NagoyaHammer.com

Browsing through the various forums, message boards and websites about Warhammer, one of the big differences I notice is the standard points values of most games/army lists. British sites usually work around a 1500 point list whilst US players seem to favour 2000 points.
I've heard people say that the game is balanced for 1500 points and I must disagree in that I feel the game isnt balanced for any specific level, so long as both players have the same points, its fine. 1500 points gives you enough troops to win the game and a few supporting units. 2000 points lets you bring a few more of the cool units or powerful HQs to the table. Smaller games work as well, though when you get down to the 500 point level, you need to start messing with the FOC.
When I am building an army list for 1500, I sometimes find myself wishing for those extra 500 points to spend. This is especially true of some of the newer books such as Space Wolves and Blood Angels as they have some very expensive choices in them that would be cool to use in a game. For other armies, such as IG and Nids I dont mind so much as the compulsory stuff is fairly cheap and you often have lots of points to play with.

How about the rest of you. Where is the sweet spot for your army?

Kiwis swear by 1750pts e.g. @*#%&!

Seriously, I like the middle ground 'cos it allows you to have one or two extra toys without getting silly about it. That said, I don't mind any of the three sizes. Personally though, I don't like smaller games <1500pts but that's just me.

I have also heard that the game is designed for 1500pt games. I think that there may be a grain of truth in there especially when it comes to Small Elite Armies vs Hordes. In a smaller game there are just too many bodies for the Elites to kill. At 1500pts or so the Elite army could/should have enough warm bodies on the table to get the job done. Above that then the hordes can field more and more of their more expensive choices which offsets the Elite's advantage in killiness. That's my two yen anyhow.

the 40k rulebook recomends 1500 pts, and GW designers have been quoted on numerous occasions as saying that the game is designed for 1500pts. Theyve also been quoted as saying that they dont design for tournaments, and indeed, they dont design the game to be perfectly balanced. They design it to be fun, and frankly, reading the codexes, I can well believe that balance is not at the forefront of their minds. I'm inclined to agree with Prim - the game is equally (un)balanced at any level.

I used to much prefer 2000pts to 1500 pts, as like Primarch I had a lot of trouble fitting a balanced army into the lower points allowance. However, of late I've started to reconsider this. in a 2000pts a side game there is often much, much less room to physically manoevre your units, and this shifts the balance of the game from the movement phase to the shooting phase. In the shooting phase you are at the mercy of your dice, whereas the movement phase is pretty much the only section of the game where the player has complete control over what happens. Thus, 1500pt games give you more personal control over the outcome. 2000pts just gives you more killin'.

Pikey's point about elite/hordes balance at 1500 pts also fits with this idea. What we have now is, at 1500 pts, the elite armies have the weapons needed to kill hordes and take objectives, the horde armies have the numbers needed to swarm an enemy, and the manoeverable armies can out manoevre people. Upping or lowering the points tends to skew this a bit.

Re. US/UK differences: (Ok, all ye americans, prepare to shout at me and call me a prat, but, here goes...)

Call it a stereotype, but American culture (TV etc) tends to emphasise immediate gratification. Bigger=better. Thus, American players, frustrated at the difficult choices imposed by 1500 pts, decided en masse to avoid the problem entirely and up the points limit. Result: everyone gets more, everyone is happy.

UK players, however, having read the ruleboook's suggestion (and it is only a suggestion) that 1500pts is good, just put up with the difficulties imposed by the points limit. Result: everyone gets less, everyone has troubles, everyone gets to complain more (and thus everyone is happy)

In short: 1500pts forces you to NOT take something you want. This is a test of strategic thinking and meta-game understanding. 2000pts pretty much lets you tailor your army as you see fit.

Personally, I'm starting to favour 1500pts. In the tourney games earlier this month, I found that my eldar were actually doing what they were supposed to do - outmanoevre people. In previous 2000pts-a-side games my eldar have been forced to sit in their table quarter with nowhere else to go because the rest of the table was literally covered in Orks.

That said, there are times when I want to use my wraithguard, dark reapers, and harlequins. On those days, its 2000pts ahoy

It also helps to "mech up" your army as it leaves you with more room to play with. Massed infantry blocks tend to fill up space.

A recent BOLS article here, seems to indicate that the players in the US enjoy far less LoS blocking terrain which encourages more long range shooting and using heavy weapons.

As one of the GreenGos on this sight I find that 1500 is fun and at least the games end quickly.. that said the 1750 game is what I really love to play in tournaments... 2000 is a bit too much for competitive games. I think the 2000 point games are for games that are for fun or for story line.

Primarch wrote:It also helps to "mech up" your army as it leaves you with more room to play with. Massed infantry blocks tend to fill up space.

agreed, although to really have the space to move around you need your opponent to do the same thing. If he doesnt, well, them's the breaks. Maybe he did it on purpose...

Primarch wrote:A recent BOLS article here, seems to indicate that the players in the US enjoy far less LoS blocking terrain which encourages more long range shooting and using heavy weapons.

This neatly illustrates the problem of scouring the net for tactics and army lists n whatnot. Sometimes people dont realise that whats "normal" for them is in fact not normal for anyone else. (e.g. ask a regular on the american tourney scene what armies are good, he'll likely say (based off this article, anyway) "a shooty one with lots of missile launchers" and if I say "what about terrain" he'll say "not a problem". Whereas here, we're quite particular about filling the table with 25% of terrain. I've even seen people arrange it all in one corner to check it fills a table quarter before distributing it over the table. This is good, for the reasons given in the article. It encourages tactical play, i reckon.)

I think America is to big of a country to put a single point number as the norm my pals in Utah play 2000 points but the guys on 40k Radio are always talking about the 1750 and BOLS talks about 3000 point tournaments.. bigger and better in Texas I guess...

As for Terrain Prime and I worked very hard to get tables that gave 25% coverage... Sometimes I like a bit more that 25% terrain I just do not like building it and transporting it...

Yes, as I am sure Badruck can attest, I was a stickler for getting a full 25% on the table using the putting it all in a corner and measuring it method.

NagoyaHammer tables are done properly and by the book.

I can and that is why I hope I never have to look at terrain again..

I think the 2,000 pnts in the US is a hold over from 2nd Ed. Back then that was what it was all about, 2,000 pnts. I remember when 3rd came out, we didn't even consider changing the point limits in our games even once despite several armies suddenly shrinking in size (not enough models for the new cost or certain elements were way out of whack like my heavy section for my iron warriors ).