GW drops GT army size to 1750 points

[Vel'Cona]

Frontline noted in a recent podcast that they're testing out the chess clocks (chess clocks have a precedent with Warmachine).

 

If Warhammer 40,000 EVER becomes akin to Privateer Press' Warmachine/Hordes, I'll hang up my bolter.

[Xenith]

 

 

You should know different forces scale differently at certain point levels. If you don't, I'll suggest you gain more experience :-)

And you should gain more experience fielding Custodes at lower point levels.

This, basically. You're trying to force your version of fun on others, while keeping yours for yourself.

 

If you're competitive enough to want chess clocks and think that building a strong 1500pt army is impossible for certain factions, then do the truly competitive thing and jump codex instead of ruining it for the rest.

 

A solution to slow play is to bring back sportsmanship scores, although for obvious reasons I can see some frater being massively opposed to how they treat their opponents effecting their ranking.

 

Addendum: as ever, people should stop trying to make a blanket rule. Some tournaments can have chess clocks and be 3000 pts, some can be 1500 and no clocks. Let the players decide.

[CommodusXIII]

Sportsmanship scores are absolutely vital for almost any event, in my opinion.  Even so-called "friendly" tournaments turn vicious when no one is watching.

[taikishi]

I agree with the Frontline Data on this one.

 

Here's the thing... I'm attending an ITC event, and my biggest challenge is to drop my most expensive unit, and get some cheap junk in there, and own more real estate.

 

So this is my personal issue with 40K 8th edition: Stop rewarding cheap, recyclable, or easy to produce, ObSec junk in the game. This will speed things up considerably, and they've already made some of my favourite models in the game too expensive to take in 1750 with the recent round of nerfs.

 

And if this wasn't true, then a non-codex army wouldn't have won the GT last week.

 

Just find a happy medium there, and games will naturally speed up.

 

But just to give an example, my 2K deathguard usually tries to incorporate Mort. He's a liability in most of my lists, and too expensive. When I go down to 1750 my model count actually goes up! (and it's probably stronger as a result.)

 

That's just my two cents. I like my bigger toys, and the ones I use aren't particularly good, so they're nearly invalid competitively speaking under 2K, but my lists will get bigger.

 

This isn't going to affect your ITC event this weekend unless they just announced they're adopting 1750 as the army size, in which case the organizers need to be smacked around for making that change a day or two before the event; this change is for 2018-2019.

[Azekai]

 

You should know different forces scale differently at certain point levels. If you don't, I'll suggest you gain more experience :-)

It's Not our fault you only want to play with one list. Tell you What take whatever it was that was inserted into you this morning, take it out, chill out and take another look at what YOU can do with 1750 points

 

And if that doesn't work, maybe just accept that certain configurations or sometimes whole armies don't function well within a competitive environment.

[Vel'Cona]

Settle down with the dogpiling, everyone.  No one deserves to be berated for their opinion.

[Ishagu]

Oh I can take it.

I accept people on the forum aren't as experienced as myself ;-)

[Lord Marshal]

Oh I can take it.

I accept people on the forum aren't as experienced as myself ;-)

 

I'm just surprised to see you disagreeing with a GW decision more than anything else.

[Ishagu]

This last week or so I seem to dislike more things than usual!

[CommodusXIII]

.

[kombatwombat]

Guys, we are in a hobby where we spend thousands of dollars/pounds/rupees on plastic models. We can all afford a chess clock

I don’t mean this in an unkind way, but I think you spectacularly missed the point!

[Mushkilla]

Maybe 1500 point games with a side board of 500 points would help games go to turns 5-7 (outside of deliberate slow play) and help prevent skew match ups.

 

On the topic of variety and dynamic meta. In our current league we are experimenting with 1250 + 2d6 * 50 point games it gives you a random game size between 1350-1850 and really forces you to learn to build lists for any point level and get a fantastic understanding of your army, in my opinion. Obviously not practical for tournaments but great for leagues.

 

Being able to play your army at different point levels is crucial skill in my view. When you're playing a 2000 point game and you loose 250 points of units to alpha strike you are effectively playing a 1750 point list. When your forces are depleted turn 4 and you only have 1000 points left you are playing a 1000 point list where your opponent has chosen what your are playing with from the 2000 point pool of units your presented him. It's a useful skill to have.

[OutlawSixActual]

Chess clock solution: if at least one player wants a chess clock, it must be used for that match. That way casual play stays fun, slownerds get stopped, nobody feels stamped down on (unless they probably needed to be)

[ERJAK]

Dropping points is seriously annoying, I think a better solution would be to double the points cost of all infantry.

 

I'm sick of infantry. They're boring and they slow down the game.

[Raven1]

I'm all for the chessclock. I know people who are slow because they don't know the game very well, but you if you are trying to game for advantage or running an event that timing must be well controlled I think.

[Panzer]

Dropping points is seriously annoying, I think a better solution would be to double the points cost of all infantry.

 

I'm sick of infantry. They're boring and they slow down the game.

lol

I'm actually happy we see more infantry again. I remember when the game was in a state of "infantry? Why bother?". Now THAT was boring!

[Brother Captain Ed]

Just a thought:  While saving time is clearly part of the picture, what if this is being done as a measure to blunt the alpha strike?  If you're gonna cut 250 points, your troops and HQs are largely set, so it's going to be mostly toys that get the axe.  Perhaps it's designed to help prevent things like knights and fliers from taking 2,000 points worth of shooting on T1?

[Panzer]

Yeah I mentioned that before. It's possible but we really don't know the intend. GW hasn't said anything about it so far and afaik nobody bothered to ask yet.

[toaae]

2000 is already an arbitrary bar. It bothers me not for some events to set it at some other arbitrary point. I'd be more interested in events with even lower points, like 1500 or even 1250, as I imagine you would see crazy different metas with that few points as opposed to the smaller difference between 1750 and 2000. But, in the end, it's not a big deal to me.

[Vanger]

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

[Deathwalker]

I don't think the points change was being done to combat 'slow play' - I think it's merely an acknowledgement that playing 2000pts takes awhile unless you're conscientious with time - most of us aren't when we're having fun!

 

Frontline noted in a recent podcast that they're testing out the chess clocks (chess clocks have a precedent with Warmachine). I think they share the same concerns that people have voiced here and are still experimenting with it. I think limiting chess clocks to the top tables is a great idea - and they even mentioned that as something they were testing.

 

I think someone really hit the nail on the head earlier: Not everyone is going to a tourney to be ultra-competitive - but people have fun when games are moving along at a reasonable pace as well. Nobody likes waiting 30 minutes for the other guy to make a move.

 

Ideally, we'd have more time for games in a tourney but practically, you can't always take this approach.

While this is certainly true, the problem arises when "fun players" don't move at a fast enough rate and cost the more competitive player slots that they will be weeded out of in the first or second round -because of it-

The player who can drive to the event can afford to "have fun", the players hopping planes or ponds deserve to be rightfully PO'ed at loosing out because someone is playing "beer and pretzels" style in a competition, and make no mistake, these are competitions.

 

I have no issue with beer and pretzels games, most of us probably play predominantly beer and Pretzels games, and they are fun, run "overtime" and end in a pizza and an empty case of beer, and 2 hour post game discussion about "what went wrong" but it would be unfair to impose that standard on a competition.

Chess clocks are entirely impartial, they don't care about your "desired play style" be it friendly or competitive, and as such are the best answer.

 

As to the actual topic of points dropping to 1750, I am not sure it matters at all. Efficient design will operate under any cap, but as others have noted, efficient will not always translate to practical or effective, especially with high base cost troops, and CP's being independent of cost of troop, but filling of slots. 1750 will not alter body count that much, but it will alter options a great deal. 

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

nope :P

[Panzer]

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

 

I wish, but 1001 - 2000 is the area for 3 detachments (and also 'rule of 3' now). It's only 0 - 1000 where it drops down to 2 detachments (and 'rule of 2' ... we should find different name for that one lol).

[Deathwalker]

 

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

 

I wish, but 1001 - 2000 is the area for 3 detachments (and also 'rule of 3' now). It's only 0 - 1000 where it drops down to 2 detachments (and 'rule of 2' ... we should find different name for that one lol).

 

rule of 3 and 3 detachments share little correlation. If I take a marine soup army, I can still only have 3 of any non troops across all three of those detachments, same with any soup army really, unless they have different names.

If you are talking about access to CP's, I can fit 2 detachments of marines in that (1000 pnts), but I can fit about 4 in a AM list, and 1 marine detachment is only giving me one CP, but possibly 3 of those AM ones are giving me 5.

[Xenith]

While this is certainly true, the problem arises when "fun players" don't move at a fast enough rate and cost the more competitive player slots that they will be weeded out of in the first or second round -because of it-

 

You're missing the point - the worst slow play is deliberate and not made by "fun players", as you say, but by tragically competitive tournament players.

 

Tragically on this sense as they try and kill games on their terms than win them outright.

[Panzer]

 

 

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

 

I wish, but 1001 - 2000 is the area for 3 detachments (and also 'rule of 3' now). It's only 0 - 1000 where it drops down to 2 detachments (and 'rule of 2' ... we should find different name for that one lol).

 

rule of 3 and 3 detachments share little correlation. If I take a marine soup army, I can still only have 3 of any non troops across all three of those detachments, same with any soup army really, unless they have different names.

If you are talking about access to CP's, I can fit 2 detachments of marines in that (1000 pnts), but I can fit about 4 in a AM list, and 1 marine detachment is only giving me one CP, but possibly 3 of those AM ones are giving me 5.

 

 

Uhm what?

I was talking about this:

 

It has every correlation.