Sizes for Competitive Armies

What size games do most people find they play most often?

Given that a bunch of Codex's don't scale well past 2000 I'm curious to start the discussion of competitive game size.

I'll start by saying that I play 1750 90% of the time, though I could be convinced to go to 2000. Any smaller and you're not really fielding an army with unit synergy, any bigger and you run into the force org chart making your choices for you.

For example, Marines at 1750 is:

Vulcan

5 Sniper Scouts

3 Tac Squads with MM, Flamer, rhino

3 MM/HF Dreadnaughts

4 Land Speeders with MM/HF (squads of 2)

2 Vindi or 3 Preds (have to lose the dreads HF for the preds to work).


at 2k

Add 2 more LS, add another Vindi. But then your force org is full and to go up in points you're just adding tac squads. Or swapping out dreads for LR with TH/SS terms.

Daemons is the same issue:

1750:

2 Heralds of Slaanesh with Chariots and Musk, Strength

5 5-man PB squads

18 Fiends of Slaanesh in units of 6

36 Hounds of Khorne in units of 12

Admitted that you run into these problems most often when you design lists around spamming the power-units in a codex...but that's competitive play for your.

Anyway, my point was only to start the conversation.

I like playing at both 1500 and 1750 points. I like the 1500 point range for 40K, because at that size, you really have to think hard about what you're bringing. You can't fit in too many toys, or else the rest of your army suffers.

After that, I prefer the 1750 point scale, because you have enough space to bring one or two game-changing hard hitters. I think that at 1750 you have the most balance between all the different codexes as well.

that's my feeling too, also there's a time issue, namely in a big tourney how long can the games take...probably no more than 2 hours, which, unlike the fail-fest of BOLSCON means a smaller army list, about 1750 seems like a compromise between too small (1500 or less) and too big, (2250 or more)

I like 2000 and 2250 best.

What happened at BOLSCON?

On another note, what a horrible name for a convention!

I don't see the problem of the larger lists. They tend to screw up the maximized lists you can see in smaller points values, as you have more than enough points to spend on troops and anti-tank. At smaller points values I feel like certain lists (cough IG & nidzilla cough cough) can exploit their nature far more than other armies.

Smaller point games also make certain units almost impossible to take, as they're simply too expensive for their comparable worth, yet have a purpose in larger games.

So I guess in conclusion I feel like there's nothing wrong with 2250, and those games can be finished within 2 1/2 hours with comfort, or at least close enough.

@ Chris

It's a 2000 point tourney with 7 games over 2 days with a 2 hour timelimit for each round. the chatter on the 'tubes was that generally 2 hours was insufficient for a 2k game, given that horde armies and people's tendencies to be dicks when at tournaments would make it difficult to finish a game in that time. but nowbody knwos what'll happen as it's not until next weekend.

@Tim

I'd think part of the challenge of a smaller (though not too small game) is to figure out the list that has both anti-troop and anti tank in a way that works. IF you can just take every thing in the codex that's not fun. Nor do I agree that 1750 is especially limiting in terms of unit selection. you can get a seer coucil, or nob bikers or th/ss terms in a land raider all the big hammer units into a 1750 list, but you have to make choices about them and how to play them. And isn't that what gaming is, a series of interesting choices? Bonus points to the person who catches that reference.

Honestly, I've been trying to play in a local tournament now for the last 6 months. The problem I continuously run into is that all the ones I've seen lately are over 2000 points. This does not interest me in the slightest. I play horde Orks. I feel that I play them fast, and I play them well. I've practiced many many times to efficiently move, shoot, and fight close combat.

I know, for instance, that a standard game of 2 hours only allots me 12 minutes (not counting deployment) per turn. In a game near 1500-1750 points, where I have about 100 models on the table, I can do it. However, once I'm pushing 140-175 models, the games are just no longer about tactics and simply about racing to get all 5 turns in within the allotted time. If my opponent happens to be some ass-hat, well, screw my entire game because I'll be conceivably limited to 3 turns. I think that the larger sized tournaments unfairly penalize my army simply because of it's race.

To answer the original question, I think that above 2000, you may have a competitive Space Marine Tournament (TM), but you need to play lower numbers to include all the other 40K armies out there.

we are going to publish what we decide in about a week as far as size and dates of all our tournaments. And Chris theres a 1250 team tournament in about 3 weeks find a partner and kill some peeps.

Honestly for 40k, i prefer anything 2000 points or over. The bigger and more congested the table is with death, the better.

I think something we should just be rather than 1 single standardized point value for all of our tournaments we mix it up and have different values. For the smaller tournaments, we could even fit in 4 games into a single day. However, for the big daddy tournament, it should follow suit with whatever LVGT is going to be.

I agree that it makes sense for our vegas qualifier to be the same size as the vegas tournament, but the reality is that GW is not so good at keeping it's head out of it's ass, so following their lead isn't a guarantee of sucess.

I agree with Chrispy for exactly the reasons he stated, though I actually think that the SM codex doesn't scale that well, unlike say, Guard which absolutely does, or Mech-eldar or Dark Eldar, all of which have strong enough troop choices to get good units to fill out points, whereas more often than not SM armies hit the Force-org limits sooner (in part because all the best units are actually undercosted - yippee for bad design).

We can talk about this in person on tuesday. No ladys and gentalman this is not a club meeting it's a councle meeting.

I know at 2K my eldar list is just about maxxed. I end up with only 2 Troop choices left in my FOC. I can stretch it by pimping out squads and putting shinny things on tanks, but that is all bloat.

1750 is a good tournament size, it makes people make choices on their list, at 2000+ people can take everything and the kitchen sink. If you want that just play apoc. I personally don't like gearing up to blow up 4 AV14 vehicles.

I pretty much agree. I prefer to play at 1750 myself, but actually find that moving to a non-standard value forces people off their ball a bit and generates some interesting choices, 1850, 1650, 2050 are all mostly fun sizes.

agree at 2250 i get everything i want and don't really have to think lets start to go lower

Getting everything you want isn't always a problem. Thing is, let's go with variety. If we had a 2000 point tournament in june, a 1250/2500 the other week, an 1850 coming up, it spices things up. Standardized points every tournament equals boring.

I agree with Tim, but I think to be practicable (and kept to a single day) its' got to be less that 2000.

I like 1500.....it doesnt really let u bring everything u want but it still lets u have options

avatar8481 wrote:

Any smaller and you're not really fielding an army with unit synergy, any bigger and you run into the force org chart making your choices for you.

I actually prefer bigger games for this very reason. Smaller games, as the OP mentioned, will cut down on how well your units will work together. The reason for this is because, with a smaller list, you're not thinking "what 2-3 units will together be greater than the sum of its parts?", but you're thinking "which unit is so powerful that it's worth taking 2-3 of?". In that respect, I'm perfectly fine with "the force org chart making my choices for me" because (1) the choices it makes for me are usually "okay, you have enough of unit X, time for something else", and (2) the opponent will have to build a list with similar limitations. Really screws with people who just spam one unit until they run out of points or FOC slots because it forces them to know how best to use whatever is in their army, not just how to use the good units.

For example, let's say you're playing Tau @ about 1250 - 1500 pts, and either you're really in love with Hammerheads, or you recognize them as the best choice in the codex like they are. A Tau player with such a mindset is going to start their list with 2x6 Fire Warriors, as bare-bones a commander as they can get away with, probably a Centurion, then 3x Hammerheads with whatever build they most prefer, and then use the rest of the points to buff their Troops and fill their tactical gaps (which there won't be many of in a Tri-Head list ) with specially-tasked Monat suits. There, you've just built an army around 2-3 units in your entire Codex. What a challenge, right?

Another reason I like larger games is because stuff that wouldn't be the most points-efficient things in the world start being more useful when you have plenty of points to spend. Related to the above point, you're most likely going to run out of FOC slots if you keep spamming points-efficient units all day. Not only that, but you don't have to. What if you just really like the aesthetics of a unit and finally want an excuse to field it, no matter how bad it is, just on raw coolness factor? Large games are your excuse. (Keep in mind that your opponent will probably be using inefficient choices as well. Face it, everybody owns a dumb unit. The larger the game, the more likely you are to see said dumb unit.) Plus, take into consideration that your opponent may be bringing some massive bruiser of their own (an Abaddon-class character) and you're going to need to respond in kind. I don't care how 'efficient' they are, 8x TH/SS Terminators in a Vulkan list will never kill The Deceiver. Period.

I don't know guys I've been playing allot more 40k then I usually do and I have to say my favorite builds so far is 1850. I really had to think about what I was going to tack. But I have had some of the funniest games playing 2000 points and up so I guess I really don't care what point limit we play.

In tournaments I like to see what people do and come up with so 1850 really makes them think a little more. You can’t take 3 units of 6 Arco’s, 3 exorcist tanks, 4 units of sisters meltas on all of them, and dominion squads. I need to pick and chose what i take i like that.

In friendly play I think its fun to empty the cases and have at it. This is for both fantasy and 40k. But you know us you want to see a bigger point level tournament we will give it to you just ask.

In smaller games you really have to think where your going to spend your points. Horde killing, Close quarters, range combat, Tank hunting, monstrous creature killing, scoring units? In larger games you can fill all these needs pretty well. But in smaller games you have to make more careful decisions on how to spend your points.

So it makes it interesting when you play a game and your opponent has built his army in a way that is more effective at killing your army than yours is killing his. Now you have to think of a good strategy to adapt and overcome.

-Jason

Quote :

For example, let's say you're playing Tau @ about 1250 - 1500 pts, and either you're really in love with Hammerheads, or you recognize them as the best choice in the codex like they are. A Tau player with such a mindset is going to start their list with 2x6 Fire Warriors, as bare-bones a commander as they can get away with, probably a Centurion, then 3x Hammerheads with whatever build they most prefer, and then use the rest of the points to buff their Troops and fill their tactical gaps (which there won't be many of in a Tri-Head list ) with specially-tasked Monat suits. There, you've just built an army around 2-3 units in your entire Codex. What a challenge, right?

That's not a problem with small point games it's a problem with the way GW designs the game. There are only a few good choices in the older codexes, usually only one per force org slot, so there are no choices you need to make. Fortunately they're getting better at it with everything since Space Marines, but Orks, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, are crippled by bad Codex design (leaving aside the power of the actual army). Also, some armies scale up a lot better than others, Guard, Marines, Tyranids will all play well at higher 2500+ levels (to a point, Marines cap out at about 2500) but Eldar don't really, orks don't really and chaos really doesn't unless you spam Plague Marines (not a bad choice, but how hard is that to decide to do...not at all).

I agree with Scooter that the sweet spot is 1850, no army is particularly crippled with too few points and no army gets to run away with the game on the basis of their scalability (guard particularly).

Really anything less than 2500 I'm content with. At 2500, as Orks, certain lists simply cannot be built anymore as you run out of FO slots before you run out of points. You're all but required to run foot slogging horde or nob spam, neither of which are my personal idea of 'fun Ork list'.

I prefer smaller games from 1750 and down, with 1500 being my favorite. I like having to make choice about what to bring and little shorter more decisive games. Big games tend to drag on too long for my tastes.

I like 1650 to 1850, any more and the table is way to crowded for my liking, with the damage that can be done with barage weapons its almost dumb in my opinion, but other people obviously feel diff about that, but if you are playing IG, Nids, or Orks, over 1850 battles takes way to long!!!

Lincoln wrote:

I like 2000 and 2250 best.

I'm with him.