| User | Post |
|
9:29 pm
January 25, 2010
|
ERCH PRIME
| | Oakland | |
| Member
|
|
|
What are your favorite point levels to play 40k? Why do you prefer given levels? what are the pros and cons of your favorite point levels Include observations on play balance,reliabilty,headaches, and player attitudes.
This might work out in a way that we can figure out who wants to do small fast games, or large apoc games. It could indeed guage interest in organized events such as aformentioned apoc battles or little mini tourneys. The domination table is, as always, an excellent way to setup battles of specific levels. The upcoming nid campaign should run itself in a similiar fashion.
|
Missle launchers are back in style!!!
|
|
|
9:53 pm
January 25, 2010
|
Carl Tuttle
| | Morgan Hill, CA | |
| Member
|
|
|
I prefer games a bit larger. Around 1850 points is my sweet spot I think. Occassional 2000 point games. Once or Twice a year I like huge apocalypse games.
|
|
|
1:54 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Greg Johnson
| | Martinez, CA | |
| Moderator
|
|
|
500- eleventy billionty. 
Seriously, if there are fun folks to play, and we have time enough for a game at the chosen size, it's all good.
But, if I have to choose…2500. At that size people start bringing out lesser used (fringe) units and I think that's very entertaining.
|
|
|
2:44 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Zachary Walter
| | Walnut Creek, CA | |
| Member
|
|
|
The scientists at NASA have proven that 1137 is the proper level for 40k. You can't argue with science can you?
I like all sizes for different experiences, though I think the game works best at 1500, as you have to make choices…and you can still fit in those fun fringe units that Greg mentions, but you just gotta sacrifice something else to fit 'em in. I understand why people like 2000-2500, though I like that at lower points levels units are less redundant and more special.
It seems like apoc 1v1 at 3000-3500, if you put a minimum on the amount of super heavies can be added is a pretty good way of keeping that game from getting to unwieldy time wise. Maybe 1500-2000 worth of normal models, 1000-1500 worth of super heavys/apoc only models.
Games at 750 are also an interesting change… 1250 as well. They all have something to offer. For some reason when I play marines, no points are too many (I can't get all I want for 2500!!! Can't we play 2750?!?) But maybe that's the point with marines, having to pick and choose your elite force.
All I know is that competitive play should be conducted at 1500, as the game was balanced for–if players want as truly competitive field to determine who the "better" players are.
Beyond competitive play, I say go for what's most fun for you! As Tuesday nights are more time-restricted, I've found that 1000-1500 is right, while on Saturdays, I've seen guys pull off the 20,000-20,000.
But generally the better games seem to be smaller games, by my experience…everyone's army has a chance to do something before a clear winner or loser comes to the front. Conversely, I've seen 2000-2500 pt games where one side just demolishes the other guy and nobody has a particulary thrilling time. I think it has something to do with the more points you add to a force reduces the impact that necessary troop points cost have on a force, leaving more points for specialist units (elite, heavy, fast attack) that in most armies can be more devastating to opponents and cause more tabling and devastation of one players forces. Though this might be anecdotal.
|
|
|
3:45 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Dreadlord Arkahon
| | Alameda | |
| Member
|
|
|
I've always been a fan of smaller games. Somewhere between 1000 and 1500 (although I've gone as small as 500 for quick games).
There's a certain amount of strategy at that level of play, and after you get to 2000 and up you're just filling up the table and actual manuevering becomes nigh-impossible. Don't get me wrong, the big battles can be awesome, but my heart will always lie with smaller skirmishes. The smaller games make it so that you can actually move things around the table instead of just "towards the enemy." Vehicles matter at that level, but you won't have any of the big ones, and you won't have many of the other ones. Anti-tank weaponry isn't a necessity, just as long as you have a couple guns that can beat low to medium armor values. Plus, you're going to want to focus more on troops, so even though you will have elite units, you won't have a whole mess of them.
Smaller battles just seems to have more critical decision making involved, not just during the game, but also during army building. You have to trim the fat and figure out what you want, as opposed to what you need. I think those limitations add more tactics and strategy to the game, which makes it more fun (at least for me) 
|
Gamer 1, "Onward, To Waffles!"
Gamer 2, "Waffles, HO!"
Dude, that was a total waffle!
|
|
|
6:26 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Finn Kisch
| | | |
| Admin
|
|
|
Dreadlord Arkahon said:
The smaller games make it so that you can actually move things around the table instead of just "towards the enemy."
Hooray, maneuver! I approve
|
Finn Kisch
Forum Overlord, EndGame co-owner
Red is my Overlord voice
|
|
|
10:31 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Nick S
| | Oakland, CA | |
| Member
|
|
|
1000 – 1500 – 1750 point games are how I started playing 40k back in the "day" when I did RTT's every other weekend with a couple friends and we usually ranked in the top five.
It made army composition much more important and vital, maneuvering was key as one wrong movement phase could potentially cripple your ability to counter act your opponent.
Anything 1850+ and you start to enter the gaming realm of embracing what your army does best and nothing else as you've filled every concievable weakness with other units to strengthen what weak links you do have. Plus you clutter up the board with a lot of units, static game play I can understand for certain armies/playstyles but even armies that have to maneuver are pigeon holed into being forced forward.
Though it must be said, there is something awesome about having 3,000+ points of your chosen army on the board.
|
|
|
11:54 pm
January 26, 2010
|
Black Sword
| | Berkeley (work) | |
| Member
|
|
|
Post edited 11:54 pm – January 26, 2010 by Black Sword
Hmmmm…. This is an interesting question. For me it tends to be about mood and the scenario. I've played some fantastically fun Kill Team games, and one of my favorite games ever was about 4,500 points (pre-Apoc, no super-heavies).
Something in my head likes the idea of an army that consists of a complete Force Organization Chart. Problem is, with my favorite army (Grey Knights), that's over 6,500 points. I guess the scary part is that I can field that army…
As I look back, the escalation events we've done — Bob did one, and we did the Finish-an-Army-Challenge (was Galus escalation?) — have been great fun. It's cool to see the army "unlock" stuff as it grows.
Using a scenario is also a great way to accommodate different points levels. 4,500 points on a 4×8 Cities of Death table is very cool. Many of the DT missions are fun at the various points levels.
For large games, I'm not a big Apoc fan. I don't like the tiny no-man's land. I'm not fond of Super Heavies — it just seems that whoever has more, or whoever gets the first shots from their super into the other super will win. Maybe if I owned a bunch I would feel differently, but I don't think so. D weapons are fun-killers. I like the data-sheets and the strategems (or whatever the Apoc version is called).
I like to mix it up. 2v2, 1K each? Let's go! 5K standard chart? Yeah! 1500 no Heavies? Cool! Combat Patrol? On it! Kill Team? Yes! Custom characters with story based scenarios? Sign me up!
If you aren't doing this to have fun, you're missing the point…
|
 |
Lieutenant, Ordo Pacificus chapter, 40K Fight Club |
|
|
|
8:44 pm
January 27, 2010
|
Jeff W.
| | San Francisco, CA | |
| Member
|
|
|
1500-1850 is my preferred level of play, but I'll play anything, really. At about 1500, most of my armies actually start to work, instead of wildly succeeding or failing based on the randomness of the dice. Up to about 1850, I have a little bit of flexibility in choices, since I'm not worried about filling the absolute essentials.
Past 1850, you start running into the crazy stuff that you usuall wouldn't encounter normally. This can be fun, but also wildly unpredictable.
|
|
|
5:59 pm
February 8, 2010
|
Joshua Fricke
| | Oakland | |
| Member
|
|
|
1500-1850 for many of the reasons stated above.
|
~ Joshua…I hope the theme changes on the forums, hard for me to read things the way it is…
|
|
|
4:34 pm
February 10, 2010
|
Zachary Walter
| | Walnut Creek, CA | |
| Member
|
|
|
Joshua Fricke said:1500-1850 for many of the reasons stated above.
…wouldn't you actually have to play 40k to have a favorite points total to play at…?
|
|
|
10:50 pm
February 11, 2010
|
Black Sword
| | Berkeley (work) | |
| Member
|
|
|
Zachary Walter said:
Joshua Fricke said:1500-1850 for many of the reasons stated above.
…wouldn't you actually have to play 40k to have a favorite points total to play at…?
Hah! I dang-near spit my coffee onto the screen. I was thinking the same thing!
|
|
Lieutenant, Ordo Pacificus chapter, 40K Fight Club |
|
|
Login 
Register 
Forum
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
