Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Forum Explorer]

As I mentioned, the 'Tournament Packet' isn't designed to be used in games under 1000 Points.
Tacitly saying that games under 1000 Points are not - or can't be - competitive.

Just because GW didn't care to update games under 1000 points doesn't say anything about their balance, just that GW doesn't care enough to modify what balance there is. Probably because games under 1000 points are a small minority.

[noob]

Just because GW didn't care to update games under 1000 points doesn't say anything about their balance, just that GW doesn't care enough to modify what balance there is. Probably because games under 1000 points are a small minority.

Also in theory while 1000 points games allowed to have a lower initial starting budget needed to play the game maybe they now want new players to focus on kill team and crusade?

[AdmiralCheez]

Maybe it's because I'm still relatively new to the game, but what is the appeal of 1,000+ point games anyway? Lower point games can be played on a smaller board, and in far less time, making them ideal for a casual, friendly game. I was able to play two 750 point games with another new person in the same time it took two veteran players to play one 1,000 point game. Bigger games just seem to have a lot of waiting, in my experience, which I'll admit, is minimal. I can't imagine spending an entire day on a 2,000 point game.

[Wraith]

Sometimes it's fun to take 3 Land Raiders in one army.

Technically you can *just about* do that in 1,000 points, I think, but that's it. You want to use all your fun toys at once and see what happens, and one 3 hour game has more time spent playing (as opposed to setup and bookkeeping, etc) than three 1 hour games.

It's also a hang-over from previous editions where 2,000 points was a lot less stuff than it is now, and what used to be a reasonable 2 hour game is now a slog of 3 hours. "But we've always played with 2,000 points" sounds silly, but it goes a long way for most people.

[Avaris]

It's also a hang-over from previous editions where 2,000 points was a lot less stuff than it is now, and what used to be a reasonable 2 hour game is now a slog of 3 hours. "But we've always played with 2,000 points" sounds silly, but it goes a long way for most people.

Basically this: my understanding is that the Tournament circuit ended up coalesced around 2000 points, and that then became the accepted norm which few people break from, in a ‘why would you do a smaller game when the ‘real’ game is 2000 points’ kind of way. It’s the same pressure that means most games still play with points rather than power level: there is a lot of inertia behind the idea of 2000 points as the main way to play.

Personally, I think tournaments in particular being based around games that take 2 to 3 hours is pretty ridiculous: it makes running and playing in an event a significant, typically weekend long, time commitment. That’s fine as an option, I dislike that it’s the default.

[AdmiralCheez]

Sometimes it's fun to take 3 Land Raiders in one army.

Technically you can *just about* do that in 1,000 points, I think, but that's it. You want to use all your fun toys at once and see what happens, and one 3 hour game has more time spent playing (as opposed to setup and bookkeeping, etc) than three 1 hour games.

That I can understand! For me, I have a small collection, so I'm usually playing with everything I have anyway. I played in a huge 15-player apocalypse game once, and that was a slog waiting for everyone to finish up their turn. Granted, that's a special case and most games aren't like that, but still... a lot of waiting.

It's also a hang-over from previous editions where 2,000 points was a lot less stuff than it is now, and what used to be a reasonable 2 hour game is now a slog of 3 hours. "But we've always played with 2,000 points" sounds silly, but it goes a long way for most people.

That makes sense. Not from a newer perspective, but from a tradition sense. If 2,000 points was the standard game size for years, it's going to be a challenge to break that habit, especially if the point costs got readjusted recently.

[Wraith]

That makes sense. Not from a newer perspective, but from a tradition sense. If 2,000 points was the standard game size for years, it's going to be a challenge to break that habit, especially if the point costs got readjusted recently.

To be fair, it's a weirdly old thing that just hasn't been let go. 2000pts was quite a lot of stuff in 6/7th edition when I last played regularly - particularly when certain Formations would give you extra stuff to use for free on top of the rest of your army - and even then tournament games tended to be more like 1750-1850 to keep games to a more manageable 90 minutes to 2 hours. Doesn't sound like a huge difference, but it often meant that a significant amount of shuffling about had to be made to fill the FoC, rather than just drop 1 unit and be done with it.

Even throughout all of 8th edition when units were cheaper still, 2000 seems to have stuck in peoples' heads as The Thing To Do even though tournaments hardly ever used it, if ever. Now that 9th edition is finally getting played, ~10 months after it was launched, people are starting to realise just how much more again they have to use, so I think in the next few months more and more people will start to experience for themselves that 2000 is just too much for a casual game.

[Cheesegear]

Just because GW didn't care to update games under 1000 points doesn't say anything about their balance, just that GW doesn't care enough to modify what balance there is. Probably because games under 1000 points are a small minority.

Nobody plays <1000 Point games, because <1000 Point games, suck.
Why do they suck?
Because GW made it that way.

in a ‘why would you do a smaller game when the ‘real’ game is 2000 points’ kind of way.

Wrong.
It became 2000 Points because 2000 Points is the state of the game where most armies can comfortably take a competitive list.

It takes a lot of points for most armies to have an actual good army. People want to use their toys.
Playing in <1000, 1500 or even 1750 Point games, means that people can't use their toys. If people can't use their toys, they have less choices. If they have less choices, they have less answers to their opponent.

"Why would you play a smaller game, when smaller games are clearly more broken?"

Personally, I think tournaments in particular being based around games that take 2 to 3 hours is pretty ridiculous: it makes running and playing in an event a significant, typically weekend long, time commitment. That’s fine as an option, I dislike that it’s the default.

It's the default, because it's the only way that it can be done.

How many points do you need, before your army is competitive?
In order to play that many points, how much time do you need?

To be fair, it's a weirdly old thing that just hasn't been let go. 2000pts was quite a lot of stuff in 6/7th edition when I last played regularly...

1. Points hike means it's harder to include more units. Solution? Up the points limit!
2. People not buying more models to complete their army. Solution? Up the points limit!

5th Ed. was 1500 Points
6th Ed. was 1750 Points
7th Ed. was 1850 Points
8th Ed. was 2000 Points

Even throughout all of 8th edition when units were cheaper still, 2000 seems to have stuck in peoples' heads as The Thing To Do even though tournaments hardly ever used it, if ever.

All the big ones, did.
The small ones, follow the big ones.

people will start to experience for themselves that 2000 is just too much for a casual game.

...Always has been.

[AdmiralCheez]

I'm a little disturbed at the insistence that huge 2,000 point games are the only real way to play the game. It's attitudes like that that drive new people away or keep them from picking it up. The idea that you're not really playing the game until you've invested several hundred if not thousands into an army is frankly off-putting.

Are the larger games more fun? Maybe. I don't know - I don't have 2,000 points of units yet. But I do know that 500 point games are fun to me, and 750 point games are fun. They might feel limiting if you're used to having a huge army on the board every game with all your options, but I wouldn't say they suck. Sometimes you don't have time for a big game like that, or space to play it, or room in the car to transport that many units. Maybe you just want to try out a new unit you haven't played with before and want to see how they work without making a huge game commitment.

I just feel like saying that all games under 2,000 points are terrible is not a healthy thing to say.

[Cheesegear]

I'm a little disturbed at the insistence that huge 2,000 point games are the only real way to play the game.

It can be - and has been - argued that 1000-2000 Points the only competitive way to play the game. Skewing towards 2000 Points, because that allows for more options, and is more forgiving of player mistakes and bad dice rolls.

Are the larger games more fun?

Depends on how close they are.

Sometimes you don't have time for a big game like that

Has nothing to do with the game.

or space to play it

Has nothing to do with the game.

or room in the car to transport that many units.

Has nothing to do with the game.

I just feel like saying that all games under 2,000 points are terrible is not a healthy thing to say.

The game isn't in a healthy place right now, and probably wont be for a long time.

[AdmiralCheez]

It can be - and has been - argued that 1000-2000 Points the only competitive way to play the game. Skewing towards 2000 Points, because that allows for more options, and is more forgiving of player mistakes and bad dice rolls.

Well, not everyone is as competitive, so sometimes one might just want to play a short game with fewer models. Or maybe challenge themselves to come up with a good list with limited points budget. Or help their friend learn the game when they don't have a vast collection to compete with. My point is that 2,000 points is not the only "correct" way to play the game.

Has nothing to do with the game.

Rules-wise, sure, it has nothing to do with the game, but they're still factors in deciding when and where to play.

The game isn't in a healthy place right now, and probably wont be for a long time.

That much is certain.

[Cheesegear]

Well, not everyone is as competitive...

And that's a good thing. But they should be fair. And 40K, in a very real way, isn't.
But, as always, it only takes one person in your meta to start the arms race - including by accident.

so sometimes one might just want to play a short game with fewer models.

Kill Team is ideal for that. Or it was.
Can't say much for Kill Team right now if your meta is lousy with Space Marine players.

Or maybe challenge themselves to come up with a good list with limited points budget.

Which is actually incredibly easy. Most people can do that. All's it takes is access to Excel or Google Sheets. The issue, is that certain Factions and Codecies come up with better lists. That's where "<1000 Points isn't competitive" comes from. Because it's broken, if you even slightly try, or don't even try, with the right Faction/Codex. If you take the right/wrong unit, and your opponent doesn't because of the points limitation disallowing them from using more expensive options that would do the job they need, you've already won.

My point is that 2,000 points is not the only "correct" way to play the game.

I agree with you. The correct way to play 40K, is however you - and/or your meta - play it, in such a way that you get games with regularity, and 'have fun', for whatever given value 'fun' has for you (and your opponents), with the most amount of people available to you. There's also such a thing as compromise. But the internet hates that word, because everything anyone says, ever, is absolute and can never be changed.

The competitive - or fair - way to play 40K, is somewhere between 1000 and 2000 Points. Leaning more heavily towards more points. Up to and including 2000 Points. GW themselves, even published a misnomer'd rulebook that actually functions as Mission Errata, (tacitly) saying as much.
For most people, 'competitive' and 'fair', are basically synonyms. Most people like playing fair games.

[Wraith]

Rules-wise, sure, it has nothing to do with the game, but they're still factors in deciding when and where to play.

A good point. If the 'culture' of the game says 2000 points, and 2000 points is unwieldy, inconvenient and difficult for most people to play... That's both bad culture and a bad game.

[Cheesegear]

That's both bad culture and a bad game.

The bad game drives the bad culture.
If sub-1000 Point games were fair, more people would play in them. Guaranteed.

[AdmiralCheez]

And that's a good thing. But they should be fair. And 40K, in a very real way, isn't.
But, as always, it only takes one person in your meta to start the arms race - including by accident.

Very true. A fair game is much more fun to play. I'm lucky everyone I play with regularly is in it just to have fun and not there to win at all costs.

Kill Team is ideal for that. Or it was.
Can't say much for Kill Team right now if your meta is lousy with Space Marine players.

I haven't actually played a game of kill team, but that focuses more on the individual model instead of a group of of them, right? And no vehicles?

The issue, is that certain Factions and Codecies come up with better lists. That's where "<1000 Points isn't competitive" comes from. Because it's broken, if you even slightly try, or don't even try, with the right Faction/Codex. If you take the right/wrong unit, and your opponent doesn't because of the points limitation disallowing them from using more expensive options that would do the job they need, you've already won.

Oh, this makes a lot of sense! I get what you're saying. Some factions just have better units to choose from at lower point limits, and some factions need more units to take better advantage of their strengths as a faction.

I agree with you. The correct way to play 40K, is however you - and/or your meta - play it, in such a way that you get games with regularity, and 'have fun', for whatever given value 'fun' has for you (and your opponents), with the most amount of people available to you. There's also such a thing as compromise. But the internet hates that word, because everything anyone says, ever, is absolute and can never be changed.

The competitive - or fair - way to play 40K, is somewhere between 1000 and 2000 Points. Leaning more heavily towards more points. Up to and including 2000 Points. GW themselves, even published a misnomer'd rulebook that actually functions as Mission Errata, (tacitly) saying as much.
For most people, 'competitive' and 'fair', are basically synonyms. Most people like playing fair games.

This clarification makes much more sense now. I can see how games in those ranges are, and I hate to use the word, "better" for balance and fairness in a competitive environment now. I was just getting defensive over a misinterpretation that this was the "only" way to play, when the barrier of entry to get to that point is so high, both cost and time-wise.

[Forum Explorer]

Maybe it's because I'm still relatively new to the game, but what is the appeal of 1,000+ point games anyway? Lower point games can be played on a smaller board, and in far less time, making them ideal for a casual, friendly game. I was able to play two 750 point games with another new person in the same time it took two veteran players to play one 1,000 point game. Bigger games just seem to have a lot of waiting, in my experience, which I'll admit, is minimal. I can't imagine spending an entire day on a 2,000 point game.

Mostly it's the appeal of using more of your stuff. But there is a very real balance factor in some armies needing a bunch of different pieces to operate properly, and not being able to fit all those pieces in a small game.

Nobody plays <1000 Point games, because <1000 Point games, suck.
Why do they suck?
Because GW made it that way.

I'm calling BS on that. On pretty much every level. Just because your meta is too toxic in order to not immediately and deliberately break the game doesn't mean that's particularly common.

And that's a good thing. But they should be fair. And 40K, in a very real way, isn't.
But, as always, it only takes one person in your meta to start the arms race - including by accident.

Or you could communicate like actual human beings.

[Renegade Paladin]

All the big ones, did.
The small ones, follow the big ones.

Because we're forced to. I ran events at 1500 against type for a long time until the player base got together and insisted the points limit be upped because they - I am not making this up - did not want to have to rewrite their lists down from the 2k ones they'd made for the big events, so either run the same or they wouldn't show anymore.

[Wraith]

The bad game drives the bad culture.

I disagree, but ONLY in the sense that the opposite is also true as well. You've spent countless words on how GW have caved in and made ITC home-brew rules the standard to appease tournament goers at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment - perfect example of bad culture (in the form of WAAC players) driving the game to be worse.

Just because your meta is too toxic in order to not immediately and deliberately break the game doesn't mean that's particularly common.

I ran events at 1500 against type for a long time until the player base got together and insisted the points limit be upped because they - I am not making this up - did not want to have to rewrite their lists down from the 2k ones they'd made for the big events

Case in point. I know it's a lot to ask human beings to not be competitive and all the rest of it, but you said it yourself - it only takes one guy to start an arms race and spoil everyone's fun.

[Forum Explorer]

Case in point. I know it's a lot to ask human beings to not be competitive and all the rest of it, but you said it yourself - it only takes one guy to start an arms race and spoil everyone's fun.

In Renegade Paladin's case it wasn't one guy. That's literally what the player base wanted. As in the majority of players. Which is also why ITC isn't releasing rules apparently. Because players don't want to have to learn different rules when playing in different areas.

But that's hardly an arms race. That's communicating with your TO what you want.

[Cheesegear]

Or you could communicate like actual human beings.

it only takes one guy to start an arms race and spoil everyone's fun.

In Renegade Paladin's case it wasn't one guy. That's literally what the player base wanted. As in the majority of players...

Arms races start because the meta is actually on board already, they just don't know it.

Player A loses four games in a row. ****. He has to change up his list, and has the means to do so, and does so.
Player B starts losing games against Player A. ****. That didn't happen before? What's changed? Oh. Them. Gotta change up my list.
Player C starts losing games against A and B. Oh dear. Well, they have something in common, and the Codex has just the unit to beat both of them. Maybe buy that unit?
Player D doesn't want to fall behind and just upgrades his list so at least he can still have fun games.

Nobody talks to each other.
Nobody needs to talk to each other.
'Cause why the **** does anyone have to consult anyone else about their purchasing habits? Just buy new models.
And that's how it happens. Nobody's 'fun' is spoiled, except for the player(s) who can't keep up - usually, because they don't have liquid funds. Because the meta evolves naturally as it should, as people who lose games, don't want to lose games, so they buy models and units that help them not lose games.

Nobody is a 'big doodoo head'. That's how evolution of a meta should work, if the meta is at all healthy, and people - human beings, that is - have a drive to 'not lose'.

If your meta is not healthy, if your meta is stale, then there will be no arms race, and what actually happens is one player gets ostracised from the group because they weren't told that they 'weren't allowed' to buy certain units.

[Renegade Paladin]

The problem I have with 2k events is the time sink. The normal weekend operating hours of the shop I organize for is noon until 6:00pm. I'm already asking the staff to put in an extra two hours (opening at 10:00) to get in three two hour rounds with a lunch break in there. To comply with the entire list of demands (that the pandemic interrupted before the shop owners and I had to make decisions about exactly how to respond) - namely 2k points AND two and a half hour rounds - I'd have to ask for a nine and a half hour weekend workday from the owners and staff, who, let's be clear, run the shop as a side hobby (though an increasingly lucrative one lately) and have day jobs.

The advent of an actual local scene full of new people might short circuit the out of towners' demands, though. If I have a bunch of people coming in from the town as opposed to coming from hours away, I don't need the traveling tournament circuit to fill a tourney. If we can make it work I'll probably still cater to them a couple of times a year, but monthly Incursion tournaments might be a thing once life goes back to normal.

To be fair, the demands (which were presented to me privately by one guy claiming to speak for the group, so since I haven't seen the group since then due to pandemic I can't be 100% certain the "we all got together and talked it out at Denny's" thing wasn't a bluff) came about after an event in which I had to tell no fewer than three people their lists were illegal because they just submitted 2k lists without reading the tournament pack.

[Blackhawk748]

To be fair, it's a weirdly old thing that just hasn't been let go. 2000pts was quite a lot of stuff in 6/7th edition when I last played regularly - particularly when certain Formations would give you extra stuff to use for free on top of the rest of your army - and even then tournament games tended to be more like 1750-1850 to keep games to a more manageable 90 minutes to 2 hours. Doesn't sound like a huge difference, but it often meant that a significant amount of shuffling about had to be made to fill the FoC, rather than just drop 1 unit and be done with it.

Even throughout all of 8th edition when units were cheaper still, 2000 seems to have stuck in peoples' heads as The Thing To Do even though tournaments hardly ever used it, if ever. Now that 9th edition is finally getting played, ~10 months after it was launched, people are starting to realise just how much more again they have to use, so I think in the next few months more and more people will start to experience for themselves that 2000 is just too much for a casual game.

Being entirely fair I seem to recall that 5th and 6th did a lot of 1850 games throughout the Edition and in 4th, 1500 was the bottom of "Big Games so you can have more stuff"

2k is just the 3k from Fantasy. It's the number that got used for a very long time and it never went anywhere, its just GW realized they can make stuff cheaper so now you gotta buy more stuff.

Also, you can totally arms race on accident. See anyone who bought Riptides in 7th because they liked Giant FIghting Robots.

[LansXero]

Also, you can totally arms race on accident. See anyone who bought Riptides in 7th because they liked Giant FIghting Robots.

Hello there, I might've told this story before; anyways, I love mecha anime and the Riptides just look so cool AND aren't small enough they're impossible to make in papercraft (was really poor growing up). AND there was this thing that gives you bonuses to them so why not run 3 of those?

So thats how I got grognards dodging games against me for the length of 7th, after stomping their fluffy jank lists into the ground with papercraft riptide wing. And while you might spit on proxys from your gilded throne up on high, Im being literal with the term papercraft: they were close to the original actually papercraft mechs; there was a club that used to make all sort of papercraft mechas because gunpla is expensive, and I got a girl from there to help me make them. Wish I had kept pictures :( they were a ton of work and I really apreciate the time it took her to come up with the design. Well, 2 of them were, the other was an actual Gundam that was sort of close to the size.

While I might come off as abrassive online, I'm actually pretty chill IRL. I might call netlists and whatnot jank or trash, but when I see someone who is playing with what they like / can afford, I either offer advice or shut up if its unwanted and just roll dice until models fall over. So when I was beating the older players I kept trying to pass off minor mistakes and making wrong choices to make the difference less pronounced, but they'd huff and puff and get ever so pissed they weren't winning, and then they'd call ME, a shy polite young guy new to the group, a hard-ass (because I actually read rules and remembered them) and a showoff (because I dared smile when I won).

Anyways, got my own store now and even though I really dislike 9E, been keeping people busy on TTS until we can all roll dice again when restrictions lift. Our community does the whole 'talk to each other like humans' because we always sought, from the start, to take ego out of the equation. Loaner models, liberal proxy use, death to WYSIWYG, etc. so everybody who wants to play can play. We try to be as welcoming as we can, BUT we can afford to because we're a store, this is our job, having more players makes money for us; offloading that work to the community is the wrong way to go about it imho.

[Cheesegear]

Also, you can totally arms race on accident. See anyone who bought Riptides in 7th because they liked Giant FIghting Robots.

My First Arms Race
It was 3.5 Ed., my friend had a birthday (14? 15?), and his Mum bought him a Basilisk for his Iron Warriors.
It didn't occur to me at any point, at all, ever, to tell him that he wasn't allowed to use his new Basilisk.

[Wraith]

Also, you can totally arms race on accident. See anyone who bought Riptides in 7th because they liked Giant FIghting Robots.

It's a matter of personal pride that from the publication of 4th edition Codex Eldar I never used 3 Wraithlord in a single list.

I *owned* 3 Wraithlord, but in different configurations to swap in-and-out depending on how I felt that day. I'm not saying that I am a hero, but I'm pretty sure that Captain America never ran 3 Wraithlord in one list, either.

Iron Man totally would, the rich WAAP bastard....

[AdmiralCheez]

I know very little of the wraithlord, other than one person in my group was boasting that he just acquired three of them, and everyone else kinda did the eyeroll thing. Looks like it's one of "those" types of units.

[LansXero]

I know very little of the wraithlord, other than one person in my group was boasting that he just acquired three of them, and everyone else kinda did the eyeroll thing. Looks like it's one of "those" types of units.

It WAS. Years ago, hasn't been relevant or even decent for the entirety of 8th and now the few months of 9th. Boasting about any purchases is pretty dumb though; I'd take a brag on painting or winning because you have to do something well, but buying stuff is just running your card through a site, whats there to boast about?

[AdmiralCheez]

It WAS. Years ago, hasn't been relevant or even decent for the entirety of 8th and now the few months of 9th. Boasting about any purchases is pretty dumb though; I'd take a brag on painting or winning because you have to do something well, but buying stuff is just running your card through a site, whats there to boast about?

Right? I have no idea. Just one of those people that thinks they're special, or is trying to intimidate everyone else because of their "powerful" unit, I guess? Make others fear facing them on the table because they've got a strong unit? That's cute. Even cuter now that I know it's no longer held in that regard anymore!

[Wraith]

The Wraithlord still earns a little respect just because of how long it was regarded as one of Those Units. They started out being a problem in 4th edition - published in 2006 - and some people would still sigh heavily and roll their eyes at you if you brought them to the table in 7th edition, which ran all the way up to 2017.

More factions gained more and more ways in which to deal with them eventually, but if you weren't using those factions or those units, you were in for a bad time (to say nothing of what other nonsense Eldar had on the table to back them up).

[Blackhawk748]

I know very little of the wraithlord, other than one person in my group was boasting that he just acquired three of them, and everyone else kinda did the eyeroll thing. Looks like it's one of "those" types of units.

As others have said it started in 4th, and almost exclusively because it was a Monstrous Creature and not a Walker. This hung on through 5th (where MCs were still great) all the way through 6th and 7th (where vehicles pretty well sucked) where it was finally overshadowed by the sheer stupid obnoxiousness that was a Wrathknight.

Now, they simply exist. Like, I don't think they're awful or anything, its just not a good time for them and Elder have better stuff to run.