PDA

View Full Version : Will the Meta game diverge more between the USA and Europe now?



TrangleC
23-07-2012, 00:05
I've noticed that in Youtube videos and forum comments made by Americans, there is a lot of talk about 2000+ point games.
2000+ point games are still pretty seldom in Europe, as far as I know. Here most tournaments and thus most beer and pretzel games are still played in the 1500 to 1850 point range, mostly 1750 points.

(Where I live most people even seem to frown on 2000+ games because they say that writing such big army lists is boring because you can just throw everything you want and need into it, while small armies require strategy and a plan because you can't have everything in them. Also two 2000+ point armies clutter up a gaming table in a way that makes intelligent maneuvering impossible or pointless and such big games dissolve into mindless brawls.
That might be snobbish, but I think there is some truth to it, but in any case it isn't really the point of this thread.)

Now that for the first time (as far as I remember) there is a fundamental difference between a 2000+ point game and a less than 2000 point game and gamers in the USA seem more inclined to playing the bigger games than Europeans, do you think the Meta games in both parts of the world will diverge significantly over the next years?

Honestly, when hearing and reading all those American gamers talk about fielding 4 HQ choices and 12 troop choices as if that would be the most normal thing and as if that is how this game is supposed to be played and then looking at how seldom I played 2000+ point games in my 8 or 9 years as a tabletop gamer, I'm wondering whether American 40k players are still playing the same game as me and my gaming group.

IcedCrow
23-07-2012, 00:19
I like playing 2000 pt games because I like actual armies. I really don't care about the 4 HQ etc etc stuff.

Also... who cares? The group I am in are all american and none are hyper competitive power gamers. I'm pretty sure that we are both playing 40k.

tuebor
23-07-2012, 00:31
Are people actually using the second FOC in their 2000 point games? I live in Europe and in my gaming club 2000 (or rather 1999 points) is the standard size of a game but so far we haven't been using the second FOC.

I've gamed in the US, Canada, and Europe and apart from language I've seen literally zero difference between Americans, Canadians or Europeans. Oddly enough the only club I've ever played in with a 1500 point standard was in the US.

Noserenda
23-07-2012, 00:34
Well no, obviously gaming groups the world over will have their own Meta and favoured points values...

To Clarify for example Im a European and I usually Play 1000-1500-2000-3000+ pts games but if you suggested 1750 id look at you strangely, never seen one played in 20 years of this hobby :shifty: Never got that particular points value, just seems weird...

Mchagen
23-07-2012, 00:36
Not sure where you get the idea that 'all' Americans play at 2000 points. My group rarely plays above 1500 points for many of the reasons you've posted. At that level, there are some tough choices to be made which (imo) makes list building and the game more enjoyable.

Regardless, several of the more recent tournaments I've seen around here are at the 2k points level. Though I have seen a few at 1500. It's still all personal preference or the preference of the tournament organizer.

TrangleC
23-07-2012, 00:43
Not sure where you get the idea that 'all' Americans play at 2000 points.
I didn't mean that all Americans are considering 2000 points the standard size, just that all the Americans I heard talking about 6th edition in Youtube videos and many of the forum comments I've read went into that direction.

Xerkics
23-07-2012, 01:14
WE normally play 1000-1250 per army but we play 2 on 2 games. UK here. It can be pretty hard as you need pretty much at least 1500 points to take at least a little of everything you like so you have to make hard choices.

Thoth62
23-07-2012, 01:18
The vast majority of the games played at my club are at the 1500 points level. Every once in a while, a game might get bumped up to 2000, but that's an anomaly.

mughi3
23-07-2012, 01:33
Here in our little corner of america we used to play at 1,750 and then 1,850 because thats what GW ran their tournaments at so it became the defacto points cost as the years went on, however i LOVE playing at 2K because i like being able to put my models on the table and play with them. lets face it, its a game and we want to play with our toys. thats not to say we don't do smaller games, afterall given the nature of this hobbie most players do not start with 2K worth of stuff. they build up to it a they go along. 40K over the last 3 editons has been designed with large armies in mind and has been designed more or less to function fine at those points values (2,500 used to be the FOC limit in the books). if you like the feel of smaller strategic games you should belooking at necromunda in the 40K universe or games like infinity where loosing a single model can really hurt.

As far as the meta goes that can vary wildly based on your groups idea of what a good 40K game is. our groups is 100% behind using any GW mini which means that forgeworld units, superheavy units and even titans show up in normal games without so much as a second look. in fact i enjoy seeing them hit the table because it widens the variety of whats in the game. when GW desingers (who are understandably brits) make comments like "we didn't expect anybody to do that, since it doesn't fit the fluff" when asked about some powerful combination of units they allowed in the rules, is a telling example of the different mindset of gamers idea of what a 40K game is.

The key thing is that your local gaming group is have an enjoyable time of it no matter how you like playing the game.

kendaop
23-07-2012, 01:45
Go big or go home.

Craftworld
23-07-2012, 02:07
Well first, yeah - you did come across as a bit of a snob, insulting the player-base that enjoys two-thousand point games. That being said, you seem to be misinformed about the "meta" scene for varying countries. I've been in European clubs that only play at two-thousand points; and in American clubs that like small skirmishes - where two-thousand points is for the odd Apocalypse, or the like. Never for a normal game.

You can't label an entire country that way; especially based off of Youtube user comments. That's a pretty poor way to get a proper understanding of the meta anywhere.

tiger g
23-07-2012, 02:24
Part of the reason is in the us we have larger space at our homes and stores.

Ozendorph
23-07-2012, 02:43
I would guess they are talking about 2000 pt games in the vids because of the rule change, not because thats the American Way or some such. Here (southern california) i find "normal" varies from store to store and group to group. I am an Apocalypse guy so i dont get a vote ;)

otakuzoku
23-07-2012, 02:59
most games i have played are 1500 or 1750 hear in the UK

althathir
23-07-2012, 03:10
I've noticed that in Youtube videos and forum comments made by Americans, there is a lot of talk about 2000+ point games.
2000+ point games are still pretty seldom in Europe, as far as I know. Here most tournaments and thus most beer and pretzel games are still played in the 1500 to 1850 point range, mostly 1750 points.

(Where I live most people even seem to frown on 2000+ games because they say that writing such big army lists is boring because you can just throw everything you want and need into it, while small armies require strategy and a plan because you can't have everything in them. Also two 2000+ point armies clutter up a gaming table in a way that makes intelligent maneuvering impossible or pointless and such big games dissolve into mindless brawls.
That might be snobbish, but I think there is some truth to it, but in any case it isn't really the point of this thread.)

Now that for the first time (as far as I remember) there is a fundamental difference between a 2000+ point game and a less than 2000 point game and gamers in the USA seem more inclined to playing the bigger games than Europeans, do you think the Meta games in both parts of the world will diverge significantly over the next years?

Honestly, when hearing and reading all those American gamers talk about fielding 4 HQ choices and 12 troop choices as if that would be the most normal thing and as if that is how this game is supposed to be played and then looking at how seldom I played 2000+ point games in my 8 or 9 years as a tabletop gamer, I'm wondering whether American 40k players are still playing the same game as me and my gaming group.

I think they're talking about it because of the extra foc (new ground) more than any thing. I think game sizes tend to settle at a store/club standard more than from what nation your from. That said in the U.S. they aren't a lot of GW stores most are idependent, and from what i've heard GW stores tend to have a lot of 4 X 4 tables (which would lower the amount of points you'd want to use).

Sabe
23-07-2012, 03:41
Overall I have noticed a slight compunction to play slightly larger point values in NA compared to Europe, but I don't think its really an important or terribly over-present factor, especially in tourny's. In Canada the point value 1850 seems to be more used in tourny's than in other parts of the world but that's about the only real common occurrence I've seen in any country's tournament scene.

althathir
23-07-2012, 03:48
I think 1850 really came around as a fairly common point level because of adepticon, could be wrong though but I know we started to run 1850 because of it.

owen matthew
23-07-2012, 04:34
This is funny. 10 years ago I played in tourneys all across Italy and the UK and EVERY game was at 1500. It was a big change and I really enjoyed it. I have not found groups out here in the Bay Area that want to play anything less than 1850, and often more. People will often play if I ask, but it is always begrudgingly. I have probably 100K, but it does not inspire me to want to play larger point games.

Banville
23-07-2012, 06:53
Ireland here, and my club tends to play 2000pt games. But it varies from club to club and area to area. Tourney players or a club gearing up for a tourney will switch its meta to suit the points for that tourney. I think time constraints are more a factor in limiting game sizes than anything. I don't think "space" or the size of houses has anything to do with it as 99% of games are played on a 6x4 board.

I really don't think there's any more of a difference the US and Europe than there is between my club and a club in Dublin, or between my club leading up to a tournament and my club on a regular night.

IJW
23-07-2012, 07:57
Roughly speaking, UK gamers tend to play 1500 because that's what the GT has been for many years, it's been the size of the sample armies in most (but not all) codices and a lot of other UK tournaments are that size or sometimes 1k to make the games quick. 1750 as a popular tournament size is relatively new over here.

In parts of the US, games tend to be 1750 or 1850 because that's the size of game in some of the more popular tournaments like Adepticon.

Killgore
23-07-2012, 08:23
Do Americans play larger games because they have access to more space?

Haravikk
23-07-2012, 08:32
Personally I love smaller, quicker games. Playing with big armies is cool, but you really need to dedicate a whole day or even a weekend to it.

It does kind of highlight how well 40k scales as you can still have very enjoyable games at 1,000 points, that plus the fact that urban battles don't really require me to get my Realm of Battle out (always a pain) and it makes it much easier to play quick games. Plus if you're having several friends over then small individual armies are easier for playing 2v2 or whatever.

Kevlar
23-07-2012, 10:18
Everything is bigger in America. Have you ever seen Texas? It's huge!

Seriously though I think a lot of it has to do with games workshop sponsoring the 'ard boys tournaments at 2500 points the last few years. That point level for a tournament seems absurd to me. There is no way to play a game comfortably in the alloted time. It just seemed like a way for GW to push more models out the door.

Spell_of_Destruction
23-07-2012, 11:07
The main reason I can see for going to 2,000pts is to scale the game for the inclusion of flyers and anti-flyer units. That's another distinct niche that I need to make space for in my list.

murgel2006
23-07-2012, 11:30
Maybe it would be wise to break up this threat in two. One about the "competitive/tournament" gaming, the other about the "fun/fluffy" gaming.

"fun/fluff" In my personal experience there is no points value in general use. There are however a lot of "kids" around who have restrictions about their army-size due to money. I do often see games at 1k to 1.5k that do not really appeal to me.
I like 2k+ games better, as I like the flexibility offered and stile needed for such "big" games.

"tournament" From what I see the lists are "small" 1k to 1.5k max. I figure it is due to the need for fast running games. It is the reason why I play so few tournaments.

cynic
23-07-2012, 11:33
...To Clarify for example Im a European and I usually Play 1000-1500-2000-3000+ pts games but if you suggested 1750 id look at you strangely, never seen one played in 20 years of this hobby :shifty: Never got that particular points value, just seems weird...


You need to get to your local tournament then ;) X-Legion (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?325306-X-Legion-Tournaments-2012-Sign-up-Thread!&p=5936001&viewfull=1#post5936001) runs a 1750pt tournament each year. Great fun, and a good regular crowd.

Carlosophy
23-07-2012, 15:10
Agreed. I tend to play at ~1000pts these days at it becomes a crucial decision of boys vs toys once the points start getting eaten up. Pretty much every army is competitive at this level too, especially Tau and Sisters.

Grocklock
23-07-2012, 16:35
I play 1500, I find when I play 2000 I don't really plan for it its a case I turn up with a 1500 force and add on 500 points, which isn't the same as building a stright 2000 point force.

Bergen Beerbelly
23-07-2012, 17:08
I play 2500 to 3k every saturday. I used to like the 1500 point games until I started noticing a trend when I went to tournaments. Everyone had the exact same thing in their armies at that points level. There was never any variation. So as a consequence, I always knew what to expect from my tournament opponents.

The only thing I never knew before I went to a tournament that was at that points level was what armies would show up to play. But I knew exactly what every single army would bring in those points levels because everyone in a tournament wanted to bring the best stuff. And only had 1500 points to spend.

So with 2500 to 3k you see more variety in the game. You get to see different units brought to help fight the battle. Even if some of those units were just fillers.

To me, it also feels more like a war because no matter where you turn, there's something you have to deal with. That's more like the sweeping battles they talk about in the fluff than just a few squads of guys shooting at each other, or a few vehicles racing around.

With 6th edition it feels even more like those sweeping battles than before because now you can have two FOC and see all sorts of variant things on the table, which you still can't do at 1500, 1850, or anything below 2k.

Now while you COULD just load up all of the extra slots from your new FOC with the exact same things, you can also bring many different things to the table than you could before. So now I'm seeing Eldar players bring Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders, Shining Spears, Vypers, Vibro Cannons, Rangers/pathfinders, Star Cannon armed War Walkers, Fire Prisms and Night Spinners.

Now you are not just seeing minimum 5 man dire avengers in falcons, five man fire dragons in wave serpents and two farseers. You are seeing a lot of variety in what people will bring. And the higher the points get, the more of it you see.

Easy E
23-07-2012, 18:15
From the US and I love to play 1000 pts. Granted, most people want to play the tourney standard of 1850.

My objections to larger games are mostly time based. I like to start and finish with set-up and takedown relatively quickly.

Chem-Dog
23-07-2012, 18:18
The OP's question assumes a lot based on a very narrow sample. I doubt the ever ephemeral and, frankly, irrelevant "meta" can ever be accurately judged, the best you're ever going to get is an evaluation based on the views of those who talk about such things.
So I don't think the gap between how any one country plays it's games is any more (or less) relevant than how a particular group or even an individual plays his/her/it's games.

Nymie_the_Pooh
23-07-2012, 18:33
I think the bigger games are more likely to be recorded and/or talked about. If somebody is going to take the extra time to record, edit, and upload then they might as well go big on the game itself as a lot of that extra effort will take about the same amount of active work to get presentable and uploaded.

In my area (Central California, USA) games tend to run the 1500 to 1850 range. Whether that is a holdover from the last edition and will change in time is yet to be determined. I didn't get to attend, but there was a local tournament on Saturday that was 1000 points. Part of the reason for this smaller point limit was because not everybody is used to the new rules yet so there were time concerns. I know of a couple of escalation leagues starting at 500 and going up 250 every month over the past couple of years. There is a big annual tournament here as well (coming in October) and as far as I know the plan is to keep it at 1850 and there will be at least some people driving a hundred miles to play in that.