Latest posts for the thread "Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?"

Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Voodoo Boyz — GMT

I've been looking over a lot of tournament lists for the US and UK, and upon looking at what each respective place has (1850 for the US & 1500 for the UK), and knowing which armies are highly abusive/powerful in the game, I have to wonder if 1500 Point games are more balanced than ones played at 1850.

It seems to me that a lot of abusive stuff really only manifests itself at higher point games, the only really bad stuff I can think of that's at 1500 are Godzilla Nids, otherwise things really start to become relatively balanced or at least no where near as broken.

I know that for Drop Pods they're far more effective at 1850 than at 1500 because at 1850 you can max out on Terminators and Assault Cannons. Chaos gets more options at 1850 than 1500 because they have a wealth of hyper-effective units to chose from. I'm seeing it be the same for a lot of other armies as well from what I can tell, I figured it's a decent enough question to ask.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

You can still fit a bloodthirster and a dp in a chaos army at 1500.

1850 adds diversity and willingness to bring more expensive guns to the table. If you have 1 person willing to abuse the 1500 list, there will be nothing fielded to stop him/her. Or an angry necron player that fields 2 monoliths, cheap lord and some warriors. Its possible in 1500, cheesey but possible. Lots of fast genestealers or a genestealer retinue for a broodlord. There are still many viable builds at 1500 that can be considered cheesey.

But on the other hand you may be right. Many people think that a monolith in anything less than 1850 is out of the question. Same thing with termies and butt-cannons. Also, no bloodthirster at 1500 means 8 bloodletters which can be more dangerous depending on the deployment.

I personally always carry something that will even the playing field. Then again, I play chaos, Im always seen as cheesey even in my weaker latd form.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

tinfoil — GMT

Judging from the army lists appearing in the GT heats over in the UK, I'd say there are plenty of ways to imbalance 1500 point lists.

1850 point tournaments might achieve an ovrall better balance because at that level, even balanced armies can stuff in a lot of bling, helping to offset opponents' excesses. E.g., a chaos player can field 6 troop choices at higher than min-maxed levels, and still find enough points to field a greater demon, lord with chosen retinue, etc.

On the other hand, giving power gamers 350 more points to play with usually results in 350 more points of beard.

edited: math (sheesh)

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

350 more points = 5 more obliterators for Iron Warriors.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

chuckyhol — GMT

I agree, at least in part.

Chuck

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Blackmoor — GMT

Posted By the_trooper on 11/29/2006 9:05 AM
350 more points = 5 more obliterators for Iron Warriors.

Iron Warrors dominate at the UK GTs.

They already have 4 heavy Support and 9 oblits. All that 350 points adds to them is more troops.

Some armies do better at lower points, some worse. I know my Thousand Sons have trouble using less than 1850.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Mannahnin — GMT

I agree with the previous- 1500 is enough for the folks with no compunctions to squeeze in a whole lot of nastiness, but virtually nothing else. 1750 or 1850 almost forces them to use more troops, and allows folks who want more troops in the first place to fit in more punching power and compete better with the cheese.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Glaive Company CO — GMT

It completely depends on the army you have chosen. I used to think that GW had a formula for their points values, or at the very least playtested to find the points values, but sadly that is not the case.

At anything under 1000 points orks are the army to beat. That's been my experience anyways. After playing a ton of 500 point games I started thinking orks were too overpowered. Then, all of a sudden at 1000 points my Guard started regularly winning battles, and at 1500 points plus even my Blood Angels could compete.

So, saying that one point value is more balanced than another is kind of misleading. The fact is that at different point values different armies will get better or worse.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

I agree with Glaive company CO, it all depends on the list, you can have abusive lists even with 500 pts, its all part of the 40k hobby. I never understood how come over here in the UK we only get to use 1500pt at tournies and most standards games are this size. While in the Us you guys get to field 1850 as standard. Sucks Donkey

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Frazzled — GMT

No Beef, the US is larger because its connected to Texas. Everything, even games, are bigger in Texas!

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

Posted By jfrazell on 11/29/2006 12:31 PM
No Beef, the US is larger because its connected to Texas. Everything, even games, are bigger in Texas!

There is that at you cant fit 1850 point armies on Vespas .

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

skyth — GMT

I like the 1850 games. Allows you to take a wide variety of stuff. 1500 points, it's just hard to squeeze in what you need...It also leads to alot of 1500 point list looking nearly identical methinks.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

yakface — GMT

I contend that 1,500 points is more balanced than 1,850 but on a whole different tangent.

Right now, with the amount of time allocated for games in a GT, players have to be absolute pros to bring anything even close to resembling a horde army and have any chance at all of finishing their games within the provided time.

I think this helps reinforce the idea to newer players (or those trying out a new army) that only armies with small to medium amount of models (i.e. MEQs, Eldar and Godzilla Tyranids) are the armies that can realistically be brought to a GT.

Because let's be honest, if you aren't finishing your games with a horde army, you're probably going to lose the game, as horde armies tend to really shine late in the game where their superior numbers (or their CC ability in the case of Orks and Tyranids) really starts to overwhelm the enemy.

By sticking with 1,850 points you're telling players:

"Look, you can only bring a horde army and hope to have any chance of finishing (and winning) games if you are an absolute pro with your army; and if your opponent isn't also fast? Well, forget about it."

I believe that at 1,500 points players of various rules familiarity levels still have a decent chance of finishting their game in the alloted time. That is why 1,500 points should be returned to as the tournament standard (in the US) unless the organizers figure out a way to increase the length of the time provided for each game.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Hellfury — GMT

1850 games look nice and have a wide variety, but at 1500 points, people struggle to get the bang for the buck.

It takes a true master of list buildng to balance out all elements in 1500 points (i.e. fluff, effectiveness, theme, etc.)

1500 point games are fairly quick, even for people who arent hardcore. Alot more fun, because alot more rides on a unit being victorious. Less models to paint. True tactics also shine in lower point games. Combat patrol is a good example of that.

Thats why I prefer 1500 points.

but Glaive does bring up a great point. Some armies just fare better in certain point spreads. Its the way of the game. My deathwing shines between 1200-1500 points, but above or below, the effectiveness is reduced proportionally.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Sarigar — GMT

Locally, we play larger games in tourneys; 2000 points. However, we had to increase game time to 2 1/2 hours for each game. Even in these cases, we still occasionally see an occasional IG gun line or Ork horde not finish.

Personally, I would like to see more 1500 point games. In fact, I'll be going to a 1500 point tourney this weekend which is only the 2nd one I've ever done at this point size in 3rd or 4th edition.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

@ THR TRooper. Whats that about vespas?

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Wayniac — GMT

I am of the opinion that 1500 should be the de facto "standard" for both 40k and WHFB. 1500 gives you the ability to have a decent list with a balance... i.e. you can't have your cake and eat it too and must make sacrifices. Cheesemongers will always make cheesed-out, min/max lists no matter the points value, but I think 1500 points is definately more balanced than 1850.

Around where I now live it seems the local players only like to play higher point games (the local WHFB league is 2150 I believe and this has turned me off from rejoining that part of the hobby as it would be far too expensive to start 2150 from scratch) and IMHO that is a bad thing. Higher points are fun sometimes, but it is my belief that games, especially those which are part of a league or routinely played at a store (i.e. dedicated gaming days) should stay around 1500 to allow both new players and veterans alike to be able to join in.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Mannahnin — GMT

Posted By yakface on 11/29/2006 7:11 PM

I contend that 1,500 points is more balanced than 1,850 but on a whole different tangent.

Right now, with the amount of time allocated for games in a GT, players have to be absolute pros to bring anything even close to resembling a horde army and have any chance at all of finishing their games within the provided time.

I believe that at 1,500 points players of various rules familiarity levels still have a decent chance of finishting their game in the alloted time. That is why 1,500 points should be returned to as the tournament standard (in the US) unless the organizers figure out a way to increase the length of the time provided for each game.

Eh. I think this is a problem with tourney organization, not with game balance. I maintain that the game is more balanced at 1850 than at 1500.

Tournaments just really need to allocate enough time to play the bloody games. 2 1/2 hours is enough to get in full games with a horde army, as long as players aren't stalling or incompetant. If they're stalling, zero their sports. If they're incompetent, the experienced horde player should win the game anyway.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

@Beef see, In the US we all drive Cadillacs and SUVs so the extra weight of the 350 points isnt a problem for us to carry.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

I do notice that it is inexperienced / stalling players that keep the game going longer than it should. 1850 games should not take 4 hours. Between Logan007 and I we can finish an 1850 game easily under 2.5 hours. Heck that 1250 point game we did in about an hour. If the players understand their armies and dont stall its not a big deal.

For instance there is no reason not to realize that all your guys can fleet and that you should do them all at once instead of one at a friggin time and at different sections of the table. Disorganized players, I think, are the biggest contributors to long and drawn out games. Or overly OCD players that feel the need to reorganize things between rounds (dice / templates / codices) only to have to dig them out again... argh!

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Lost_Boys — GMT

I agree with the trooper I played a game with a mate where we both had 5000 pts each and finished in 2 hours. It depends on the players. I have seen tournies here in the UK where a player delibratly took long so the game had to be stoppeed after his turn 4 but before the opponent got his turn 4 thus winning him the game. Total W@nker.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

TheGrog — GMT

I prefer near cap fantasy games. 1850 or even 1950 is gold for me. More troops, more specials, as opposed to 1500 which is often just enough to cap out the power choices. Breaking the 2k limit in fantasy just means more characters to suck up the extra points though.

As for 40k, we've been playing 1850 standard tourney games for so long it's second nature.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

I prefer bigger points games only so I can get some units in that I would not usually use as they are to expensivew in a 1500 point game.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

Ideally I would like to play 2500 points on a 4x4 table with my space wolves.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Frazzled — GMT

Beef you should try fantasy-based on the above statement you might be missing out.

Having said that one of my fondest game was an 1850 SW army vs. Kroot mercs. We each shot one (and I mean one) shot and then proceeded to maul each other in the middle of the board.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Hellfury — GMT

Thats pretty funny. A single shot of intent before the 2 hour melee.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

the_trooper — GMT

2500 points... man... I wish I could get people to agree to that around here. Ill take my 2500 points of Black Legion against loyalists on such a small table anyday.

Beef, we need to import you to America to help show people how its done!

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Glaive Company CO — GMT

That brings up another tangeant topic on table size affecting balance along with point size. Mega battles on the floor or some other large expanse are often overly dominated by things that usually don't even make a dent in normal games. Case in point: Using 3 basilisks (multiple FOC Mega Battle) on about a 20' x 20' area of my basement to play a floor game is extremely unbalanced. Transports were destroyed long before they could get into effective range and when troops have to walk 18 or so feet through earthshaker blasts the game quickly needs to be changed.

Use 3 basilisks on a 4x6 table and the exact opposite occurs. AV12 open topped within range turn 1 = bad day for guard.

There are a few players around here who want to get it on with an above 2000 point game. The only problem is they want to use a single 4x6 table. For marines or the extreme case Deathwing that's not a problem. For me and my guard force I can't fit that entire force into my deployment zone. One guy suggested I just play using reserves. I said "Sure, as long as I can just bring on whatever units I want to at will as space becomes available instead of rolling." He actually said that would give me too big of an advantage and refused the game.

Maybe he was right, but the pendulum is going to swing one way or the other. Anyways, the point is that table size can affect balance as well.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

Maybe you guys do need to import me the states. I dont see what advantage that would have given you but I guess it just shows people still moan about anything. I am so easy going when it come to games its unbelievable. The things I let people get away with would get me shot around some of the rules lawyers round your ways.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Mannahnin — GMT

Table size is definitely a factor. I would never play a 1000+pt game on a 4x4. 4x4s are only good for demos and Combat Patrol. And Warmachine.

4x6 is decent for 1000 to maybe 2500pts, but 4x8 honestly gives better games.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Glaive Company CO — GMT

beef: I contend that the advantage it would have given me is far less than the advantage he would have had if I was forced to use the reserves rules vs his already fully dployed army. The advantage of me using the "Pick and Choose" reserves method though is definately not to be scoffed at. Come turn 3 when he gets his termis nice and close I move on with a Demolisher that was previously invulnerable because it's been sitting off table. The ONLY disadvantage to reserves is the fact that you don't know what turn your units will arrive. Once that gamble has been taken out of the mix Reserves actually becomes pretty powerfull. Being able to deploy, move, and/or fire in one turn after your opponent has already commited is rad to the max to put it another way.

So I don't begrudge him, and I hope he doesn't think poorly of me.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Lost_Boys — GMT

It should be done like the old days, your Hq v mine, whoever wins, wins the game. forget 40k in 49min this is 40K in 4 min

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

mughi3 — GMT

it is a points based game rather it be 1500 or 1850. the legality of the list is all that maters, as anybody can tweek a list at whatever points values you use

in fact of point a guard amry can have more heavy weapons than a more "elite" force like marines at a lower points level. making guard actually more effective.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

yes some armies fare better at various points and variious board sizes. 4x4 is the best size for my wolves,

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

Zubbiefish — GMT

Hey beef we should play each other. I'm like you. I let people get away with murder. Next time you're near Canada drop by.

RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?

beef — GMT

I will bare that in mind, thanks for the offer. Next time your in london give me a shout, maybe we can get a 10000 point mega game in with alot of proxy , unpainted or based models and make some of the rules up as we go.