PDA

View Full Version : What point level do you prefer?



hellspawn1
18-08-2010, 21:22
At what point level does 40k really shine?
It used to be made for 1000-1500 points back in the 90's, right?

Is 5th edition more tailored towards 2k (and upwards?)

Me I like the odd limit of 750 point games (you don't forget many rules, there are enough models for tactics, but not so many that it takes forever to play)

Maskedman5oh4
18-08-2010, 21:27
1500-2500 pts.

Bloodknight
18-08-2010, 21:34
1500-1750. 40K isn't exactly balanced below or over that. At 2.5k several armies cannot compete with a single FOC anymore (Dark Eldar, for example, already have difficulties filling 2K with meaningful choices).

The Laughing God
18-08-2010, 21:43
1750-1850-2000 for me. Bigger games usually just give me a head ache and aren't fun to play in the end.

Dr Porkov
18-08-2010, 21:45
I love playing big battles at the 3k level

GrogDaTyrant
18-08-2010, 21:50
1850 is my preferred standard. 2k lets me field my warboss on a bike. 1500 or less is difficult unless I'm running my firebase Deathskullz, while 2500 seems to be my reminder that Orks need some moderately reliable method of damaging AV14 at range.

R0ot
18-08-2010, 21:52
1500-1750 would be my preference.

Mannimarco
18-08-2010, 21:54
1500 to 1750 (prefer 1750 as it lets both players bring a little more, makes for a more fun game) or 2000 for spearhead games.

Gimp
18-08-2010, 21:57
My friends all play 1650 because thats what SA uses for tournaments

Me howver, I would love if we played 1750 or even 1850

LonelyPath
18-08-2010, 22:13
I prefer 1500 or 2000, but also quite partial to point limits between those also. Oh, and I'm a great fan of Apocalypse.

Agnar the Howler
18-08-2010, 22:16
500-1500 is my range, not really a huge fan of anything more.

Dyrnwyn
18-08-2010, 22:21
I like games between 500 and 1500. The board feels too crowded and games take to long at points higher than that. Apoc Games are an exception - Strength D templates clear the board pretty quick.

Ryar
18-08-2010, 22:29
I feel the game really shines at 1750, perfect for running that big unit of death but not much else if you do.

Bestaltan
18-08-2010, 23:19
Over 9000.

ehlijen
18-08-2010, 23:24
1.5k is the standard put forth by the codex example armies, and I have found little to no reason to deviate from that other than board or collection size issues.

fox-hound
18-08-2010, 23:26
2,000 is for me.

impala
18-08-2010, 23:37
I like 750-1000 points, because that's what I have time for and that's about what I can keep track of. I like to build my armies up to 1500 points just in case I have a whole afternoon free to have a game. But that hasn't happened in over ten years now ;)

Shadow Reaper
18-08-2010, 23:46
Over 9000.

Agreed, 8000 per side. Bigger is better IMO.

italiaplaya
18-08-2010, 23:48
1500 to 1850 seem to be perfect for me

From Shadows
18-08-2010, 23:49
1750-2000 the later being only once an awhile.

tuebor
19-08-2010, 00:05
For the last few years I've played exclusively 2000 point games, because that's what my gaming circle wanted. However, on a whim a couple of us decided to start playing 1500 point games and I really like it much better. The board is much less crowded, thus you have more room to maneuver and you have to be more judicious in your list building.

Grunge
19-08-2010, 00:06
What differences do you see between 1500 and 1750? Other then bringing more stuff unto the table, I see no actual balancing or optimization at 1750.

I prefer 1500.

dblaz3r
19-08-2010, 01:29
I play 2000pt battles mainly for the variety of units I can take. I would like to play a few games at lower point levels but always feel like I'm missing something after I've chosen a list.

insectum7
19-08-2010, 01:43
1850-2000 for me.

Big enough to mitigate bad strings of dice rolls and the potential of super units, but small enough to be played quickly and not overload a 4x6.

Raven1
19-08-2010, 01:58
I've always played 2000 point games.

Vaktathi
19-08-2010, 02:06
2000pts.

2000pts lets you fit in your core army, and then some fun and cool stuff as well without feeling like it's crippling you. It also allows for more well rounded all comers lists, which helps tone down the effectiveness of things like Nob Bikers, Lash, TH/SS spam, etc. Far more variety and build options, and most of the super units don't dominate the game like they would at something like 1500.

Also, I feel that I encounter fewer weird issues at 2k than at other levels. At 1750 or 1850 I quite often end up like 50pts under or 30pts over and find it annoyingly hard to fix that.

Grand Master Raziel
19-08-2010, 02:30
I like 2000pts, for the same reasons as Vaktathi. At 2K, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. You can cover your bases with reliable units and still afford a respectable amount of points to have a little fun with. That said, a lot of tournaments run at 1500pts and a lot of the people I tend to play against seem to carry just about that many points with them and no more, so I've been adjusting myself to 1500pts. 1.5K is far less forgiving of indulging in less-than-optimal choices, though.

Bunnahabhain
19-08-2010, 02:37
5k+, 1 FOC...thus spake the Guard player. Or even 1 FOC, no points limit. Converting up a couple of extra commissars, so you just put down platoons 1-6, none of whom are going anywhere, is only a little evil...

Really? 1500-2000, on sensible sized boards. Enough to give options, whilst still having some limits, and not crippling several armies.

Occulto
19-08-2010, 02:54
2000+ points.

TheSanityAssassin
19-08-2010, 03:04
85% of my games are at 1850, and I'm fairly happy with that. I can do 2000 and occasionally 24-2500.

We also have a day of 500 point games once or twice a year, which is a really refreshing change.

Ville
19-08-2010, 03:15
I have mostly played 1000 points, and I like the speed and space it gives. On the other hand, I will try to change my standard to 1.5 to suit my expensive elite units (and growing collection in general) better.

RobPro
19-08-2010, 05:11
1250-2000 for a normal/league/tournament/etc game. Anything bigger than that and I'd prefer to set up an Apoc scenario with my opponents.

fluffstalker
19-08-2010, 06:27
1500-1750, any more than that and certain armies begin to feel the stretch and others just get exponentially better.

Alx_152
19-08-2010, 06:34
1500+

Most of my opponents play 1500 pts. But I prefer bigger armies.

Born Again
19-08-2010, 07:19
500-1500. I think smaller games are more fun, bigger games tend to get too out of control and crazy with too much going on, though Apoc. has it's perks. Standard though, 1000-1500 is plenty, thought small 500 points is still fun for a quickie.

scar face
19-08-2010, 08:50
I usually play 1500pts-2000pts.

Occasionaly 1000pts or a fun 500pts-750pts skirmish and very rarely a big 3000pts game with a close friend or three!

scar

Born Again
19-08-2010, 09:56
What differences do you see between 1500 and 1750? Other then bringing more stuff unto the table, I see no actual balancing or optimization at 1750.


I've wondered this. Back in 'the day' so to speak, 1500 was the standard. Then I spent a couple of years away from the hobby, then came back and found all these people playing 1750 and don't really understand why. It seems to be just a creep of 1500 where they couldn't quite fit in everything they needed for their spam list to work properly, or couldn't make the decision on what to leave out, so just bumped the points limit up a bit instead.

Zweischneid
19-08-2010, 10:10
1500 is the gold standard IMO.

I enjoy 1000 for the challenge to really squeeze efficiency from a list and 500 pts. for narrative/fun games that tie in campaign events.

I've been through a phase in my 40K hobby where I too felt "bigger-is-better". By and large though, it feels just like more rolling dice for the same things and these days, I'd rather play 2 fast-and-dirty 1000-1500 pts. games over one big 1750+ pts. game.

AndrewGPaul
19-08-2010, 10:16
200 points is my preference; Kill Teams all the way. It doesn't cost much for a force, and it's easy to put together a really interesting-looking set of miniatures.

Corax
19-08-2010, 12:04
750-1000 is probably the norm for me, with 1200 about the max (my play group are a bunch of time-poor wageslaves with wives and kids and all that nonsense).

Gutted
19-08-2010, 12:44
500-1500 but prefer smaller if my opponents are not going to make broken lists for time reasons

Badger[Fr]
19-08-2010, 13:05
The 1500 format is a little bit too restrictive for my liking, as it usually favour sthe most extreme army builds. I'd rather play a 1750 game and have more room for exotic units.

1000 games are enjoyable, as they tend to be fast and tactical, but make for a poorly balanced game.

IJW
19-08-2010, 13:06
1500 here, although we've had some fun mini-tournaments with 1k and 500 point lists and an Apoc bash every couple of months.

Biellan
19-08-2010, 14:20
1500-2k for a standard game, Apoc is great fun though

Angelwing
19-08-2010, 14:57
500 - 1500 pts for me. I've played regularly on a 4x4 table for years, only recently got myself a 4 x 6.

Commandojimbob
19-08-2010, 15:15
1500-2k for me also ! Between my gaming mates, we tend to play 1.75 - 2k. I think 1.75k is the right balance between genuine tactical play and giving you enough pts to field what you would like.

Hypaspist
19-08-2010, 15:22
I have recently negotiated (with my wife) a permanent 4x8 in my garage which gives me a nice 6x4 space with model space at the end (for casualties :evilgrin:) Means I can play pretty much any size game I please as the occasion presents itself, however that said, 95% of my games are at 1750 points.
(I find, Like Commandojimbob, that It's a nice figure for balanced games)

:)

Wade Wilson
19-08-2010, 15:28
Between 1.5k and 2.k is a good few hours of gaming without it getting dull. My Tyrannids do extremely well at games over 2.5k but with so many models a single movement phase can last forever...

2000 points is perfect for both my DA and Tyrannid armies to field both diverse and interesting lists or try out a new tactic or unit without altering the core theme of my army.

Logarithm Udgaur
19-08-2010, 16:25
I like smaller games (500-1000pnts). The reason being is that in larger games, tactics tend to go out the window in favor of a mad rush to get into CC. I realize this is probably the design intention with 5th ed, but am not that fond of it. A smaller point cap also forces one to think more about what each unit is doing, rather than thinking "I can afford to lose a few."

ReveredChaplainDrake
19-08-2010, 17:03
Echoing Vaktathi and Raziel, I have to side with higher points. In lower points games, you struggle to rationalize taking any unit that isn't absolute cheese. Even worse, if you play CSM or Codex Marines, where you must include 10-men squads before you can take what upgrades you actually want, there's very little leeway for anything but the best of the best of the best, and there's very few places to shave points. Case in point, in 1500 pt games, my Night Lords consist mostly of Mech spam + Oblits, led by a Lashprince. It's basically just like everybody else, only dark blue. My Raptors don't have the points freedom to come out and play until at least 1750 for one unit, or 2k for both units.

I go with about 2250 usually. Anything under about 1750 feels less like an army and more like some understocked, undermanned garrison.

Grand Master Raziel
19-08-2010, 17:03
I have recently negotiated (with my wife) a permanent 4x8 in my garage which gives me a nice 6x4 space with model space at the end (for casualties :evilgrin:)

On that note, coming up with a 4x8 table isn't that hard. You can get one of those folding 3x6 tables with the hard white plastic top at almost any department store, then go to a hardware store and pick up a 1/2-3/4 inc thick 4x8 sheet of plywood. The plywood is rigid enough to serve as a gaming surface, and when you're not using it, you can fold up the table and lean it and the plywood up against the wall, so it takes up minimal space. Got two such in my garage. :D

Nezalhualixtlan
19-08-2010, 18:28
My favorite is 2,000 - 2,500 pts. Apoc sized games can be fun too, but I like to have as much going on as possible in normal sized games, the added complexity of larger point values makes the tactical aspects of the game really shine, and 2-2.5k isn't so large you're likely to start forgetting things. I'll do 1,500 if it's all an opponent has, or 1k if they're just starting to build their army, but small point games like that just lose some of the interest for me, there just isn't enough going on when 2-2.5 k can be had.

Reaver83
19-08-2010, 18:35
I normally play between 1.5 to 2 K with 1750 my prefered level - I lik being forced to make choices makes things more interesting

Lord Aaron
20-08-2010, 01:04
If i had it my way, 1500 every time. makes you have to think more then just taking every good unit in your book. plus no ones posts 1500 point lists on the net too often so I know there's a better chance that I'll be fighting a list my opponent made and not some list he got off the Internets. though I make tournament exceptions in some cases of 1700-1850.

qsd
20-08-2010, 01:46
1500-2000, leaning towards 2k.
Lower than that and I can't fit much more than my preferred core, which is about 700-990.
I'll go higher if they're decent players and it stays around 2v2. Larger groups can become annoying as people wander off or start talking on the phone.

santso
20-08-2010, 10:11
750-1000 and 1500-1750 points
with 750 you can still get quite flexible armies fun to play fast games, 1000 points r more competitive but still pretty fast to play.

1500 is what game is designed for and everything is in balance(i use my DE to this size of games, above this its IG what im using) and 1750 is like 1500 but more flexible lists and ''old'' codexes wont work anymore so well.

dragonet111
20-08-2010, 10:14
We always play in 1500pts.

I like playing in 1500 because I can field some nasty things but it is still small enough to have several game in an afternoon.

McLucien18
20-08-2010, 10:21
Personally I veer towards 1500, makes me think a bit more about my lists, as well as being quicker to finish.

I only really like 3000+ Apocalypse if it is sensibly run and with people who know what they're doing, otherwise it just becomes bogged down too much.

Eldoriath
20-08-2010, 12:14
1700-2000p is what I like outside apocalypse which is the gametype of preference almost ^^

owen matthew
20-08-2010, 17:24
I played all over Italy, and a bit in the UK, some years back. Ot was all 1500, the tourneys and the pick ups. That is my favorite by a long shot. Faster, cleaner, more thought goes into the comp and into strategy... nothing wasted on the field, and mistakes can loose you the game. I like 1000 for the same reason, but it does seem to lack a lot of the punch 1500 has. 1500 gives you one hammer if you want to play that way.

The 500 point tourneys are some of the most fun I have ever had playing the game, ever.

At 1750 and up it gets muddled and boring to me. I was working at a GW when they went from 1750 to 1850 for RT tourneys, and we could not figure out why, then our manager said it gets the veteran gamers (who spend nothing anymore) to buy another $50-100. OH, naturally, I forgot who I was working for. I don't even know what is offical anymore, every club does it differently around here. 2000 to me feels like an endless engagement of stupid combos, and I generally try to avoid it and anything higher. The time it takes to play does not scale well for some reason, and I am a quick player.

owen matthew
20-08-2010, 17:35
Personally I veer towards 1500, makes me think a bit more about my lists, as well as being quicker to finish.

I only really like 3000+ Apocalypse if it is sensibly run and with people who know what they're doing, otherwise it just becomes bogged down too much.

My thoughts exactly!

daladzor
20-08-2010, 18:32
Given that I play with the same group of people. We tend towards Apocalypse games(when we get around to organising it all) with each army being 4k+. As we can keep our themed campaign running.
Although smaller 2K battles happen to fill the gap when we can't get everyone together, and fill the story in around our campaign.
Only reason we like 4K + is that we get the chance to use all our models, and with 2 different guard armies its not often I can combine them. ( infantry heavy and mass vehicles) All kept to a theme.

Painnen
22-08-2010, 14:44
Between 1.5k and 2.k is a good few hours of gaming without it getting dull. My Tyrannids do extremely well at games over 2.5k but with so many models a single movement phase can last forever...

2000 points is perfect for both my DA and Tyrannid armies to field both diverse and interesting lists or try out a new tactic or unit without altering the core theme of my army.

this is spot on for me as well. as a tyranid player, the more points i get the more i tend to spam big nasty T6 units. mostly Trygon Primes and Tervigons...so it doesn't really change the nature of the game, but just potentially changes the number of models i'll have to move around.

Dark Aly
22-08-2010, 15:13
it's got to be 750-1750. preferably 1000 or 1500 as these give you a nice core force and some extra bits but force you to make tough choices so you can't have a counter to everything too easily and therefore requires more thought and strategy.

Mini77
22-08-2010, 16:16
We normally play 1500 points, though I have played a few 1750 and 1250 to accomodate player's specific requirements.

1500 is perfect for a couple of hours.

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
22-08-2010, 16:17
I prefer 1500 points. Anything higher and a 6x4 board with enough terrain gets too crowded.

1750 is ok too with the 25% terrain coverage.

I do like to play 1000 pt games too. They are quicker and really make you think about your unit selections.

Spell_of_Destruction
22-08-2010, 18:05
1750 to 2000

In 5th ed I have yet to write up a 1500 point Eldar list that I'm completely happy with. Too many points have to be spent on underwhelming troops choices.

Merus
22-08-2010, 18:19
1,500 to 2,000 points is the usual for my gaming group.

We've found that too many older codices suffer when they're given more than 2,000 points; whilst others only get stronger. Based on that we never go above 2,000.

nightgant98c
22-08-2010, 18:39
I like between 1500-2000.

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-08-2010, 21:32
1500-1750 is fine with me. I got a nice 1500 list painted up so I actually prefer that, playing more tends to be "how can I spend the remaining points with the least amount of hassle".

Mortarion74
22-08-2010, 22:29
when we play in campaign each armt has a limit of points depending on holdings, as they win ground they take points from enemies, so we can have the plucky 1,500pts eldar against 5,000pts worth of orcs.

We do play set games with same points ofcourse but in reality battles are almost always 1 sided, when we play eastern front WWII the russians outnumber the germans 8-1 so it doesent bother anyone that we then play a totally out matched game in 40k, and belive it or not its possible to win even with those odds.

in essence usual games are 3-4,000pts each depending on whats in the box, but it never bothers us.

when you have titans stomping around points cost begins to be pretty on the back burner anyway.

TheMav80
22-08-2010, 23:49
1500 to 2000 points is best, imo. From an army size perspective and play time perspective.

Sythica
23-08-2010, 00:13
I believe 1750 is the current sweet spot for the newer codices. Without even discussing the sometimes over-priced point values of the old 3rd-4th edition books, the newer codices have greatly increased the number of interesting choices in each section of the FOC. I like to see variety in my army lists (as opposed to spam), and to make a tight list at 1500 pts, I find myself typically having to abandon an entire FOC slot.

What really bugs me are those tournaments that try to place their own restrictions on army lists (like giving penalties for having too many troops choices). If you want to be a game designer, go work for GW.

owen matthew
23-08-2010, 01:01
What really bugs me are those tournaments that try to place their own restrictions on army lists (like giving penalties for having too many troops choices). If you want to be a game designer, go work for GW.

So, so true! We suffer from an amazing amount of this crap in and around the Bay Area. Its the largest part of what has driven me away from competative play in 40K.

amp
23-08-2010, 06:22
I like 500 point battles because i feel like every little thing matters instead of larger battles where it just doesn't feel as hard because i have another unit handy.

infocepter
31-08-2010, 11:04
yeah i dont mind the 1000-1500 there and now but i usually play around 2000 its great fun

Panzerkanzler
31-08-2010, 12:33
Over 9000.

You had to go there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik), didn't you? :D

Hunger
31-08-2010, 12:52
How many points is best? As many as you can cram on the table, floor, garden etc. The bigger the better in my opinion. One day I would like to attempt to organize a 1,000,000 point Apocalypse game.

Panzerkanzler
31-08-2010, 13:26
How many points is best? As many as you can cram on the table, floor, garden etc. The bigger the better in my opinion. One day I would like to attempt to organize a 1,000,000 point Apocalypse game.

You had better do that before you turn 60 though, otherwise you'll shrivel and die before you finish it.

Carlos
31-08-2010, 15:08
Ive had more fun playing objective-based 500pts combat patrol-balanced games in recent times than I have playing larger battles because you really have to think about army compisition, every model must count and there are no power build combat patrols bar a 95pts Eversor Assassin.

Sorros
31-08-2010, 20:37
750--1850. After that things start to become unbalanced and certains armies get screwed up a bit.

Agnos
31-08-2010, 21:56
1750.

1500 lets you squeeze in everything you need without much room for more, and 2000 gives room for big scary units with nasty HQ leaders. Both are fun sometimes, but 1750 lets you get everything you need and one small addition of whatever you like.

I play 750 and 1k alot to test things though, and 2250 on 8x4 with IA rules is just a whole different experience.

Spacerunner
31-08-2010, 23:24
I play my brother normally. We stayed at 2k for quite some time until we ran smaller battles. 1k was indeed shorter but 750 seemed to be the magic spot.
We can play several battles and go through different lists faster and with a little less mental fatigue. Time is short, a night every month or two since we live in different cities and we both work a lot.

As far as making a balanced list I feel 2k really offers the right flexibility for all the books. You can manage to get a nice variety of elements from the different force Orgs at that point level while not needing to spam or pump things up (DE being the exception perhaps)

If we ever get to retire then the bigger the battles the better! 5k? 9k? Yes please!! That is if the time & money permits it. Kudos to those who are able to pull it off!! Larger battles allow for fluffier or less efficient (with fun being the goal) lists if the company is good.

Spyral
31-08-2010, 23:34
1000-2000

Smallish game to afternoonish game. Anymore is madness!

pringles978
01-09-2010, 03:14
1750-2k.

some armies only really come alive when you have the points to spend, while others (dark eldar) are better suited to smaller games. 1750-2k allows you to take enough troops for a ballanced force and some treats too. the last edition of 40k was based around 1500, but 2k is the new black, as it were...

i like trying out 1k mini themed forces though, not so serious and you can spend your time making something fluffy and unique that would be too impracticle in terms of time and cash.

Weaverman
01-09-2010, 08:19
1750 pts for me. The games only take around 3 hours and let's you bring a few more fun items that you can't fit into lower point games