PDA

View Full Version : Is 2400 - 2500 points enough any more?



SanDiegoSurrealist
15-11-2013, 17:33
What size games are you playing these day?

When I first started playing in 2003-2004 games were between 1250-1400 points.
By 2009 it had grown to where 2200 points seemed to be the average game size.
By 2012 most tournaments and leagues, at least the ones I am aware of in Southern California, were 2400 - 2500 points.

Now 2013, and with all the new books GW has dropped recently, it seems to me GW are trying to push it well over that 2500 point mark.
I base this on by making it so everyone can only take a very small percentage of all the cool new toys that are being offered, bumping up points costs on baseline troops, and that some of the new named characters are tipping the scales at the 625 - 700+ points mark. When could you ever hope to field a Mazdamundi at 780 points? That would be a 3200 point game.

So what do you think the average game size is going to be in 9th?
Will it grow to 2600 - 2700 points?
How long before people just say "Screw It!" and go balls-to-the-wall with all games "Ard' BoyZ" style and make all leagues and tournaments baseline at 3000?

SteveW
15-11-2013, 18:18
My gaming group has found the most fun and balance at 3k points with a few games at 5k to mix things up. When I started playing in '96 a 2000 point force was a "big collection".

I think come 9th edition we will see many more tournaments got to 3k points and higher and IMO it will make the game better.

DivineVisitor
15-11-2013, 18:32
The smallest lists i make nowadays are all 3k with 5k ones being when i try to use all the bells and whistles.

Captain Collius
15-11-2013, 19:27
Well I normally play at 2500 and i like it but I have to say 3000 seems to be where it is going.

fishound7
15-11-2013, 19:37
I play normally around 2500 point games with my regular crew. But I would like to state that playing smaller games that are below 2000 are fun also. It really changes the whole dynamic of the game playing lower point games and is easier for newer players to get into the hobby.

shakedown47
15-11-2013, 19:50
The smallest lists i make nowadays are all 3k with 5k ones being when i try to use all the bells and whistles.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but our play group takes the opposite approach. At 4k+ list construction becomes a non-issue, IMO, and making hard choices stops being a concern. I personally prefer 3k overall, but games of that size are prohibitive for introducing new players. Our group plays 2400-2500 point games as a matter of course, and when PUGing on weekend days at the local nerd store that's always been our default game size. Also, while none of us are hardcore tournament-goers in the traditional sense, we attend several local and regional events each year and those are the predominate points allowances in those events.

theunwantedbeing
15-11-2013, 19:59
Mazdamundi is seemingly the only special character that didn't get cheaper from 7th to 8th edition.
Kroak took a 200pt hit in cost, Kroq-Gar took a 115pt drop.

Archaon got cheaper, as did Galrauch and Kholek.
Malekith got cheaper, as did Morathi and Hellbron.
Okay Mannfred got more expensive by 55pts, but he's still sub 600pts.
Skarbrand, Kairos and Kugath all got cheaper (as did the greater daemons).

Of all those special characters, only Archaon, Malekith and Mazdamundi require a force of larger than 2.5k to use.
So there doesn't appear to be any trend of special character's forcing larger and larger armies at all, quite the opposite....they're getting less expensive (probably to make you pay more for the entire army rather than filling up on points heavy special characters).

I played larger games as the years went by playing warhammer, but that was mainly due to having a larger collection of models to draw from.
If you have only 2k of models, you can't play bigger than 2k.
If you have 4k worth of models, you can play bigger than 2k...all the way to 4k, but you have way more choice in smaller games than your total limit the models allow.

So yeah, 2400-2500 is plenty.
That said, the Grand Army thing does get people wanting to play bigger because they get to field more multiples of the stuff they like best, ie. cannons or mortars.
You don't get to take 6 mortars at 2k, but at 3k it's perfectly legal.

Kayosiv
16-11-2013, 00:47
I personally don't like games over 2999 points.

If it had included perhaps, +1 special and +1 rare slot allotment at 3000 or more points it would have been reasonable, but at 6X and 4X respectively, there essentially ceases to be a limit at all.

My favorite game type is 2500 points. This doesn't allow me to fit everything I want, such as a slan plus a carnosaur riding oldblood in a single army, or a level 4 vampire lord on a zombie dragon. Not that these are at all competative choices, but they can be a lot of fun in the right setting. It's OK that I can't take those regularly though, and I often have to squeeze for points in certain areas such as the Lizardmen Rare slot or the Vampire Counts Lord Slot. That's a good thing and makes list building more interesting.

When the army rules allow me to take 6 spirit hosts and 6 units of hexwraiths... things get dumb.

-Totenkopf-
16-11-2013, 01:05
It is really interesting actually.. I write lists for 2500 points and half my games are 2000 or under and the other half are 3000k.. The most fun I have is 1500 or 3000... I really don't get any games at 2500 unless I am at a tournament, which for me, is once a year.. That being said, I think that 2999 is more accurate.. I am yet to really dabble in expanding the rare and special allowances, same goes with my group.. However, 4 bone giants and 6 warsphinxes would look awesome on the table.. or 10 stegadons!!!...

Smithpod68
16-11-2013, 02:18
My group typically plays between 2000-3000pts as that seems to give variety. The game definitely pushes toward the 3000pt mark. When I started playing in the late 90's 2000pts was the standard point value whether it be tournaments or in store games . Now a days it seems 3000pts is the way to go.

Montegue
16-11-2013, 02:54
My group typically plays between 2000-3000pts as that seems to give variety. The game definitely pushes toward the 3000pt mark. When I started playing in the late 90's 2000pts was the standard point value whether it be tournaments or in store games . Now a days it seems 3000pts is the way to go.

3k lets me take my favorite fluffy stuff and a strong list. I can use my lord on shield bearers and my Anvil.

Coldhatred
16-11-2013, 03:37
What size games are you playing these day?

When I first started playing in 2003-2004 games were between 1250-1400 points.
By 2009 it had grown to where 2200 points seemed to be the average game size.
By 2012 most tournaments and leagues, at least the ones I am aware of in Southern California, were 2400 - 2500 points.

Now 2013, and with all the new books GW has dropped recently, it seems to me GW are trying to push it well over that 2500 point mark.
I base this on by making it so everyone can only take a very small percentage of all the cool new toys that are being offered, bumping up points costs on baseline troops, and that some of the new named characters are tipping the scales at the 625 - 700+ points mark. When could you ever hope to field a Mazdamundi at 780 points? That would be a 3200 point game.

So what do you think the average game size is going to be in 9th?
Will it grow to 2600 - 2700 points?
How long before people just say "Screw It!" and go balls-to-the-wall with all games "Ard' BoyZ" style and make all leagues and tournaments baseline at 3000?

That's interesting, I started at nearly the same time, except that in Kansas the standard game size was 2,000 points. I maintain that 2000 is a great point size as it allows you to take a large force without taking absolutely everything. I personally think 3,000 i silly for a standard game, especially in terms of expectations of game length.

Lord Solar Plexus
16-11-2013, 07:51
2.000 points is enough for a great game, although we usually do play at 2,500 points. I also like the odd 1k game. Even with WoC it was easy enough to field 5-6 units.

On the other side of the spectrum, I think I have played a single 3k or larger game in all these years and the thought of doing so never crosses my mind.

RecklessAbandon
16-11-2013, 09:09
I actually prefer 2000 points. Big games are fun once in a while, I think I had about 4000 points of orc by the end of my last collection. But for regular games I prefer slightly smaller games, and just play 2 games instead of one. I usually find when someone I'm playing with wants to play 3000 points, it's because they have some silly 600 point character they want to use and I'd rather not because that's stuff's just annoying imo

Urgat
16-11-2013, 09:24
I mostly play 1500pts games. As for unit point costs, they've always gone yoyo, your mazdamundi at 750pts? He was probably more than that in 5th ed. I don't see GW pushing for higher pt games anyway, you don't do that by making SC more expensive, but core, and they do the opposite. They aim for increased body count instead.

Belakor
16-11-2013, 10:27
I play mostly 2.5-3K these days (used to do mostly 5K back, but it gets somewhat unwieldy), but with T&T just released I expect us to go down to 2K for a lot of battles.

Greyshadow
16-11-2013, 11:34
I am mostly playing 1750 pt games. That said my games are played in the spirit that list design is about creating a fun and interesting game for both players, not win-at-all-costs. Once turn one starts - well that's a different matter!

Still think it is a good size, big enough to be tactically interesting, small enough to be played relatively fast. (Forces you to think hard as you can't take everything too).

MOMUS
16-11-2013, 13:19
I think this is a bit of a (flawed) downward spiral argument, 2400 works fine for the 8th edition armies at the moment.

Sexiest_hero
16-11-2013, 13:51
I have to play 2.5k due to people only really like reading and watching that amount for some reason, other totals just don't get the views. People only tend to care about VC OK WOC mostly for some reason as well. You'd think they would get bored with them.

m1acca1551
16-11-2013, 14:15
I think its fine, it forces players to actually place some thought into what you are going to take, not just take 1 of everything and double up if possible. Also it does limit some spam, and mega deathstar horde that stretches from one side if the table to the other.

2200-2500 is perfect for me, however I find 500-1500 much more fun, interesting and far quicker.

3000pts will become the norm, but I can only see the older players being able to do this easily as we have the miniatures already lying around. The cost of buying a 2200 point army is already obscene, 3000? Time for a second mortgage :p

Tupinamba
16-11-2013, 15:55
I certainly hope it doesnt go that way. And if it were by me, Id like to see the game tuning down to 2000 again. Bigger games make it ever more difficult to play with fully painted miniatures, which is very important to me. It also makes for ever more clustered tables, with ever less room to manouvre, which is also a trend I deplore. And it "forces" people to have huge collections, as you need at least 1000 pts more than the standard list size to be able to build some different lists.

IMO, its possible to have the exact same positive balancing and diversity effects a 3000 pts game brings with smaller model count games, if the rules were changed accordingly to just have smaller units (caps, different hordes rule, increasing buffing costs whatever). KOW is a very good example in that sense.

Tae
16-11-2013, 17:38
The official GT (Throne of Skulls) is still 2,000 so that's still the 'official' standard, so my army will be likewise.

SanDiegoSurrealist
16-11-2013, 21:00
I personally don't like games over 2999 points.

If it had included perhaps, +1 special and +1 rare slot allotment at 3000 or more points it would have been reasonable, but at 6X and 4X respectively, there essentially ceases to be a limit at all.

My favorite game type is 2500 points. This doesn't allow me to fit everything I want, such as a slan plus a carnosaur riding oldblood in a single army, or a level 4 vampire lord on a zombie dragon. Not that these are at all competative choices, but they can be a lot of fun in the right setting. It's OK that I can't take those regularly though, and I often have to squeeze for points in certain areas such as the Lizardmen Rare slot or the Vampire Counts Lord Slot. That's a good thing and makes list building more interesting.

When the army rules allow me to take 6 spirit hosts and 6 units of hexwraiths... things get dumb.

I do really like the idea of the 2999 point game.
Enough to bring a little bit of everything, but because still limited on Special and Rare, more core on the table.

Sexiest_hero
17-11-2013, 00:06
I find that the extra 500 points to 2999+1 is a monster or two or a monster+unit filler that shows this battle as being "The Big One".

Voss
17-11-2013, 00:09
2.000 points is enough for a great game, although we usually do play at 2,500 points. I also like the odd 1k game. Even with WoC it was easy enough to field 5-6 units.

On the other side of the spectrum, I think I have played a single 3k or larger game in all these years and the thought of doing so never crosses my mind.
I'm with you. I've never found that warhammer works well at 3k, and it is something that I actively avoid. Even 2500 is pushing it, really, but since 2000 gives specific armies a hard time, it is harder to convince people it is the norm.

I do find it funny that people who complain about the cost also sometimes push for 3k games. At that point, people are just punishing themselves.

SteveW
17-11-2013, 01:17
I'm with you. I've never found that warhammer works well at 3k, and it is something that I actively avoid. Even 2500 is pushing it, really, but since 2000 gives specific armies a hard time, it is harder to convince people it is the norm.

I do find it funny that people who complain about the cost also sometimes push for 3k games. At that point, people are just punishing themselves.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. How 2k be the best size for a game if it makes it hard for some armies to field an army? At 3k(without grand armies, we actually play 2999) every army can take all their toys and with the extra bodies on the table magic plays less of a major roll.

stroller
17-11-2013, 17:14
I feel like the odd man out here. I usually play 1000 or 1500 pts. Sometimes we do go mad and field everything, but that's exceptional.

8DC
26-11-2013, 20:02
As someone just starting out (started back in September and I may be able to field 1500pts if I really try and load up my units), the idea of needing 3000 just to play a game that is considered "enough" is discouraging.

IcedCrow
26-11-2013, 20:14
My favorite is 2500-3000.

I am not a fan of skirmish games or low model count games. That's what I play D&D for. I play army games to see armies.

boli
26-11-2013, 21:37
Considering I have 14k worth of high elves and 12k worth of skaven, most if not all my battles are 1.5k. In general you can fit 2 or 3 of them in an evening, and it doesn't cost a fortune to "try something new"

That said going to have a 8.5k battle around Christmas

snyggejygge
26-11-2013, 22:35
For me the typical game is 1500-1750 points, despite all of us owning much larger forces, this is mainly due to time issues, games over 2K takes too long to finish.

In the past 2 years Ive entered 2 tournaments, which have been a 2000 point one & a 2200 point one.

I think these points are more than enough to get what I want.

SteveW
27-11-2013, 00:43
Considering I have 14k worth of high elves and 12k worth of skaven, most if not all my battles are 1.5k. In general you can fit 2 or 3 of them in an evening, and it doesn't cost a fortune to "try something new"

That said going to have a 8.5k battle around Christmas

It really only costs the $50 for the book to "try something new" if you don't mind using proxies.

boli
27-11-2013, 00:50
I meant new as in tactics wise I expanded a lot so I pretty much have every option available proxy not withstanding plus its nice to play massive game occasionally

Odin
27-11-2013, 00:55
I like to mix it up a bit, usually play 2400 to 3000 points but have really been enjoying some 1000 pointers recently. Including a 1000 point Storm of Magic game, which was a blast.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Commodus Leitdorf
27-11-2013, 01:06
I have always enjoyed building 2000pt lists. It seems more of a challenge to build a list at that point value as you can`t take everything. Having the extra 250 or 500 points allows you to fill in gaps but at the expense of losing the challenge of making a list work.

I don`t have strong feelings either way about it personally as I`ve done tournaments ranging from 2000 to 3000 and enjoyed each for different reasons.

Dark Aly
28-11-2013, 09:03
I feel like the odd man out here. I usually play 1000 or 1500 pts. Sometimes we do go mad and field everything, but that's exceptional.

me too. I love 800 point one day leagues too. 2500 is the max I've ever done. 2k often but mostly 1000-1500 points.

Litcheur
28-11-2013, 11:09
What size games are you playing these day?
I don't play above 2000-2500 pts anymore. And I really enjoy smaller games : they're fast-paced and tactically challenging.

WHFB is a "large skirmish game", and trying to pretend the opposite is just stupid.

Okay, it's not 40k-stupid. :o
You know, stupid like Yeah, super heavies and flyers are totally relevant, look, these 100 miniatures do not actually represent 100 soldiers, but tens to hundreds of thousands. Wait, what is this meltagun doing on the first row ? You should be on the second one, Private Bob! Oh, by the way, the third soldier on the fourth rank of this squad - no, not this one, that one - carries a grenade launcher.
It's not that-kind-of-stupid yet, but it's still stupid. :D

Face the facts : even if GW tries to make us believe the opposite to sell more toy soldiers, WHFB/40k systems are far closer from skirmish games like Mordheim/Necromunda than from larger scale games like Warmaster/Epic. Actually, Mordheim and Necromunda are just adaptations of the WH systems, while Warmaster/Epic are almost totally unrelated to the WH systems.
WHFB is just that : a scaled-up Mordheim. You've got your magic items, your individual equipment, total knowledge of the exact state and casualties of each and every unit and do never, ever have command problems (excepted if you play O&G).

When scaling up, just as "way too simplistic" becomes "brilliantly synthetic", "attention to details" becomes "fiddlyness". Above 3000 pts, WHFB begins to look like a Great Unclean One : bloated and cumbersome, struggling to move around. Not to mention the system totally forgets things that become significant on larger battles, like command structure.

By the way, writing your list isn't about making choices anymore, because you can basically stack everything you want. :o

Even without taking the system and armylists themselves into account, the standard tables are just too small to play 3000 pts games. You have less room for manoeuvres and basically can spread your army in a line that covers all the width of the battlefield.

Montegue
28-11-2013, 16:37
Definitely like 3k games. I get to take the toys I want in the army build I prefer. And the games aren't significantly longer.

Belakor
28-11-2013, 19:41
You know, stupid like[I] Yeah, super heavies and flyers are totally relevant, look, these 100 miniatures do not actually represent 100 soldiers, but tens to hundreds of thousands.

They do?


Even without taking the system and armylists themselves into account, the standard tables are just too small to play 3000 pts games. You have less room for manoeuvres and basically can spread your army in a line that covers all the width of the battlefield.

Unless you play with lots of slaves, NGs and the like , that is just no.

Taking the game from say 2400 pts to 3000 pts is just a character and a special units, and/or a gribbley.

Hardly "moar crams onda tableh!".

forseer of fates
28-11-2013, 21:31
Cant really stand small games, 2k is a minimum, 3-5k in store and 6-8k with m8s or 8/10k per side if there are teams

3eland
28-11-2013, 21:40
I love big games but I only game Wednesday and only for 4 hours. With 3 other players in my Warhammer group multiple large games don't do too well due to time constraints (and we play casually, with one player liking to talk lol), so we usually play round robin games of small point values or team battles. Sometimes, we do the occasional large battle but nothing over 2500. The only times we DO have all day is once a month where we get together and game all day, and that is usually when we do campaign stuff anyway lol.

Litcheur
28-11-2013, 22:24
They do?
You probably know what I mean. Unfortunately, WHFB works exactly the same.

We try to pretend 1 mini stands for 10 or 100 soldiers. Because we desperatly want to field one quarter of all the steam tanks of the entire Empire on that battlefield. Unfortunately, both WHFB and 40k systems do tell us that the ratio is definitely not 1 to 100. Maybe 1:10 for WHFB, because of the unit blocks and lack of individualized equipment.
But 40k is clearly 1 to 1.

WHFB and 40k may be "bigger skirmish games", but they're still skirmish games, thus don't work that good on larger scales.

Belakor
29-11-2013, 05:50
We try to pretend 1 mini stands for 10 or 100 soldiers. Because we desperatly want to field one quarter of all the steam tanks of the entire Empire on that battlefield. Unfortunately, both WHFB and 40k systems do tell us that the ratio is definitely not 1 to 100. Maybe 1:10 for WHFB, because of the unit blocks and lack of individualized equipment.

That is not what I am seeing on the battlefield or any part of the rules, nor were "we" never in the illusion that one miniature equal something that it is not.

I just see a slew of miniatures with tanks and monsters and have a great time playing with them.

innerwolf
29-11-2013, 07:00
That is not what I am seeing on the battlefield or any part of the rules, nor were "we" never in the illusion that one miniature equal something that it is not.

I just see a slew of miniatures with tanks and monsters and have a great time playing with them.

There are two strongly polarized schools of thought on that matter. Me, I will always defend the 1:1 view, just because I seek consistence everywhere I can, and I'm unable to stomach a basic soldier representing 10 (or even more) while a monster represents a single monster and a character is the same.

Belakor
29-11-2013, 09:37
There are two strongly polarized schools of thought on that matter. Me, I will always defend the 1:1 view, just because I seek consistence everywhere I can, and I'm unable to stomach a basic soldier representing 10 (or even more) while a monster represents a single monster and a character is the same.

It isn't that people who play the game claim one miniature represent 10 or a 100 men, it is when someone says that "everyone" and "officially" when I have yet to see anything like that when playing the game.

The bearded one
29-11-2013, 09:55
We play 2400 as our standard large game (we do games like 1000 or 1500 if someone's army is smaller, or time or room is limited) as that is what tournaments tend to be, and we tend to keep those in mind when building an army, but I definately would not mind playing 3000 (2999) as 'standard' instead. Most people around here who have built their way to a 2400pts army tend to already have more than that anyway. I don't think it takes that much longer to play either, but the ability to buy an extra unit/monster or two-three turns it more into an actual army.

At 2400 it still feel somewhat cramped at times, as thats the pointslevel where you have certain "requirements", or at least ones you prefer to fill in, such as a high level wizard or a strong general, and some kind of BSB, and preferrably also a secondary lowlevel wizard to carry the scroll and stuff, and of course a large portion of points goes into core. At 2400 my lizardmen have 2 monsters, 1 unit saurus and 1 unit templeguard, and a flock of about 40 skink skirmishers.

The extra 600 (599) gives you a good oppertunity to pad out the army a bit, particularly by allowing you to put in more units. And more units makes the game more exciting, especially in the movement phase as you start getting the back and forth charging and flanking. Whenever you play smaller games it tends to devolve into the 1-2 big units of both armies lining up against eachother, smashing their heads together straight on and see who wins. Take my lizardmen for example: with those 600 points I could get another stegadon, a flanking unit of 15 saurus (or 5 cold one cavalry) and a unit of terradons or ripperdactyls. Wham. More stuff for the movement game, rather than just those 2-3 you center your army around (and next to which you often can't manage to fit much else in).

Grammaticus Bane
29-11-2013, 20:22
When I started playing around 98/99, it was 2000pts. We now play 2500, but there is usually interest to go bigger. Most people around my area stick to 2500 though as that is the tournament standard, and there are a lot of small, friendly tournaments around here.

Horned_Rat
03-12-2013, 14:58
2500 , less is boring.