captainecho
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer and Usurper
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by captainecho on Sept 17, 2013 19:15:06 GMT -5
Ive seen a lot of point levels thrown around at some of these 40k events. Is there a standard? a few different standards?
I've seen 1500, 2000, 1999+1 (which I don't quite understand), 1850, etc.
Can someone provide some guidance?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 17, 2013 19:49:25 GMT -5
Almost everything around here seems to be 1999+1. The reason for that is at 2000 points you get double the force org slots, so you could take 6 fast attack, 6 Helldrakes for example. Some spam armies can really abuse that so 1999+1 means you still play 2000 points but don't get to cheese it out.
I really like that 2000 point level. At 1750/1850 you still get most of what you want, it just doesn't really change the game. At 1500 points though that is a different game. So for my opinion focus on a 1500 point core list, then pad it out to 2000 and you'll be set.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Sept 17, 2013 21:14:25 GMT -5
As Tim said, 2000 points with one Force Organization chart (or 1999+1) seems to be the standard for competitive 40k in the Northeast. 2000 points usually gives you space to comfortably cover all of your bases; and feel like you have room for the necessities (scoring unit, fire support; the really strong core units of your book) as well as some extra wiggle room for different units or wargear combinations you like. 1750/1850 have been popular levels in the past, and I don't mind playing them; but it can sometimes be more difficult to comfortably cover all of your bases (I think Bob's recent daemon armies illustrate this well -- to cut his list down to 1750 or 1850; he usually has to lose an extra scoring units or a few bodies from his premiere assault units... it makes Bob feel less confident about holding those backfield objectives, or trusting his Screamers to win a fight, than he normally would be). The other competitive issue at lower points values is that without having space to bring the necessary tools you want; certain armies skew so hard that their effectiveness dramatically increases. Spam armies benefit from this (especially ones that easily max out the force organization anyways), as do Deathstar units (GK Paladins, IG Guard blobs, Ork Nob Bikers).
That being said, I certainly don't mind smaller games -- 40k at 1500 feels very different compared to 40k at 2000. I like the lighter games; fewer models is fewer guys to move/dice to roll/things to think/hours to play which makes the game less of an investment ($, time, mental, etc). That makes it easier to be light-hearted and have fun, instead of really gunning for the win. That being said, I don't think a 1500 point serious competitive tournament would go very well. 1750-1850 are the more serious considerations; some people think it helps games finish naturally in a reasonable amount of time (which has been a pretty significant issue with 6th edition 40k), some think that it's still enough points to have all your bases covered, you don't have to awkwardly skirt the double force organization chart rule... and then there are people that disagree with all of those statements.
2000 points should be your ultimate goal -- that's what you're working toward. A 1500 point list should be super refined, super tight... no fat, keep it lean. You don't have points to spend on fluffy stuff. At 2000 you feel like you can breathe a little bit, and include some different things. Plus, if you have a 2000 point army list it's easy enough to adapt it to smaller points values if the need arises.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 18, 2013 8:31:30 GMT -5
Interesting question you've brought up, sir.
There's a lot of angst and discontent amongst the competitive set about time of games relative to points level.
At 2k (which seemed to be the 5e standard), games aren't finishing in 6e. This is a no-brainer to me, as we roll roughly twice as many dice.
The knee-jerk reaction is to decrease the points level...1850 (NOVA was 1850), 1750, some talk of 1500...which as B points out is suddenly a very different game!
Many folks (myself included) counter that reducing points does not have a dramatic effect on time (my 1850 army plays exactly the same speed as my 2k army...slow armies will still be slow armies, moreover, it's more about the player than the army anyway!), but does cause more of a skew towards 'extreme builds'. As B said above, the lower points level you go, the less tools you have available to try to deal with some other guy's extreme "rock" army (as in rock paper scissors, and you're stuck with your scissors!).
Here's an example, though not a great one...Mikey brings a Nob Biker unit. It costs 1k points (I made that up) with all the characters in it. Any other points he has will go to other stuff, but that's the core of his army. Now B brings a Paladin blob at 1k points; I bring a Screamerstar, Sean brings a Beastpack (or two), Eric brings a Jetseer Council, etc....
Now when you're building a list to counter your local meta, you have to find a way to squeeze in some kind of answer or counter for each of these "rocks" (ie, you need to find enough Paper). At 2k points, you'll have a lot more Paper than you will at 1500.
So what effect does that have? It makes you choose...I have a coutner for Nob Bikers and Beastpacks and the Jetseer council, but the Paladins and Screamers will eat me.
So guess what happens...you go to a tournament, and you are at the mercy of the random number generator that does the pairings. If you get the Nob Bikers, WOOHOO! You win. If you get the Screamers. Booo! You lose.
Rock Paper Scissors gets worse at lower points level.
So, standard points levels are very much in the air. As you can probably tell, I'm in favor of 2k (single force org), but that's becoming less popular due to perception of time.
So after babbling out another semi-coherent wall of text....yeah, what Tim and Brian said. Build 1500 and stuff from there...but with the caveat that you have a plan for what you want to add so it's functional, not just tacked-on.
|
|