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, now that things are opening up, (fully vaccinated yea!), it is possible to get more games in. Lately with list building I find myself drawn to 1000 point lists. Yes, I don't get to bring all my toys, but I feel like it really makes you focus on what you need and makes for tough choices about how you are going to play. I also like the limit to 6 CP, which really puts a cap on some of the crazy combos and limits the re-rolls, especially if you want to take another relic or WL trait etc.

I was wondering if people like 1000 point games? I haven't gotten in any of those but I am really pushing to try it and I want to gauge interest in it.

Also would people be interested in this style of play: Since you can probably fit two games of 1000 points into roughly the same time as a 2000 point, instead of playing a 2000 point, we play 2 1000 point games. I get to go first once, and you get to go first once on the same battlefield with the same list. Whoever wins both wins. If it is a 1-1 tie, then whoever scored the overall most points in both games wins.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Good idea, bad idea?

 xeen wrote:
So, now that things are opening up, (fully vaccinated yea!), it is possible to get more games in. Lately with list building I find myself drawn to 1000 point lists. Yes, I don't get to bring all my toys, but I feel like it really makes you focus on what you need and makes for tough choices about how you are going to play. I also like the limit to 6 CP, which really puts a cap on some of the crazy combos and limits the re-rolls, especially if you want to take another relic or WL trait etc.

I was wondering if people like 1000 point games? I haven't gotten in any of those but I am really pushing to try it and I want to gauge interest in it.

Also would people be interested in this style of play: Since you can probably fit two games of 1000 points into roughly the same time as a 2000 point, instead of playing a 2000 point, we play 2 1000 point games. I get to go first once, and you get to go first once on the same battlefield with the same list. Whoever wins both wins. If it is a 1-1 tie, then whoever scored the overall most points in both games wins.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Good idea, bad idea?

Honestly, our group finds that especially at the smaller table sizes, 9th works best at 1000-1200pts. That's primarily what we've played since it came out. It just feels better at that scale and starts to feel oddly clunky at the bigger sizes.

There's a decent argument for the game being more mechanically interesting at lower point levels.

But there's also visceral enjoyment to be had in chucking a larger army on the field... and I don't get to play that many games these days, so I like to get a good number of my models out when I do...

My group does get to play often and we go back and forth on point totals. I'll just discuss my experiences with smaller games.

1k-1200 is a really good spot for forcing choices and limiting CP death. Strangely, we find these games go deeper into turns than larger armies, despite the limited model count. Units are easier to hide (we use a good amount of terrain and play on a 6x4 table, both of which increase the enjoyment of the game for us), far less lethal (for size and CP usage), and movement/forethought really plays in. If you can find people interested you should give it a go.

Typically, we use 6 objectives spaced about (usually one in each deployment zone, one about 8 inches out of each deployment zone, and 2 on the center line but staggered). Primary VP's are hold 2 for 5, Hold 3 for 5, and hold 4 for 5 (we rarely use Hold more for the third, it tends to make the difference in VP's stretch too quickly for faster armies who can grab 3 turn 1, ymmv). Secondaries are the normal choices although we've added a few of our own favorites.

Sure - why not?

As long as no one was to try and tell me what I can and cannot bring (and I am always more than happy to meet people half way here and make sure that all parties have an enjoyable game), then a lower points level like this sounds great!

'I'll never play anyone who brings X' is an opinion I do understand, but part of the reason I play the primary army I do is economic, and compromise should always be key. A hard line of 'I won't play against this legal unit', is a persons right, but can also feel a bit unreasonable.

We play a lot of 50 PL games at my local, and they do go a lot quicker, and can be played either on a very small half board, or on a larger 4x4 for a bit more spread.

I think you need to be around people that are going to bring reasonably balanced lists. It's very easy at 1000pts to run some skew that can be really tough for a TAC list to handle.

I don't think I ever saw someone want to play 1000pts, unless 1000pts was all they had. And they generally didn't like the expiriance because two 1000pts armies are not balanced v one 2000pts one.

Small games without the command point nonsense is all that I can stomach of this new generation of system. Small tables especially,

1500 on an 8x4 with more turns using a more realistic system is best ime.

I would like to get back into the crusade level of play maybe or modified 2nd or Necromunda is the way.

Fond of 1000pt games here.

I'd given up playing larger games and enjoyed playing 1K games so much more. I'd be willing to do smaller games as well.

Thing is, there's just some units/armies that are problematic at the smaller scale. Knights and other superheavies, for example.

1000 - 1500 points is my favourite size of playing this edition.

One issue with 1k games is game has clearly been designed for 2k games. Balance goes even nuttier with crippling t1 charges etc on those even tinier tables.

I painted one of the shoulder pauldrons a different colour on one of my War Dogs to use as a Warlord for 800 point games where bringing a titanic knight would be OP. I mostly play at 1,800 points though.

I play 1k games weekly, they are good - even vs Necrons

1250ish has been the best point for 8th/9th. Enough to bring what you want without the kitchen sink coming too.

 xeen wrote:
So, now that things are opening up, (fully vaccinated yea!), it is possible to get more games in. Lately with list building I find myself drawn to 1000 point lists. Yes, I don't get to bring all my toys, but I feel like it really makes you focus on what you need and makes for tough choices about how you are going to play. I also like the limit to 6 CP, which really puts a cap on some of the crazy combos and limits the re-rolls, especially if you want to take another relic or WL trait etc.

I was wondering if people like 1000 point games? I haven't gotten in any of those but I am really pushing to try it and I want to gauge interest in it.

Also would people be interested in this style of play: Since you can probably fit two games of 1000 points into roughly the same time as a 2000 point, instead of playing a 2000 point, we play 2 1000 point games. I get to go first once, and you get to go first once on the same battlefield with the same list. Whoever wins both wins. If it is a 1-1 tie, then whoever scored the overall most points in both games wins.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Good idea, bad idea?

Nope, not a big fan, much prefer 2k so I can put more models on the table. In practice I do not think 1k is twice as fast as 2k if both players know their 2k army, doing multiple games isn't that fun if people are running the same list, if you had 3 people and you wanted to spend all day playing then I could see rotating 1k matches to reduce downtime for the third player. 1k is good for the second and third game of a beginner (500 pts for the first game) and the first and maybe second game for an experienced player learning a new faction.

I tend to play 1'250, to 1500 at the absolute max.

I like weird points values, like 850 and 1255 lists.

I don't know why I'm that way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I like weird points values, like 850 and 1255 lists.

I don't know why I'm that way.

I'm playing 1,650pts on Tuesday because that's my opponent's full army...

Since the COVID lockdowns started 1k points is all I've been playing outside of TTS. The original reason was because I can't fit a 6x4 board anywhere while the speed freeks board is perfect for 66x30 games and fits on my dining table.
After playing a bunch of times (both crusade and GT2020), I really came to like that game size for many reasons:
+ It's more difficult to bring a decent army, you rarely see anything but troops more than once and people rotate their armies more often because they can't fit all the cool toys in one army.
+ Games are much shorter to finish and still feel like "real" games, while 500 point games feel more like Killteam++. It doesn't take half the time, as some of the overhead is independent from the game size, more like two thirds of the time strike force would take.
+ At least for 1k points the GT missions are reasonably well balanced to compensate for the vastly lower model count.
+ Lethality is down because characters and troops consume a larger percentage of the total points.
+ It's a good size to play even after your mind has been fethed up by an entire day of work.
+ Deep striking and reserves are gambles. More often that not, starting on the board is the right decision, stuff like da jump is night useless.
+ Balance issues are more prominent at 2000 if they multiply with the army size or require CP.
o I doesn't feel like the game is more or less tactical or balanced at 1000 than it is at 2000.
- Some units and models are just too expensive to play. Essentially anything vastly more expensive than 250 points is going to break the game either way.
- Armies with bad internal balance have suffer, as they are even more limited in what they can bring. They will be playing the same game over and over again.
- The lack of redundancy makes the game more vulnerable to hot/bad dice.
- Skew towards durable units is harder to counter.

I'm not saying that I won't be playing 2k points ever again, but 1k has definitely become a great alternative for when you don't have the time or space to play a full game. For crusade, I actually prefer 1k points because all the extra bookkeeping draws out those games anyways.

By the way, I can't help but laugh at "crippling t1 charges etc on those even tinier tables" - you clearly haven't played a single game at 1k points.

I am finishing up a local league where army size progressed from 500 points up to 2000 points. I personally like 1250 point armies as they 'felt like a 40K army which gave me enough points to have options, yet did not feel like the board (44×60) was cramped. CP usage and strategy played a bit different from a 2000 point army.

I enjoy games of all sizes; my favourite form of 40k has always been escalation, because it gives me a chance to play the full spectrum.

The four game sizes, and native support for each, was probably the wisest thing GW did in 9th. The fact that there are no Combat Patrol or Onslaught Mission in the GT Mission pack is one of the reasons why I'm not buying it.

Crusade wouldn't function without the game size mechanics. Everyone knows that's my preferred way to play, but even if Crusade didn't exist, escalation style campaign play is where my interest has been since 1989. The game supports it now better than it ever has.

Small games aren't my preference. Sci-fi, fantasy, historicals, etc- I've always been drawn to playing ARMIES.
If I were interested in using only a handful of models I'd look towards any # of actual skirmish scale games, not 40k.
Sure, i'll play them as needed though. For ex; in the opening rounds of a Crusade, escalation league, specific scenario, matching what a new player has access to, etc.
But as a default I'd prefer larger games.

I like 1000 points and less because I'm slow and don't want to overly tie up the other player from the rest of their day while I learn

I don't mind 1000point games, although if playing at the local FLGS, for casual games we say no more than 30% of your total points can go into 1 unit, this allows most units, but at 1000points it restricts stuff like Lords of War/Primarchs etc.

Absolutely, nice quick games.

1000-1250-1500 points are my favorite formats, but unfortunately here 2000 is the most popular one.

I tend to burn out painting around 1000 points, so it's a good value for games IMO.

Just gonna add my name to the chorus here: 1000pt games rock. Granted, I have literally never played a 9th edition game yet because of covid, but in 8th and before... yeah, 1000pt games rock :-)

Fast paced, focused, time to talk afterwards or grab another game... I honestly don't know how often I'm even going to play anymore larger point games now!

Yes. Just because they're faster and reduce the apparition of larger stuff.