Adjustments You'd Make if 1k Games Became the Norm?

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.

**Toofast**

I would continue to play 2k games. Luckily I don't have to worry because the whole premise is stupid. A 7% price hike on select items means we need a 50% decrease in points size of the average game? Did this person forget about the last 30 years of price hikes at a rate higher than inflation?

**alextroy**

I think the reason for the question is certainly flawed, but the question is valid. What adjustments do think would be necessary if 1K Incursion games were the norm? Many things for tournaments and even home games would be easier if the normal game size was cut in half.

Smaller boards mean less terrain.
Smaller boards also changes which units are optimal choices.
Less units mean faster games.
Faster games means you can fit more rounds into the same length of tournament.

Now overall, I don't see much need to change anything. Heavy Vehicle spam, be it Knights, Tanks, or Monstrous Creatures, are a challenge regardless of the game size.

**Breton**

Tyel wrote:
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?

The last list I made had 10 different INFANTRY units. I counted Shoulderpads. 10+ Battle line shoulder pads, 10-ish Close Support Pads, 10-ish Heavy Support Pads - In the theory that each company provides at least one squad to Calgar/Guilliman's retinue as Calgar/Guilliman doesn't have a company. I didn't have two of anything, let alone three.

Spoiler:

Oh, I take that back there are two of two Troops Squads. Well that's somewhat hard to get around when you take 4 and only have three choices (by shoulderpad) - I am thinking about swapping Tac Squads for Intercessors but I have a block trying to mix Firstborn and Primaris.

**vict0988**

Tyel wrote:
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?

I tend to not run a lot of anti-large in my 1k lists from looking at them, it's mostly Canoptek Scarabs and Necron Warriors. A unit of Lokhust Destroyers and a Transcendent C'tan cannot deal with a Knight Paladin definitely. Gauss reapers on the Necron Warriors do help and that's what I default to in most lists. I had one 1k list with a single anti-MEQ weapon serving as the anti-tank for the list, the other side of that is that you've probably got too good a matchup against lists without any important vehicles if you're spending all your points on anti-infantry. Chaffing up the board and controlling objectives can win against anyone though. I think more versatile units like Skorpekh Destroyers, Triarch Stalkers and Immortals would do better in smaller games. One thing I forgot to mention in my first post is that it'd be nice to have some way to rein in that one Stratagem that is way too good. I definitely have no desire to play against AdMech hordes since their Stratagems have been unnerfed, especially in 1k where a single use of that Stratagem removes a quarter of your list.

**Wyldhunt**

Toofast wrote:
I would continue to play 2k games. Luckily I don't have to worry because the whole premise is stupid. A 7% price hike on select items means we need a 50% decrease in points size of the average game? Did this person forget about the last 30 years of price hikes at a rate higher than inflation?

In the context of the podcast, I think they were throwing out 1k as an off-the-cuff example. The point they were making more generally was that perhaps the community should consider lowering the standard game size for tournaments. The idea being that it creates less of a financial barrier to entry for potential new players and speeds up the game.

Personally, I created the thread not because I'm worried about the price hike but because I happen to enjoy smaller games and thought it would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on what changes (if any) would make smaller games more enjoyable given that the game sort of seems like it's intended for higher points games.

I do wonder if the normalization of smaller points games would encourage GW to take another look at army construction rules with the goal of restricting skew. Like, forcing people to take "troop" units isn't very useful to my mind, but rules for restricting how many vehicles I might have to contend with is useful. I could see something like the Boarding Action army creation rules being useful. Put some broad restrictions in place, then spell out a few explicit exceptions for each faction. For instance, you could have a broad rule stating an army can only contain 1 model with a Toughness of 6 or higher (to restrict vehicles/MCs), but then give craftworlders an explicit exception for wraithguard.

**catbarf**

Wyldhunt wrote:
Toofast wrote:
I would continue to play 2k games. Luckily I don't have to worry because the whole premise is stupid. A 7% price hike on select items means we need a 50% decrease in points size of the average game? Did this person forget about the last 30 years of price hikes at a rate higher than inflation?

In the context of the podcast, I think they were throwing out 1k as an off-the-cuff example. The point they were making more generally was that perhaps the community should consider lowering the standard game size for tournaments. The idea being that it creates less of a financial barrier to entry for potential new players and speeds up the game.

Personally, I created the thread not because I'm worried about the price hike but because I happen to enjoy smaller games and thought it would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on what changes (if any) would make smaller games more enjoyable given that the game sort of seems like it's intended for higher points games.

I do wonder if the normalization of smaller points games would encourage GW to take another look at army construction rules with the goal of restricting skew. Like, forcing people to take "troop" units isn't very useful to my mind, but rules for restricting how many vehicles I might have to contend with is useful. I could see something like the Boarding Action army creation rules being useful. Put some broad restrictions in place, then spell out a few explicit exceptions for each faction. For instance, you could have a broad rule stating an army can only contain 1 model with a Toughness of 6 or higher (to restrict vehicles/MCs), but then give craftworlders an explicit exception for wraithguard.

Back in 5th Ed, the standard game size as laid out in the rulebook was 1500pts. I like that level, because it really makes you think about what you want to bring, and lists tend to either be well-rounded or have conspicuous gaps. It plays faster, and it's less cramped on a 72x48 board, let alone 60x44.

The problem is that GW is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand they've got corporate interests to push for larger games and more models on the table, particularly to play up the 'spectacle' aspect of 40K, and players seem to like big games with a lot of centerpiece models. On the other hand, players seem unwilling to adopt more abstracted, streamlined rulesets a la Apocalypse to actually facilitate those larger games in a reasonable play time. So you have a conflict between wanting a ton of models in play versus wanting miniscule/irrelevant upgrades to matter.

But yeah GW has also been pushing for better support of smaller formats, so I could see more emphasis put on balancing around the 1K mark. Whether that becomes the norm or not depends on the playerbase, and frankly I can't see a majority of players deciding that 1K is optimal.

**Wyldhunt**

catbarf wrote:

Back in 5th Ed, the standard game size as laid out in the rulebook was 1500pts. I like that level, because it really makes you think about what you want to bring, and lists tend to either be well-rounded or have conspicuous gaps. It plays faster, and it's less cramped on a 72x48 board, let alone 60x44.

Totally. 1500 points gives you enough points to feel like you're playing to a theme and also tends to be a lot faster/less clunky than a 2k game. There's room to maneuver, and there's less room for redundancy in your heavy hitters. (Which I like.)

The problem is that GW is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand they've got corporate interests to push for larger games and more models on the table, particularly to play up the 'spectacle' aspect of 40K, and players seem to like big games with a lot of centerpiece models. On the other hand, players seem unwilling to adopt more abstracted, streamlined rulesets a la Apocalypse to actually facilitate those larger games in a reasonable play time. So you have a conflict between wanting a ton of models in play versus wanting miniscule/irrelevant upgrades to matter.

But yeah GW has also been pushing for better support of smaller formats, so I could see more emphasis put on balancing around the 1K mark. Whether that becomes the norm or not depends on the playerbase, and frankly I can't see a majority of players deciding that 1K is optimal.

I feel like the game might benefit from having the game sizes split up even more/given their own slightly different mechanics. Something like:

1501-2k points: Modify some things to be a bit closer to Apoc. Ignore some of the nitty gritty wargear options/rules in favor of faster, more abstracted attack resolutions. Maybe drop splitfire. Maybe even restructure turn orders to be about activating banners of units at a time, etc.
1001-1500 points: Use essentially the rules we have right now.
<=1k points: Maybe drop allies, subfaction bonuses, and purity bonuses. Maybe add in some of the more nitty gritty mechanics of the past like challenges or oldschool overwatch. Basically, this is where you'd fit mechanics that are a pain to handle en masse but are fun when you only have a few units to deal with.

That said, I appreciate that essentially designing three different games probably isn't practical. If they were to have different rules for different game sizes like that, they'd probably want to keep the differences simple and easy to remember/manage.