Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,648 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is it just me, or does is 2,000pts now the optimal points to play 40k at? What I mean by optimal is the points at which all armies start to have an equal chance in terms of list building.

When I started playing 40k again, back in 4th ed., 1.5k seemed to be enough. In 5th ed., and with all the recent codices, 2k seems to be the level at which most armies start to be at their best - where all armies start to have an equal chance.

Some armies have really cheap Heavy Support options, others have incredibly costly ones. The same can be said about all of the FOC slots. It seems to me that it is only really at 2k that all options become feasible, allowing players of all armies to really have a good choice of strategy and tactics.

As a Necron player I know that this is particularly acute for some armies, where players have no choice of models at 500pts, and everything is very limited even at 1k-1.5k. I have also noticed this with the other armies I play (Chaos Daemons, Tyranids, Eldar), it is very difficult to do an all Wraithguard army at 1.5k for example.

Do you think this point-creep is deliberate, GW trying to make everyone use larger forces, or just coincidence?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
I personally think that it's coincidence.

However, they did change whfb to become more brutal so that army lists became bigger so players had to buy more.:ireful2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
Thats not even my HQ xD
That's one expensive mother fucker xD

I personally am only good at 2000 as I do a Grey Hunter spam army and in 2000 points people tend to play with a lot of tanks so they have smaller amounts of infantry

It puts a smile on my face when I outnumber nids and orks

however at 1000 points there are more infantry spammers so I lose more often :*(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
I think the point-creep is deliberate, but not necessarily because GW wants to nom all our money (though they certainly do). I think it's just a matter of players being bored with smaller games, so GW tailors their codexes to support larger point play.

I personally don't play games under 1k points, with 1500 being my favorite level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
I have always played 2k, i find it really weird when people claim to have a 500 point army
Yea same here..I have far too many toys to limit myself to playing with only a few of them. My group usually play 2K and up, plus we now have a permanently set up Apoc Board, so games can be played over a few weekends if need be.
 

·
Angryman
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
I started at 1500 and we are moving up to 2000 next game. I am able to fit in some more variant units at 2000 so it think it will be better for my guard. More versatility (and pie plates).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
Is it just me, or does is 2,000pts now the optimal points to play 40k at? What I mean by optimal is the points at which all armies start to have an equal chance in terms of list building.
It's not just you. 5th edition works best at 2,000 points because all armies can afford to take what they need to be successful. At 1,500 points some armies suffer really badly because they can only just afford to take the basics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I have to say that the games are going higher in points which is fine for me as an eldar player i mean we start getting better at 1750 upwards where it is actually viable to throw in combinations such as jeetseercouncil and are still able to afford useful troop choices and the like.

But on the subject of whether or not the game system of wahammer 40k optimality in points range has increased to 2000 due to 5 edition wouldnt be totally correct. There is argument in that with some of the new rules it has changed the meta game to become more mechanised which means buying almost every infantry squad a dedicated transport and thus the shall we say ability of some lists to do this and be competitive would be hampered by any points level lower than say 1500 or even 2000.

Or one could say that it is because of the newer codexes where points/model ratio can seem a bit extreme in comparsion to older codexes thus to keep competitiveness the overall points cap has come up in order to allow both old and new to buy a viable and legal army with difference in upgrades and a bit of quality.

But overall i have to agree with Deathscythe4722 as he said that it is GW has actually taken notice of its customers prefered interaction with this game system and has helped force the points increase through both rules and newer codex creeps inorder to satisfy us the consumer who want to play bigger point games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
i actually like playing under 2k

my main group of gamers play at 500 points - 1 troop the only requirement

its really nice when in a span of 4 hours i can get up to 5 games & get a nice answer to how to run a new unit

personally i LIKE running games at 1k - 1750 since it MAKES me think if i REALLY want that ultra badass unit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
It's not just you. 5th edition works best at 2,000 points because all armies can afford to take what they need to be successful. At 1,500 points some armies suffer really badly because they can only just afford to take the basics.
That pretty much sums it up right there. At 1,500 I feel that I have to choose between one unit or another to make the points cut. At 2k, I do not feel as pressured or hamstrung. I have more leeway to take a few extras and I feel that my list is far more complete and the game will be more enjoyable. That being said, most people I have played run 1,500 or 1,000. I have yet to see a 500 point game that was actually fun unless you throw the combat patrol FOC at 400 points in that category.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
I always play at 1500, however with the recent codices we are considering moving up to 1750.

1500 is enough to give your army a good HQ (or 2), 3+ troop choices for objectives, and still have enough points for the heavy support (and perhaps elite) that you want.
1500 is just enough to give your army a good theme.

1750 i feel is good though, because it allows you that extra 250 points to try out a unit (or 2) that you wouldnt normally. It allows you to fit in that extra bit of anti-tank, or gets you another scoring unit (or 2), or perhaps fit in a little bit more Mech.

Anything over 1750 is just gravy really. Tactics and list building become less important. Lose a Land Raider in 1500 points and its "Oh... Fuck". Then it requires you to use improvised tactics. In 2000 points its more like "Meh, more where that came from".

While some of the later codices seem to want to run at 1750-2000 points to get all the goodies they want, some of the earlier codices start to struggle. Even 4th ed CSM, Orks, Eldar, etc, are all better suited for 1500 than 1750+.



I think 1750 is as high as our playgroup will go, as we like the tactical aspect of the game and trying to make use of every model, rather than throwing everything at the opponent and seeing what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
I think 1750 is as high as our playgroup will go, as we like the tactical aspect of the game and trying to make use of every model, rather than throwing everything at the opponent and seeing what happens.
Obviously it's 'too each their own' but if the board has a ton of Terrain on it then Tactics are just as viable in large games as they are in smaller ones...not everyone plays on Planet Bowling Ball:eek:k:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
While some of the later codices seem to want to run at 1750-2000 points to get all the goodies they want, some of the earlier codices start to struggle. Even 4th ed CSM, Orks, Eldar, etc, are all better suited for 1500 than 1750+.
Clearly u dont play eldar if u did or if u ask any other eldar play trust me tell u much better to have 1750+ lists because its more optimal for us just due to new rules back in 4th yeah but not in 5th.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
1500-1750 Eldar work well.
Any higher than 2000 and Wave Serpents will start to go down, as the opponent will have a lot more anti-tank. They are tough to crack, but 2000 points worth of IG firepower will see quite a few go down.

In 5th ed, while Eldar lists seem to fit nicely in 1750-2000 points, i believe that they are more effective in 1500-1750 as the Wave Serpents have a better chance of survival.

Everybody has their own opinions, thats just mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
I have always traditionally played at 2k points. Not so much as of right now because of my fiancé starting out, but she is getting there.

At 2,000, like everyone else has mentioned, I don't feel pressured, and I have multiple options available if I want to change it up. It really is a good number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
I very much agree. I think it's down to the brilliance of the 5th edition codex's. There is just so many fantastic units in the codices that me and my gaming buddies (as well as the regulars at my local GW) find anything less than 2000 points starts to become restraining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
From watching a few of the bigger games here, to me it seems that 1.5k is the key figure because people still have to adapt to certain limitations. 2 mandatory Troops Choices for scoring units is irrelevant in a 2k game because they are easily screened by tanks and elites, but they take up a greater portion of your army in a 1.5k game, and are thus often supported by even more Troops. People rarely go all-out tank or all-out infantry in a 1.5k list, as opposed to a 2k list with two transports, nine tanks and a dozen light-tank anti-tank units.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Anything over 1750 is just gravy really. Tactics and list building become less important. Lose a Land Raider in 1500 points and its "Oh... Fuck". Then it requires you to use improvised tactics. In 2000 points its more like "Meh, more where that came from".
This is actually why I like the 2,000 range. At lower points games it's easy to break your opponent's back (or have your own back broken) with a single shot. Satisfying maybe, but not as satisfying as a game that can go either way right up to the end, which IMHO is more likely to happen at higher points games.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top