PDA

View Full Version : Which is point value game is designed for??



Lotoc_Sabbath
29-11-2009, 13:40
hi guys,

simple:

Which is point value game is designed for??

1000
1250
1500
1750
1850
2000
2250
2500

I personally think 2000. 5th ed. is based on the thought that anything you field will have a role in the game and that now any list can function. At 1500 this thought isn't too respected because some lists start to be more powerful than others because you don't have sufficient points to field a full, complete and enjoyable army and you start to put units or lists that are too strong for other lists example:
-double slash
-150 guard men with lascannons creed and straken!!!and you still got points (ahem how are you going to take down them!!!???)
-7 Leman Russ

and many others
at 2000 lists are always balanced because you have a variety of possibilities with new codices and you can field a complete army without the possibility of getting too overpowered.
last reason is that it is becoming standard in white dwarf too...

LonelyPath
29-11-2009, 14:24
Ideally it's anything between 1500 and 2000 points.

Bolter Bait
29-11-2009, 14:28
Hey, 400 points isn't an option? ;)

1000 points is where it's balanced.

Sorros
29-11-2009, 14:33
1500/1750 points...at 2k points it becomes a little too much, and for certain armies its just too good. Certain armies just get a lot more for the 250 points. Dark Eldar can toss in 4-6 more darklances at BS4, whereas Eldar can take a squad and a transport.

Also, every unit is generally more important at lower points. When you start to get at 2k+, it starts to become "Oh, you killed a squad of warriors? Too bad I have 4 more."

Our local tournament was at 2k points, and a lot of people didn't play just b/c they preferred 1500/1750. And even then, a bunch of people that played enjoy lower point battles more so.

marv335
29-11-2009, 14:53
According to the game designers I have spoken to at various games days and other events, the game is balanced for a 6'x4' table with 25% terrain at 1500pts.

Bunnahabhain
29-11-2009, 14:55
1500-2000, or thereabout.

Some lists work better than others at higher or lower points levels. Guard, for instance have always worked best at high points. Oh, the points has gone up again? lets have another mechanised platoon...
Other lists, that rely on elites and HQs more, often start to run out of competitive choices by 2000pts or so.

RCgothic
29-11-2009, 15:24
I play most of mine at 1500, but I'd prefer to play 2000+ if I had more time.

GrimZAG
30-11-2009, 03:02
my first instinct was to go over 9000... but that wasn't an option.

So I'd say 1846 pts exactly, no more and no less.

Ravenous
30-11-2009, 03:12
1500 to 2000

More or less then that and you start seeing the glaring balance issues that some armies have.

Crons (in 4th ed anyway) and guard at high point games are nearly unstoppable while smaller elite armies like Eldar just get crappier as the points go up because the Damage to Points ratio starts to show.

ehlijen
30-11-2009, 03:25
There's a reason most example armies in rulebooks and codices are at roughly 1.5k points. People like playing bigger games because that reduces the hard need to choose what not to take, but go too far over and the FO chart, table space and I go You go start throwing spanners in the works.

DuskRaider
30-11-2009, 03:26
I voted 1850 pts. Although truthfully, most of the games I play are 2000+ pts.

Thud
30-11-2009, 03:26
Officially it's 1,500 points, but I find 5th edition to flow better with 1,750.

1,750 is basically the same as 1,500 but gives you a little extra to either add another unit or get that extra gear you can't afford.

nightgant98c
30-11-2009, 05:04
I'd say 1500-1850. These seem to be the point levels that most armies are balanced at, though they are never actually quite balanced.

Blackwolf
30-11-2009, 05:31
Actually when it was released the designers came out and said it was designed for 1500-2000 point battles and that they intended to continue to support other sizes via supplements such as apocalypse.

Petay1985
30-11-2009, 11:40
According to the game designers I have spoken to at various games days and other events, the game is balanced for a 6'x4' table with 25% terrain at 1500pts.

This is exactly my understanding too, from the Staff i've spoken to at various events, stores, Bugmans and Warhammer World this seems to be general consensus :)

Obviously a slight shift either way doesnt make a huge difference, 1000 to 2000 seems to keep the balance nicely.

totgeboren
30-11-2009, 14:10
At 1500 this thought isn't too respected because some lists start to be more powerful than others because you don't have sufficient points to field a full, complete and enjoyable army and you start to put units or lists that are too strong for other lists example:
-double slash
-150 guard men with lascannons creed and straken!!!and you still got points (ahem how are you going to take down them!!!???)
-7 Leman Russ

and many others


I think this nicely points out the problem with 2000+ pts games. It allows players to field some quite extreme armies that a "normal" army can't hope to defeat. At 1500 pts its less of a problem. im my opinion atleast. I like 1500 pts best.

sliganian
30-11-2009, 14:33
According to the game designers I have spoken to at various games days and other events, the game is balanced for a 6'x4' table with 25% terrain at 1500pts.

Having tested books for them over a period of 5 years or so, I can confirm that this is true.

kurac
30-11-2009, 14:41
I know everyone plays 2000+ but i think at that point level you tend to buy more stuff then you reallly need and units loose importance and character.

So i like 500-1000.....sometimes up to 1200...but then it's just hordes of models, and i reallly dont care if some of them die.

Bloodknight
30-11-2009, 15:02
.at 2k points it becomes a little too much, and for certain armies its just too good. Certain armies just get a lot more for the 250 points. Dark Eldar can toss in 4-6 more darklances at BS4,

Or not. 2K isn't a great playing field for DE because at the 1750 level you've already got all the good stuff (you take a lot of Troops and maxed out HS at 1000 points already) and you begin to fill the points with the crap units that are left in the codex. At 2.5K you've fully maxed out the FOC, to a level where a quarter of your army is crap you'd usually not take if you didn't have to - which is a situation hardly any other army is in.


@topic: 1500-2000 points is where it's at, I'd say.

mdauben
30-11-2009, 15:07
Which is point value game is designed for??
I don't think there is any question really that the game was designed for point total of 1500. For years, that was the "standard" size game, and quotes over the years from various design staff seem to confirm that this is the point total at which they strive :rolleyes: to balance the game.

Now, I think there is some flexibility in the lists and game mechanics, but IMO when you get down close to 1000 you really need to start tweaking the org chart, as some lists start to have a hard time fielding competative lists at that point, while still meeting the 1xHQ/2xTroop requirements. At the other end, I think by 2000 points, it becomes too easy to spam elite/fast/heavy units in most lists, which IMO starts to throw the balance of the whole game off and it becomes more and more "who has the best toys" rather than "who has the best tactics".

Personally, my preference is to play games at 1500-1750, as I think that gives the best balance between list building and tactics. :)

Bunnahabhain
30-11-2009, 15:11
Whereas, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Guard get about 10K before running out of useful options, and can then double that with the rubbish options. The little things, like ~50 chimeras, that add up.

ReveredChaplainDrake
30-11-2009, 21:15
I say something like 2000 pts. The reason I don't enter RTTs or GTs is because they insist on 1500 pt games. Unfortunately, some armies just don't work on such a small scale, and if they do they become incredibly boring. When you're playing to such a strict points limit, every single codex entry you have to work with will be jockeying for position. As such, perfectly valid choices (like undivided CSM) will be shunned in favor of making the cheapest, most OTT broken list as possible. And it's easy, because all you need to do is build a list that your opponent will not be able to cope with at said points level. (For instance, how would you go about killing Abaddon in a 750-pt game?) 1500 pts is not a lot. In fact, it's pocket change as far as I'm concerned. In smaller lists, most players start with their best FOC slot (usually Heavy Support), max it out, and then fill the rest with staple units and objective holders. This is a really cheap way to play 40k, IMHO. But in larger games, you will run out of points or FOC slots far quicker, thus forcing you to take units from other FOC slots, and thus forcing a more well-rounded list.

@ 1500: Start with a bare bones HQ, two bare bones Troops, and fill the rest with cream-of-the-crop broken units until you run out of points or FOC slots. You will most likely have more than enough FOC slots. Gimmick lists only.

@ 1750-1850: Field cream-of-the-crop broken units until you run out of points or FOC slots, and then throw in an Objective taker or two. Gimmick lists begin to lose their effectiveness as the opponent can now afford appropriate countermeasures.

@ 2000 pts: Field cream-of-the-crop broken units, and when you run out of FOC slots, you fill in the gaps with units that aren't as "points-efficient", but are still worth their merit.

@ 2500 pts: Max out your Force Org. This is when labels like "cost-efficient" and "points sink" start to lose their meaning, allowing units like expensive special characters, multiple Monoliths, Land Raider phalanxes, and other stuff that wouldn't be "worth its points" in smaller games.

@ 3000+ pts: Take your rulebook and set it on fire. At this point, you're playing Apocalypse and nothing matters. Yep, not even victory.

Personally, I aim for 2250 pts, the apex for maximum fun vs maximum competitiveness. The points are so high that you can counter pretty much anything, but they're not high enough to reduce the 2nd turn player's army to cinders in one turn.

Nkari
30-11-2009, 21:25
I really wish they would make this game a platoon scale game instead of a company scale game.. 28mm doesnt do company scale very good..


But imho at around 1850-2000 pts 40 gets semi balanced..

But nowdays I prefera much smaller games than I used to do.. games that takes 45-1.5h including setting up terrain and clearing the table..

mughi3
01-12-2009, 12:08
I like the 2,000 point level.
your still able to get a game in in a reasonable time and have enough points to stick in some more interesting options in your army build.

Lordsaradain
01-12-2009, 12:34
Voted 1750, because I think its somewhere in the 1,5-2k range.

Vaktathi
01-12-2009, 12:38
I personally have always liked 2000pts the best, it's high enough that you can get all the cool things in, have enough room left for some fluffy stuff, and still have something the deal with the cheese builds that would prove too much at 1500. I find this points level is the least awkward in regards to list building (i.e. 1750 often ending up being like 50pts over or 30pts under for trying to fit stuff in) and results in more balanced games than 1500pts (where everyone just crams in the most broken stuff they can and leaves all the interesting or fluffy stuff at home) with more cool stuff.

ex-green
01-12-2009, 12:49
I go for the 1500 as you have to make a few choices as to what to take, which leads in the use of more tactics.

Dyrnwyn
01-12-2009, 18:07
I believe it's 1500. At 1500 points, you have to make real choices on what to include in your list, and when you deploy both armies on a 6x4 board, there's still room to maneuver. 1750 is still mostly balanced but the board starts to get crowded. At 2000 more elite armies start outshining those who already filled their useful FOC slots with cheaper units, and the board quickly be completely clogged, depending on the army fielded.