Email in: Yet another 40k reflexion [point sizes]

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Email in: Yet another 40k reflexion [point sizes]

Posted by Unknown

"Hey Kirby !
I've spent hours reading your blog, and I must say that it's like a breath of fresh air (especially compared to BoLS). I could say that you always choose funny pictures, that you provide insightful thoughts on quite a lot of things, but that would be too much butt-licking for a blog dedicated to butt-kicking.
ANYWAY !
I'm a Ultramarine and Tyranid player. My main opponent is, for the moment, an Imperial guard, and he has yet to face my incestoid horde. Fact is, I got my ass handled to me by his guardmen. I'm no veteran player, but when comparing my "small" army builds, I came to the conclusion that a 750 pts 'nid fprce could pack a lot more punch than my standard 750 pts smurf batallion.
So, here's my question : do you think that some matchups are modified depending on the size of the game ? IE Guards being much more powerful than others at 750 pts, Eldars best suited for 1500 pts games and so on ?
A French reader fed up by 27 shots of torchlights on his ceramite armor."

Yes I do which is why I believe games of 1750+ are a must for competitive gaming (yes I said competitive, you can play whatever you like :P). I believe 40k is balanced around this point level and as discussed before here, some lists work at different points values but simply don't work at other point values. Taking a 1750 list and scaling it to 2500 doesn't always work and the same is true in the reverse. Some lists like old Dark Eldar had trouble scaling full stop but from the recent release of army books you'll find 1750 is where armies can be fielded as balanced forces.

So in regards to your question, yes some armies have an advantage over others at smaller points. Space Marines are one of the worst at smaller points because to get a decent troop you're spending a minimum of 165 points and it's generally weaker in comparison to what can be taken by BA/SW as SM strengths lie in full squads (minimum 205 points). Two of these + a 100 point HQ and you've sucked up most of your points already whilst other armies like IG and Tau can drop decent yet cheap Troops and then start buying firepower units.

So discuss away in comments (since we haven't had a lot of discussion posts about actual gameplay lately...); now that DE have a new codex what lists do you think work best at lower points and why?

Comments (20)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+3 Vote up Vote down

fester40k 73p · 752 weeks ago

Orks.
3x5 Lootas, 20 Boys, PK, Bosspole will rock your 400pt world every single time.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Aurenian 57p · 752 weeks ago

I think you just summed up every problem I have with combat patrol

+1 Vote up Vote down

Bro_Lo 82p · 752 weeks ago

"So discuss away in comments (since we haven't had a lot of discussion posts about actual gameplay lately...); now that DE have a new codex what lists do you think work best at lower points and why?"

Please don't get all YTTH on us. I love the site, but I don't like the... "let's see what the ZombYes have to say on the matter"... part of it. We come here to suck you brains out. Now put 'em on a plate for already!

Oh, that reminds me... we need to come up with a funky name for 3++ites... where's Chumb/TKE when you need them?

1 reply · active 752 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Kirby 118p · 752 weeks ago

But I don't want to review every army at a point value I think is useless beyond what I've already done!

Besides, you already have a nmae. The Pink Army or Pink Posse Pirates (aka P cubed, PPP, P^3, etc).

+2 Vote up Vote down

garthmichel 38p · 752 weeks ago

I think the best competitive games are played around the 1500 to the 1750 point mark. At those point levels you can take most units, but not all together, so you really have to pick and choose your lists correctly, which I think it s a huge part of the game. At 2000+ points I feel it's becomes a jam-as-much-as-you-can-into-your-list and some armies do that better than other armies, as they scale better (Guard with Vehicle squadrons for example). We play 1650 in South African and I'm very happy with it, some people are trying to get higher point levels going, but they are just trying to cram more toys into their lists, which is the exact reason I don't want to go up in points, as it forces people to really think about their lists.

4 replies · active 752 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Nikephoros · 752 weeks ago

I'm so over the "it forces you to think about your list more" argument. That is such ridiculous tripe. So when people play 'Ard Boyz level tournaments they don't think about their lists? They don't agonize over each decision? Laughable. They spend as much time and thought crafting their list as you do playing 1650, perhaps moreso. It could be argued that since your 1 HQ and 2 core requirements absorb upwards of 33% of your points and its only 20% of theirs, that they have MORE thinking to do, and consequently more mistakes that could be made.

I would like some intellectual honesty, just admit you like the point levels you play at because thats how you were brought into the game, and its tradition and it's what you're used to. Admit that your rationalizations are simple that, post hoc rationalizations and not actual proof of the superiority of your position.

+2 Vote up Vote down

garthmichel 38p · 752 weeks ago

You're coming across as very hostile, but I'm going to put that down to your writing style, rather than you're actual tone.

I was not brought into the game at 1650. I've been playing for a number of years. I started here in SA at 1500, went to the UK, played varied point levels from 400, 1000, 1500, 1750 and 2000 points. Coming back to SA we mostly play 1650, but we have some 2500 point tournies too.

Now it's of my opinion that the game plays better at 1500 to 1750 for the reasons because I feel that your choices have more effect. Yes your choices still have an effect on the game at 2000 and 2500, I never said they didn't, but I feel your choices mean more at lower points as it becomes harder to create a "all comers" list.

I may be wrong, but thats my opinion and never claimed my opinion was superiour to yours.

0 Vote up Vote down

Nikephoros · 752 weeks ago

There is a difference between saying "the game is more fun to me at 1650" than saying "the game is more competitive at 1650." The first is your subjective opinion, and we all have those and there is no sense in arguing. The second is a factual claim, and in making it you are taking a strong position. As I demonstrated, the "it forces you to make tougher choices" argument is bunk, so come up with a better case.

+2 Vote up Vote down

garthmichel 38p · 752 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Border Prince · 752 weeks ago

I think most armies can be fielded as balanced forces at 1500, but (and it's a big but) they often cannot do so and have redundancy in all their choices (at least if they are selecting the optimal units for particular roles). I quite like that as it pushes a particular challenge - that of making hard choices. Opponents are forced to really think about focus of fire to stop a particular type of threat at a particular time, while players need to be careful with units that are important to get the job done. As games get larger, almost all armies can make sure they have a second (or even third) unit which does the same job as well, and that makes games less exciting (although often more brutal).

1 reply · active 752 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Von · 752 weeks ago

I disagree with the assertion that redundancy = boredom. I find that smaller games can become foregone conclusions very easily if there are only one or two units that can do a particular job and those happen to be lost (whether due to poor play or bad luck) early on. You're also much more vulnerable to the rock-paper-scissors effect if you haven't the space to bring enough rocks, paper and scissors of your own (I've banged on at some length about how small point sizes, or games on small tables, usually involve you having to give up at least part of the game in order to have the rest function effectively).

To me, being able to call a game on turn two isn't exciting; I'd rather play a game where 'bad matchup' isn't a factor, where something can go wrong and the resources to turn it around and push the pendulum back the other way are still there. That's either a small game with a force/build that scales down well and doesn't create linchpin units, or a bigger game with room for redundancy. Small games have their place, but not for every faction, build or player.

+1 Vote up Vote down

VT2 79p · 752 weeks ago

Space marines of all colors, tyranids, and chaos don't function below 2k points - no matter how hard Jervis tries to convince us all.

Guard, tau, orks, and sisters of battle scale all the way down to 500 points, but orks and tau have issues at 2k.

3 replies · active 752 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Buzzer · 752 weeks ago

Howdy

Maybe I've just missed the article, but what why do you feel marines and 'nids don't function below 2k? I'm not really for or against them working or not working at those points levels, just love to see your thoughts on why that is.

- Buzzer

+1 Vote up Vote down

VT2 79p · 752 weeks ago

Guard, tau, orks, space wolves, and sisters have all their tools and toys at 1.5k, with almost all slots filled, too.
Marines and tyranids don't.

0 Vote up Vote down

Buzzer · 752 weeks ago

Makes sense. Thanks for the fast reply.

- Buzzer

+2 Vote up Vote down

abusepuppy 121p · 752 weeks ago

Disagree with folks who say that forces (especially Tyranids) don't work below 2K. I know for a fact that Tyranids are quite excellent at 1500 and even at 1000, as I've played them at both those levels a number of times. (Our monthly tournaments are 1500.)

Some armies falter at low point levels, it's true. Below 1K very few armies are viable- Guard can handle it, and possibly a few others, but mostly they simply don't scale down very well. Required Troops and HQ choices simply suck up all the points and leave very few options.

Armies that do well at low points either have very core-usage troops (like IG) or can easily fill multiple troop slots for minimal points (like Tyranids). Similarly, HQs in small games must be extremely useful and cheap enough not to eat all the available points. I think IG and Tyranids are most able to function like this; Blood Angels also would seem to do well down to about 750, but come apart below that. SoB I don't have enough experience with list-building for to say, but it seems possible. SM would have some problems, and possibly SW as well; their troops aren't cheap enough to leave them room for anything else and don't give them a strong base to stand on.

1500 is a perfectly valid point value to play at; I think the argument of whether it is more or less competitive than 1750/1850/2000/2500 are rather futile. The game works just fine at 1500; yes, your points are tight and required selections can eat up a pretty significant chunk, but this only drives home the necessity of good list-building. Every point counts in these smaller games, and if you throw away 20 or 30 pts per squad on unnecessary upgrades, your army rapidly shrinks. It's also true that specialty builds tend to be less possible, but at the same time other builds open up as smaller point totals mean that what is actually on the table can be more restrictive- it's not often that you see a dozen Lascannons in 1.5K!

1 reply · active 752 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Badger · 752 weeks ago

Tyranids are indeed an extremely potent force at 1000, as such a low point level all but negates their FoC issues, and their Troops are decent enough to avoid being a dead weight. Plus, MCs and Warriors are much less likely to die before reaching the enemy lines.

Space Marines, on the other hand... I don't think they are unplayable, but it's true that the poor offensive abilities of the average MEQ is liability.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Von · 752 weeks ago

"1500 is a perfectly valid point value to play at; I think the argument of whether it is more or less competitive than 1750/1850/2000/2500 are rather futile. The game works just fine at 1500; yes, your points are tight and required selections can eat up a pretty significant chunk, but this only drives home the necessity of good list-building."

Word. I''ve said as much myself; little games aren't less competitive, but a different approach is required to compete in them.

A lot of us trump on at length about how selecting a Codex that shines at a particular point level, and constructing a decent build with it, are important skills in gameplay, and how comping those skills out is dreadful Fanhammer and the last refuge of the unskilled. Funnily enough, when not talking about comp and competition, the first part of the argument tends to be forgotten. To argue that the game is inherently broken at X points because our selection and build, optimised for Y points, don't work at X, outside the context where we made those choices... well, it seems like there's a big damn hole in that argument somewhere, and it ain't in the game system.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Gx1080 · 752 weeks ago

I agree with AbusePuppy. I don't like 1500 because the lists tend to be repetitive, but almost all competitve armies can work at that level. I would say that is the bare minimum to a game to be balanced.

1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Kirby 118p · 752 weeks ago

Agree with 1500 being the minimum for balanced but I think as you hit 1750 the 'level of balance' increases and probably plateaus at 2000 (sinks a bit at 2500 with scaling issues). Each level though requires different lists and whilst some scale up and down very well, others do not. This makes some armies like SM better at 1750/2000 than they are at 1500 and some armies like Tau more potent at 1500 than they are at 1750/2000 (even though Tau are still good at that points level).