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.

So, recently I’ve heard some chatter about the consideration of bumping up some 9th Edition tourneys to 2001pts, especially with the advent of detachments costing CPs. A 2001pt game would give you 18cps and a larger board in the new edition. What would the Dakka tournament community think of that? Love it? Hate it? Unnecessary? Love to hear everyone’s opinion (even with the limited knowledge of 9th that we have at the moment.)

I think it is a very interesting idea that warrants further consideration and testing once the edition comes out.

Hate it. Table size would be unpractical. I'd rather see the 1500 points format as the new standard since it would stack very well with 12 + 1/turn CP and the 44'' x 60'' table size.

Nothing stops you from using a larger table size than the absolute bare minimum anyway. The rules are fully supported, balanced and tested around larger than minimum tables - such the 6'x4' ones sold by Games Workshop, as an example.

Throwing the CP amounts randomly out of whack seems dubious though - they're supposed to be a limited quantity. Resource management is an important game skill.

I think it's a terrible idea. One of the worst things to happen with tournaments over the last few years is the gradual increase in size, either in absolute terms through points increases or relatively as points are reduced in updates. It's a particularly bad idea doing it at the start of a whole new edition before getting enough data to understand what works best.

One thing the increase in size has done is reduce the hard choices in army selection and this idea pushes that even further, IMO.

Hate it. It basically removes the cost of soup armies, which is the point of making additional detachments cost CP.

Its a 'have cake and eat it' proposal, that unsurprisingly advantages armies that can soup.

Or mono armies that have really good strats to spam.

 Asmodai wrote:
Nothing stops you from using a larger table size than the absolute bare minimum anyway. The rules are fully supported, balanced and tested around larger than minimum tables - such the 6'x4' ones sold by Games Workshop, as an example.

Thats not accurate actually. Theyve been oretty clear the new edition is based around the minimum table size 44x60.

But boo to 2001. The game wasnt balanced in that style.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Competitive players: “We want balance!”
Also competitive players: “To hell with balance!”

Balance is a McGuffin.

So far the main driver I have seen for wanting 2001 pt armies and the 18CP is people want to still soup and not be down CP on where they are.
However doing so means that anyone who wants to play mono and currently can't because of 8th silly CP system still looses out if you go to a 2001 point game as your not loosing enough CP to make it a cost benifit decision, which is GW's stated design intention for the new CP system.

I'm definitely against 2001 points to game the system.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
Nothing stops you from using a larger table size than the absolute bare minimum anyway. The rules are fully supported, balanced and tested around larger than minimum tables - such the 6'x4' ones sold by Games Workshop, as an example.

Thats not accurate actually. Theyve been oretty clear the new edition is based around the minimum table size 44x60.

But boo to 2001. The game wasnt balanced in that style.

Nope.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

Of course, these are only the minimum size requirements for your battlefields, so whether you’re using a 6′x4′ table with a Realm of Battle board, linking two, four or six 22″x30″ Killzone boards together according to the battle size you’re playing, or just using a dining room table, you’re good to go. In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!

And then a week later to clarify:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/11/terrain-rules-and-line-of-sightgw-homepage-post-1/

A Word on Battlefield Sizes…

A number of you have been getting in touch regarding the minimum size battlefield measurements we introduced in last week’s article. We’re happy to confirm that, yes, you can still use your 6′x4′ (or larger) gaming tables, be they gorgeously detailed Realm of Battle boards or lovingly created battlefields of your own design.

The minimum size battlefield guidelines for Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force and Onslaught battles are just that – minimum sizes. They’ve been specifically designed to make the game more accessible and compact at smaller sizes (and fit on most dining room tables), but they can just as easily be played on larger battlefields as you see fit. The minimum sizes also ensure that armies in bigger games won’t be cramped on a battlefield that’s too small for them, so will still have plenty of room to manoeuvre.

Larger boards are equal valid as the minimums.

I'm telling you playtesters have said the game is deisnged around the new minimums. See if any of the us super events are run on anything other than 44x60 (hint, they wont be) and guess who runs those events? The guys playtesting. 60x44 and 2k is where theyve focussed the playtesting sround.

You cannplay on bigger boards. But its really now designed for the minimums.

For what it's worth, I think that 2001 is a bad idea too. I think 44x90 is too large for what is, essentially, a 2000pt. game. Also, 18cp removes all restrictions for people that are finding it hard to translate their 8th armies into what they expect 9th the be. They need to adapt rather than trying to fit their old army into a new mold.

Considering that the consensus on this site and reddit is that 2001pt is a dumb idea, expect to see it in your ITC tournament packets later this year.

I don't think we will see the 2001 points become a thing. The whole point was to balance the CPs and make real decisions with those. This would be throwing that out the window and defeats the whole purpose.

The command point balance is something I think a large majority of players called for and I don't think the playtesters that run a lot of these organizations and tournaments are going to reverse that.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm telling you playtesters

Nothing after that word is worth reading

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm telling you playtesters have said the game is deisnged around the new minimums. See if any of the us super events are run on anything other than 44x60 (hint, they wont be) and guess who runs those events? The guys playtesting. 60x44 and 2k is where theyve focussed the playtesting sround.

You cannplay on bigger boards. But its really now designed for the minimums.

The board size for playtesters was adopted for tournament for single reason: More tables to tournament. Which means more players. Which means $$$$$$$$$$.

It's not about balance but $$$$$$$$.

For GW it was making kill team board multiples work. For tournament organizers it's $$$$$$$$$. For neither it's about balance.

None of which changes the fact the game was tested at that size and that it plays significantly different on current 6x4 vs. Essentially 5x4.

I dislike the change but its also something that will likely see cc armies get a boost. Take away a quarter/fifth of the table and shockingly the gamenolays different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm telling you playtesters

Nothing after that word is worth reading

Great addition. Super clever and relevant.

Reiterating what other posters have said, maybe 8th wasn’t supposed to have so much CP to begin with...and in fact. It wasn’t. Before the increases 12 CP was a triple battalion. I much prefer CP being a rarer resource, especially at lower points values where “my supercharged unit fights your supercharged unit” ala Magic becomes a lot more unbalancing.
Having unlimited CP has become an expectation for players, just like higher tournament points values and “taking all your toys” has substituted for real hard choices before and during the game. That might not be a good thing, and hopefully the CP decreases and points increases help reign that back in a bit.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Reiterating what other posters have said, maybe 8th wasn’t supposed to have so much CP to begin with...and in fact. It wasn’t. Before the increases 12 CP was a triple battalion. I much prefer CP being a rarer resource, especially at lower points values where “my supercharged unit fights your supercharged unit” ala Magic becomes a lot more unbalancing.
Having unlimited CP has become an expectation for players, just like higher tournament points values and “taking all your toys” has substituted for real hard choices before and during the game. That might not be a good thing, and hopefully the CP decreases and points increases help reign that back in a bit.

Basically this. List building should be a game of choices, not having everything all at once. Not to mention that at 2000pts, many factions will actually be getting more CP now, it's just a few outliers that won't have quite as many. I know my CP pool will be much healthier as a Necron player.

I really hope tournaments stick to 2K.

People complain about there being no meaningful choices either in list building (there are the must takes, and the never takes, or optimal and sub optimal cchoices) and there are few if any tactical choices in gameplay (target priority is obvious, its all shooty, etc.).

Limiting CP would go a long way to bring some meaningful decisions to games. If you had a limited pool, and had to really decide when to buff something, or debuff something, and might not have that ability later, that's a tactical choice in game. Not being able to do everything every round, and swimming in CP leads to tactical choices.

Instead, let's play 2001 points (a skew choice of list points value) just to increase CP to 18 - maximize everything!, and to not have to make hard list choices - especially with points values potentially going up. Brilliant! (and that was sarcasm).

What should happen is lists points for tournies should go lower. This would result in games actually finishing, potentially re-ordering what are the top tier armies, rather than the "oh, we only got to round 2 or 3 every game" that we heard a lot of in 8th.

This is why basing a ruleset around tournament play in inherently self defeating - you're designing to remove skew and spam, which is what tournaments encourage in the way they design scenarios (pick you own objectives to maximize your list), higher points (pick everything that works best in your army), higher CP (buff and debuff all day long, well, at least for the 3 turns the games take over 2.5 hours), and mitigate most if not all of the randomness inherent in the base game, which can cause swings.

You guys are going up?

We're changing to 1500 points for the first event in August at 2 hours and 15 minutes per game. It'll be hard to play 2001 in a normal 3 hour block with new rules. Same 6x4 table size however! Terrain at 20-25%. I'm trying to get my 3 armies painted to the 1850 points block since I assumed all events will get smaller

 Stevefamine wrote:
You guys are going up?

We're changing to 1500 points for the first event in August at 2 hours and 15 minutes per game. It'll be hard to play 2001 in a normal 3 hour block with new rules. Same 6x4 table size however! Terrain at 20-25%. I'm trying to get my 3 armies painted to the 1850 points block since I assumed all events will get smaller

I think you have the right idea. I think going to 1500-1750 is a good place to be. I know the games is supposedly "optimized" for 2000pts., I had just heard some scuttlebutt about going to 2001 and wanted to hear what peoples' thoughts were. Sounds like most people are aligned.

I feel like this has come up before, and people tend to never adopt the "XXX1" point levels, imo. They just assume playing at the minimum level of a range probably isn't intended, and you know, it's not a nice round number . Can't really see it happening except for a rare event to mix things up...

tneva82 wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm telling you playtesters have said the game is deisnged around the new minimums. See if any of the us super events are run on anything other than 44x60 (hint, they wont be) and guess who runs those events? The guys playtesting. 60x44 and 2k is where theyve focussed the playtesting sround.

You cannplay on bigger boards. But its really now designed for the minimums.

The board size for playtesters was adopted for tournament for single reason: More tables to tournament. Which means more players. Which means $$$$$$$$$$.

It's not about balance but $$$$$$$$.

For GW it was making kill team board multiples work. For tournament organizers it's $$$$$$$$$. For neither it's about balance.

Also just a reminder that Frontline Gaming (the organizers of ITC) also make game mats and immediately announced they would be making new mats in the new sizes.

 RiTides wrote:
I feel like this has come up before, and people tend to never adopt the "XXX1" point levels, imo. They just assume playing at the minimum level of a range probably isn't intended, and you know, it's not a nice round number . Can't really see it happening except for a rare event to mix things up...

1999 pts tournaments in 6th ed FB were a thing. Practically same thing as 2k but kept lords out of field. Kinda reverse

Until we see the new point values, its hard to even say what 2000 points really means anyway. Regardless, there's absolutely no reason to try and beat the system by playing 2001 when you haven't even seen what the system looks like at 2000.

Ummmmm, where are people getting this idea that 2001 points would be 18 command points?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

It won't let me load the pic, but on this article it seems pretty clear from the chart that you don't get 18 command points until 3000 points.

 xeen wrote:
Ummmmm, where are people getting this idea that 2001 points would be 18 command points?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/03/warhammer-40000-matched-play-points-and-an-appgw-homepage-post-1/

It won't let me load the pic, but on this article it seems pretty clear from the chart that you don't get 18 command points until 3000 points.

They already clarified that each level is used for games with points costs higher than the previous up to the number listed(ie. 1500 pts uses the Strike Force level). Thus Onslaught is used for games between 2001 and 3000 points.