handing out two profiles - either on one weapon like the Brutalis claws, or via two weapons like the Aggressors. Extend that to the Gants and Guants etc, and then skew lists start being less potent and more flavor.

 Blndmage wrote:
I love lower points games, as most are aware of, but I would make one change to the 1,000 point game specs in the book:

Effectively be 1,001 points in competitive play, for the bigger board and CP caps.

But even then, I'm not sure anything really needs to change. I offer that possibility because that's why people say they'd rather not play 1,000 or lower.

Yes, it would be a drastically different meta from 2k. Armies would straight up work differently. But the experimentation is half the fun!

Personally, I'm a huge fan of the smaller tables, like, a huge fan.

I forgot to add the board size caveat. I agree completely playing on the larger (44x60) board. 1200, while an odd sounding number, fit the bill very well.

I’d ban LOW and Flyers, and have an FOC that was
1-2 HQ
1+ Troops
And the number of Troops units must be at least 50% of your army, so for every elite/heavy/HQ/fast attack etc there’s one troop unit too.

Other than that, some points tweaking might be needed, and possibly some changes to scenarios/objectives etc.

Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

 Blndmage wrote:
Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

Because they have little or no experience playing less than 2k.

1000 points games are fine, if no-one is a d*ck about it.
We play 1000 points games all the time (when anyone is playing 40k anyway). for us, table sizes have been vague since before they were mentioned in game sizes, so that probably helps.

Flyers have trouble on the smaller table sizes, so might want to get left in to waste points on. They are probably the reason table sizes got mentioned in mission rules in the first place.
LoW can be a problem, but so can many other units and models. Let them in, and see how it goes.

Traditionally the three things you'd change for low point games are:

1) removal of units that need particularly specialist counters (i.e. aircraft)

2) removal or limitation of front-loaded units / effects (losing 500 points in your first turn means a lot more for a 1000pt army than a 2000pt one)

3) relaxation of restrictions - very low point games used to skip out on HQs, or have a 1 troop rather than 2 troop minimum so you actually have points to spend elsewhere.

A.T. wrote:
Traditionally the three things you'd change for low point games are:

1) removal of units that need particularly specialist counters (i.e. aircraft)

2) removal or limitation of front-loaded units / effects (losing 500 points in your first turn means a lot more for a 1000pt army than a 2000pt one)

3) relaxation of restrictions - very low point games used to skip out on HQs, or have a 1 troop rather than 2 troop minimum so you actually have points to spend elsewhere.

You're describing the Patrol detachment, and, through inference, Combat Patrol (500 points/25PL or less).

We also have the Rule of 2 for Incursion games.

I feel aircraft are not that much of an issue, especially if you only get one.

I'm standing by my view that a fluffy, troop-centric 1k point list is going to struggle with say Mortarion and some friends.

 LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
This all feels like overkill to me. I run 1k stuff here standard and none of this has been an issue for us. Couple people bring knights to every tournament and they don’t dominate or anything. I honestly think the game works fine as is.

Very much this. I think the only adjustment I'd personally make is that I'm likely to play more.

Astra Militarum tank spam would likely wipe most armies off the table. Limitations beyond detachment FOC's are needed.

 oni wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
This all feels like overkill to me. I run 1k stuff here standard and none of this has been an issue for us. Couple people bring knights to every tournament and they don’t dominate or anything. I honestly think the game works fine as is.

Very much this. I think the only adjustment I'd personally make is that I'm likely to play more.

Astra Militarum tank spam would likely wipe most armies off the table. Limitations beyond detachment FOC's are needed.

Do they not at 2000pts? The 2k event I ran recently probably would have had a pair of them in the finals if they hadn’t gotten paired up in the semis.

 Blndmage wrote:
Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

The idea is to limit what your opponent can bring. If you can't deal with it while playing the game? Then you just shift the fight to the rules stage & eliminate the foes option that way.

 AduroT wrote:

 oni wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
This all feels like overkill to me. I run 1k stuff here standard and none of this has been an issue for us. Couple people bring knights to every tournament and they don’t dominate or anything. I honestly think the game works fine as is.

Very much this. I think the only adjustment I'd personally make is that I'm likely to play more.

Astra Militarum tank spam would likely wipe most armies off the table. Limitations beyond detachment FOC's are needed.

Do they not at 2000pts? The 2k event I ran recently probably would have had a pair of them in the finals if they hadn’t gotten paired up in the semis.

The issue is amplified at 1000 pts. AM does not need to sacrifice many things of value to pare down to 1000 pts.

Though... Above all else, the mission design needs to be appropriate.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I was listening to the latest Preferred Enemies podcast, and they make the case for lowering the expected game size to 1,000(ish) points as a way of making the game more accessible in the face of the upcoming price hike. As someone who tends to prefer smaller games, I'd be all for such a change, but I recognize that some aspects of the game would likely need to be tweaked to accomodate such a playstyle.

Supposing 1k games became your new normal, what Nephilim/AoO style adjustments would you want to see? Would you embrace Boarding Actions style minimum unit sizes? Adjust the way CP is generated? What would secondaries look like? How would you handle armies like knights that just don't fit into small games very well?

This is pretty inaccurate. What does 1k points mean when you don´t take into account the variable cost of units. Better would be to address the number of units your average player (in 40K this would mean Space Marines) should be able to field. Here is an example for a 1k force:

- 1 Hero
- 1 Psyker

- 1 Core Squad
- 1 Core Squad

- 1 Walker or 1 Tank
- 1 Transport Vehicle or 1 Light Fast Attack Vehicle

Now you would be able to field six units which would be the minimum amount of calling it a satisfying 40K experience. Lower amounts of models and you descend into Patrol type scenarios while a single squad is skirmish mode.

As many have said, no LoW, no Primarchs or super-characters of any kind.

You'd have to limit units with the Vehicle and Monster keyword as well, on top of creating a limited FOC. I'd say that most squads of models would be limited to their 'minimum squad' size to prevent other kinds of spamming.

To people wanting more direct limitations on Incursion (not Combat Patrol) games in terms of a competitive circuit:

1. Have you actually played a decent amount of Incursion games?
2. Have you played any with the current season's rules?
3. Why such extreme regulations for Incursion when none are on Strike Force games?

 Blndmage wrote:
Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

Because they're targetting other army things they hate, not the points level.

Tyel wrote:
I feel aircraft are not that much of an issue, especially if you only get one.

I'm standing by my view that a fluffy, troop-centric 1k point list is going to struggle with say Mortarion and some friends.

Mandatory troops just make it harder for armies with bad troops.

Breton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

Because they're targetting other army things they hate, not the points level.

Yup. The constant screaming for LoW and Flyer bans shows that.

 Blndmage wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I feel aircraft are not that much of an issue, especially if you only get one.

I'm standing by my view that a fluffy, troop-centric 1k point list is going to struggle with say Mortarion and some friends.

Mandatory troops just make it harder for armies with bad troops.

That and Morty is roughly half the army size. You deal with Morty and its pretty much game over. What you're missing is Ghaz. Ghaz is not a LOW, Bobby G is - but same price. And Ghaz has the 4 Wounds per phase rule. The Avatar is less than both, and statted like a LOW with halve the damage rules. The difference between larger HQ's and smaller LOW's is small to non-existent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Why are folks making 1,000 point restrictions that are harsher than Combat Patrol restrictions?

Because they're targetting other army things they hate, not the points level.

Yup. The constant screaming for LoW and Flyer bans shows that.

More than likely:

Not every list has gotten a Primarch/Supreme Commander Centerpiece yet.

1HQ - Cap + LT reroll bubbls.

 Blndmage wrote:
To people wanting more direct limitations on Incursion (not Combat Patrol) games in terms of a competitive circuit:

1. Have you actually played a decent amount of Incursion games?
2. Have you played any with the current season's rules?
3. Why such extreme regulations for Incursion when none are on Strike Force games?

1. Apart from the odd bigger game, I used to play incursion exclusively for a couple of years.
2. No.
3. You don't know my stance about that and assume I'm okay with the current "spam whatever you want" approach of the game. (Hint: I am not)

The regulations I want are for reasons unrelated to actual game balance and exclusively about the feel of the game.

LoW and stuff belong into big, epic battles.
Spamming the same specialist unit of your dex 3x over is just lame. Especially in a lower points environment where doing so means even less variety.

I don't see how my preferences are in any way connected to the amount of games I played under a specific ruleset. Are these things necessary to make the game balanced for competitive circuits?

Edit:
The baseless accusations of "you only want this because your faction benefits from it and others would be at an disadvantage". Projecting much?

In one thread I'm a Marine hater for mentioning model costs in Daedalus' analysis and here I'm Marine biased for limiting the FOC. Completely laughable

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
To people wanting more direct limitations on Incursion (not Combat Patrol) games in terms of a competitive circuit:

1. Have you actually played a decent amount of Incursion games?
2. Have you played any with the current season's rules?
3. Why such extreme regulations for Incursion when none are on Strike Force games?

1. Apart from the odd bigger game, I used to play incursion exclusively for a couple of years.
2. No.
3. You don't know my stance about that and assume I'm okay with the current "spam whatever you want" approach of the game. (Hint: I am not)

The regulations I want are for reasons unrelated to actual game balance and exclusively about the feel of the game.

LoW and stuff belong into big, epic battles.
Spamming the same specialist unit of your dex 3x over is just lame. Especially in a lower points environment where doing so means even less variety.

I don't see how my preferences are in any way connected to the amount of games I played under a specific ruleset. Are these things necessary to make the game balanced for competitive circuits?

Edit:
The baseless accusations of "you only want this because your faction benefits from it and others would be at an disadvantage". Projecting much?

In one thread I'm a Marine hater for mentioning model costs in Daedalus' analysis and here I'm Marine biased for limiting the FOC. Completely laughable

It's getting a bit late, I'll try to get back to this tomorrow, but, from the beginning of the edition, there's been a Rule of 2 in effect for Incursion games, especially once the GT books started coming out.
LoWs cost so much that even though they're powerful, I feel like burning 40% of your points on one thing should be powerful, choosing to take one (or any unit of such high cost) is a deliberate choice that has huge drawbacks too.

I wonder if we should just apply inflation to pts values and raise everything a few %.

 Blndmage wrote:

Mandatory troops just make it harder for armies with bad troops.

Well yes, I suppose that is true - and AoO doesn't seem to care. But I tend to think - in part due to the legacy of older editions, but also just because that's how GW sell combination boxes - that most people will own and so bring a few units of troops along.

I mean its arguably a suboptimal way of list building, but I tend to start with 1-2 HQs with 2-3 troops. And then make up the rest with cooler stuff to whatever points limit we agree.

Which means I probably only have space for 150-200~ points of dedicated "anti-large" in 1k points list if I also bring a few other things. If I run into Mortarion or 6 Leman Russ or whatever, then I'm not going to do too well. Whereas in a 2k list you could bring say 1k points of dedicated anti-large, which has more of a threat and redundancy. You've also got say 500ish points of dedicated assault/counter-punch which leaves you 500 points for characters plus some troops to hold objectives, act as chaff/speedbumps etc. (Obviously varying by faction.)

Now I guess you could say that's my own fault. The answer could be "take a cheap character, no troops, and 450~ points of dedicated anti-infantry, and 450ish points of anti-large" - or some mix thereof. Don't bring 250-300 points of chaff that risks being worthless. Which maybe is fine in a competitive sense - but it doesn't feel very organic.
What's your sort of list a 1k points?