What points level do you consider the 40k ideal?

[Carlosophy]

Thinking about scaling, I wonder what points level others felt the core 40k rules and their armies were best suited to.

I like smaller, denser games so for me right now 1000pts is perfect. You have just enough points to afford a few cool things alongside your rank and file but because you have to really think about what to take as at this level no unit can be sacrificial.

Some armies, like Tau are wonderful at this level whereas Chaos and GK get to take less of their more colourful choices.

[Chaos Undecided]

Still tend to stick to the old faithful of 1500pts as the target level for general play and army composition though I do often end up playing 1000pts instead especially when setting up the core of a new force.

[hobojebus]

I'd personally say 2k, not too large a force but lets you get in most of the units you like.

[jifel]

I think 1850 is the most balanced, as it allows most armies to take their toys, but isn't so large that you need "filler" units. 1500 to me always seems like Im a few points short of what I want, and 1000 is completely different. 2000 is nice as well, while 2250 and 2500 seem too crowded for me.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

I think 1850 is the most balanced, as it allows most armies to take their toys, but isn't so large that you need "filler" units. 1500 to me always seems like Im a few points short of what I want, and 1000 is completely different. 2000 is nice as well, while 2250 and 2500 seem too crowded for me.

I actually found that my Orks topped out at almost spot on 1500 and had everything I wanted to have and that anything after that was an exercise in spending the points the easiest way. Not helped by only having 3 FA and 2 Elite slots to spend. But that might just be my Orks.

Personally I'm not a big fan of the bigger games so between 1000-1500 would be my preference.

[Vaktathi]

I find in terms of army balance and including all the fun/cool stuff, 2000pts works best in my experience. That said, 2000pt armies also tend to get to the point where you're playing games with larger forces than you'd see in a Flames of War game at a scale several times larger.

[Inevitable]

I find in terms of army balance and including all the fun/cool stuff, 2000pts works best in my experience. That said, 2000pt armies also tend to get to the point where you're playing games with larger forces than you'd see in a Flames of War game at a scale several times larger.

1000 points on a 4x4
1500 points on a 6x4
1850 - 2500 points on an 8x4

The 8x4 table setup we don't roll randomly we base it off what each army brought. If its 2 hordes, we deploy 12" on the long. If its 2 shooters, we do Dawn of war shorts (4' deployments) but not the dawn of war rules. If they're balanced we usually do spearhead or L shaped deployments.

[Vaktathi]

1000 points on a 4x4
1500 points on a 6x4
1850 - 2500 points on an 8x4

The 8x4 table setup we don't roll randomly we base it off what each army brought. If its 2 hordes, we deploy 12" on the long. If its 2 shooters, we do Dawn of war shorts (4' deployments) but not the dawn of war rules. If they're balanced we usually do spearhead or L shaped deployments.

The problem is that most often we don't have an 8x4 board available, especially at a shop where they have pre-built 6x4 boards

Well, I prefer massive battles that allow players to bring everything in their codex and then some! Apocalypse games of at least 10,000pts are always a good start!


But I suppose for "normal" games we've found 3,000pt lists to truly be fun battles!

An issue with the bigger games is that they tend to take pretty much all day with a lot of setup time and can be very easily unbalanced without a good deal of planning since GW doesn't bother balancing it for squat (e.g. the Emperor Titan rules put it at 4kpts when it can engage 12kpts of armor without too much worry, 1200pts for a Heirophant that'll put three Baneblades down faster than you can blink, etc), and the larger 3000pt games tend to run into the issues that 'Ard Boyz saw, where certain armies run into FoC limitations and end up having to spend lots of points on upgrades while others are able to keep adding more and more stuff (hence why IG appeared so domineering for a while there since it doesn't care about the FoC quite as much).

though that said the big games can be a whole lot of fun.

[Mikial]

1000 points on a 4x4
1500 points on a 6x4
1850 - 2500 points on an 8x4

The 8x4 table setup we don't roll randomly we base it off what each army brought. If its 2 hordes, we deploy 12" on the long. If its 2 shooters, we do Dawn of war shorts (4' deployments) but not the dawn of war rules. If they're balanced we usually do spearhead or L shaped deployments.

I like this breakdown as well. My wife and I both like larger games and we have a 5X6 table at home, so we like to go for 2000+. That lets us take our favorites, whether it's the big Nid critters or demons for her, or lots of tank and such for my IG and SM heroes and vets.

Sometimes we will actually use two army lists each so we can make creative scenarios and tailored lists, like a heavy list for the beleaguered first force and a fast list for the second army coming to the rescue.

When we play at our local store we tend to go with the 1750 standard list.

[greenmtvince]

Depends on the table size. 500-750 is good for a 3x3 game of Zone Mortalis. 1500 is probably the most I like having on a 6x4 table.

[Balerion]

I like 1850 or 2000. I have a lot of models, and I like to use as many of them as I can. I also make a different list for every game, and 2000 allows you to try out new units and new combinations while still covering your fundamental needs, whereas smaller games can engender the netlist mentality of just sticking the absolute best, most efficient stuff in there to make sure you're equipped with the basic tools you need to win.

1500 and 1750 are good too.

But at 1000 I'd rather just do something else than play Warhammer.

[Scribe of Khorne]

1750 on a 4x6, with appropriate (25%) terrain coverage. Under that, you miss out on cool units or builds, and over that things become spammy or you need additional space/terrain.

[duffybear1988]

I used to be the king of 1750 points, but recently I have found 1500 points to be much more challenging. It stops some of the spamming, is less to buy and paint, easier to carry around, faster to setup, and means that decisions are harder to make.

[theDarkGeneral]

Well, I prefer massive battles that allow players to bring everything in their codex and then some! Apocalypse games of at least 10,000pts are always a good start!


But I suppose for "normal" games we've found 3,000pt lists to truly be fun battles!

[Marzillius]

I prefer 2000p. It's enough to add in what you need, and some units you like and want to include. It's much harder to do that at 1500p.

[Sons of Russ]

I prefer 2000p. It's enough to add in what you need, and some units you like and want to include. It's much harder to do that at 1500p.

100% agree

1500 pts is very min-max... 2k gives you all the necessary unit and a few toys... I dont play 40k to just win or loss and become a better general, I also like to be inspired by the cool/herioc stuff my FUN units do....

PS : wow... 30 months?....been a long time, hello again to all....

[ColShaw]

1500-2000, depending on what sort of game people are going for. I suppose that means 1750 is about the "sweet spot."

[Lord Damocles]

1500

letters

[BrainFireBob]

1850-2k. Any less and I find a single bad die roll can make a game irrelevent- I failed all my armor saves? I hit with nothing with 30 shots? And I lose.

Irritates me. Bigger than 2k and various armies start showing cracks.

[Oppressor]

1500 points. It's playable on every sized board, and keeps you from going crazy with stuff (depending onthe army). 1750 is also nice for those one or two extra things you just can't squeeze into 1500.