Moving from 3k to 3.5k for organized play.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So I've heard through the warp after Adepticon, the LVO and a couple of the smaller cons that many T.O.s are thinking about moving to 3,500 points as their standard matched play points system.

 

Adepticon had several players finish their 3,000 point games well before time.

 

In my recent travels and acceptance into new more exclusive circles its been said that Lucas Lyons wants to both remove named characters from the ongoing Pyrix campaign (the heresy event at Adepticon as well as Texas Open) and increase the army points lists upto 3,500.

 

I will say that my 3k games have really only lasted about 1.5 hours at the most, with lots of time to spare. Personally I think increasing standard match play to 3,500 is a good thing. I also believe we should remove both named characters and primarchs for narrative based events, only to have those select models available for mega-battles. That is really just a personal preference that reflects my own bias, but feels more inclusive into telling a story without just facing primarchs all day. 

 

For those of you that travel with 30k, like I do, how do you feel about this? Are you also seeing the more sped up feel of 3k games, and do you agree with the fact named characters and primarchs weren't at every battle ever in the heresy? 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten

[MARK0SIAN]

I’d be happy to see the game go to 3.5k and I don’t think it would take much longer than now. One of my reasons would be counter to the idea above though. I’d want the extra points precisely so it would be easier to include a Primarch or other LoW in a standard game. It would help with the Primarch’s retinue counting towards the cap for a start. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

This is a bit of a weird one.

 

Heresy is generally a faster game than 40k, for a variety of reasons, and adding an extra 500 on the high end usually just translates to 1 or 2 more units and upgrades getting filled out; the game time doesn't balloon all that much. But that brings us to the game design.

 

The heresy rules have variously said the game was designed for the 1500-3500 point range; a chunk of the core missions most people play in 2nd came from book 1, where they recommended 1500-2500. 3500 was always the point they said the foc broke down and to play Apocalypse instead, where the balance explicitly didn't matter. People have always played towards the highest end, simply because they can use as much of their stuff as they want, especially lord of war choices which need certain breakpoints. I know by the end of 1st that a lot of groups in Britain were playing 3250 as the standard. 2nd generally lowered the points, so that old 3250 is the new 3000. It also claims in one part that the game was designed for 3000, but that's patently false; the changes made don't recontextualize the original design.

 

So, people what actually changes if people play at 3500²/3750¹ if not game time? Well, other than the low/primarch cap, it was force org/unit economy. You still need slots to spend those points, so a fantastic Heavy support unit like the las HSS might not be as attractive as 3 Leviathans for the same slot. This is where vehicles without squadron would start to struggle, as you couldn't scale them past their efficiency in 2500. This has changed a bit, since so many units plainly suck, and everything has a squadron now; if you took three Scorpius in 2500 you can take six in 3500 now, but the premise is still the same. The thing is, when you squeeze the foc for all the good units you can get with your big pool of points, you get a phenomenon of very high output; this then skews the survivability of units and turns the game into a dps race. People complained terminators weren't survivable in 1st because they played 3500+, where the dynamic of 30ppm for a 2+/4++ didn't matter any more. Also expect auguries to hit an absolute high and really crowd out reserves.

 

Edit: as @MARK0SIAN mentions, the retinue and dedicated transport counting towards the % was such a kick in the pants that it drives a lot of desire to go up in points. I still don't understand the 180° on the rule from 1st to 2nd, but i guess someone really wanted their "infantry" to be the focus instead of primarch deathballs. Except you just take the spartan as the Legion Terminator dedicated and have the same thing. Or take contemptors instead of infantry.

 

Tldr: little time difference, big efficacy difference since you can take whatever you want.

 

As for primarchs and named characters getting relegated in narrative play? Sure? It's narrative; ferrus never makes it past the dropsite massacre, Sang basically sits out the entire heresy until the siege, etc... At least the playing field is a bit equalized if these events are going by "the narrative". But on the other hand, a lot of them aren't; they're narrative in name only and you still see tournament quality lists showing up. So what difference does named praetor who just fights at STR+1 ap2 make in the face of 3-5 dreads?

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Gorgoff]

I think games now take much longer then before and going to 3500 is a bad idea. It is basically take everything you want plus gubbins. 

But we don't play on nearly empty tables with up to no cover like those meantioned events seem to do. Of course games take only two hours when two maxed out armies face each other. Whover has the first turn has a major advantage over the enemy and that gets worse the bigger the games are.

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I think games now take much longer then before and going to 3500 is a bad idea. It is basically take everything you want plus gubbins. 

But we don't play on nearly empty tables with up to no cover like those meantioned events seem to do. Of course games take only two hours when two maxed out armies face each other. Whover has the first turn has a major advantage over the enemy and that gets worse the bigger the games are.

 

Yea the terrain tends to be a bit terrible. Shooting galleries compound the speed of games pretty fast. 

[Brofist]

For the LVO ZM event we run, we went up to 1250 this year (up 250pts from 1000), but we won't go any higher. We prefer the smaller format because our games take much less time and at that limit you're able to build a pretty good list without taking all the toys. I don't have experience playing huge games, but my preference has always been smaller games because it forces more difficult choices on the list builder. Something like 2K is probably ideal in my head.

 

I've seen some aussie events where people are required to bring several lists at different point levels. So if you pair up against somebody who doesn't have 3500 points you scale down to play them. I always liked that approach. At LVO 2024 there will be some crossover between the big narrative games and the ZM event, so it might happen in a roundabout sort of way next year.

 

As for named characters... It can go either way for me, TBH. I've always seen 'named characters' more as exemplars of a particular legion's style, rather than 'this is actually sigusmund', and some unlock unique ways to play the game. On the other hand, if you take them out, its a more even playing field with less skews because powerful characters and builds around them are no longer accessible. This just shifts the meta towards legions who can create good characters without using named ones. So its basically a wash really, I don't have strong opinions one way or another.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

I have heard and read in different places about this. I fact, this afternoon I was talking with some colleagues from Spain about this. Some said that, with the 2.5K-3K points arc, you can not deploy "Mama's big boys and guns" and have an good army,  you know "to taste the real Horus Heresy experience" as one told me. So they said is better to use 3.5K-4K points arc for the lists.

In my opinion (a quite limited opinion right now, I must admit. I played very few games with this rules and no tournaments yet. But in the other hand, during more than two decades and a half I have been tournament player. And some times, organizer and judge), I think is a mistake to try to amplify tournament list to 3.5K points. 500 extra points, with the actual books, aren't few. Well expended, you can deploy several units. And that's can be nasty in a tournament (from logistics, to time, rules...). More points are always more miniatures, bigger miniatures or even both.

I think 3K is (nearly) the perfect size of a list for a tournament, like 2K was during years and editions the usual size for W40K. More points are more troubles at al levels.

 

Of course, no one is going to forbid anyone to play the amounts of points their want on their clubs or at home, obviously!. But if someone just want to have more points to put LoW o Primarchs or loads of squadrons or squads, I strongly recommend to try Epic.

Edited April 25, 2023 by AGRAMAR

[SkimaskMohawk]

31 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Build a pretty good list without taking all the toys.

 

31 minutes ago, Brofist said:

my preference has always been smaller games because it forces more difficult choices on the list builder

 

These are very big for me, though obviously we enjoy slightly different sizes. Part of the joy of heresy for me was figuring out how to fit the tools you want into the list. How to balance the scoring units, with the melee, the anti armour, and still get the archetype or point of your list going. What to prioritize and what you can sneak in, what gambles do you make in your tec, etc...

 

I see agrammar snuck one in while I was typing, and I find it hard understand the takes on the "the real" experience being these giant megabattles. You could replicate these giant games with the Apocalypse rules and imperial armour volumes of 4th and 5th; playing heresy at those points levels doesn't make it any more special or genuine, and IMO makes it less.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

35 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

 

These are very big for me, though obviously we enjoy slightly different sizes. Part of the joy of heresy for me was figuring out how to fit the tools you want into the list. How to balance the scoring units, with the melee, the anti armour, and still get the archetype or point of your list going. What to prioritize and what you can sneak in, what gambles do you make in your tec, etc...

 

I see agrammar snuck one in while I was typing, and I find it hard understand the takes on the "the real" experience being these giant megabattles. You could replicate these giant games with the Apocalypse rules and imperial armour volumes of 4th and 5th; playing heresy at those points levels doesn't make it any more special or genuine, and IMO makes it less.

 

This is a very personal opinion but, when some people said "more points is more fun and a more authentic experience" , they don't say this last words: "for me, because I spent in several models lot of money and I want to use them, at all cost". I saw that during 6th and 7th W40K's eds and was terrible.  People trying to play Apocalypse without Apocalypse rules.

[Noserenda]

Even coming from a group that used to regularly play mega games, apocalypse etc that 1st ed Heresy got increasingly bad as you went up in points and we played a bunch of 10k games to field out whole armies at the time. I guess it depends how you see these campaign weekends, are they just some decadent blowout with all the toys or are you wanting to experience the game  because both things are totally valid but you need to be on the same page (and as mentioned plenty of competitive types just see them as another tournament)  to have a good time, and yeah, put more terrain on the table! 

Bigger points values put strain on the FOC too, i suspect a few armies might be driven to allies to fill out the points, and it magnifies inequality between the pricier LoW/Primarch options, pay to win lurks like a spectre too, being able to fork out or print huge tanks/titans (or just the raw points in other things) isnt nothing, though at least the 2nd ed team seems to dislike the things so its less of an issue.

Banning special characters is always a red flag for me, most special characters dont have their whole Heresy mapped out (pretty deliberately) and they are never a less valid choice than a generic set of characters that the majority of players barely bother to name or fluff up anyway, (or really care about their opponents if they do) like, thats a cool thing with regular groups building history and grudges but if you are playing some random guy from across the country who you might never see again its just a notch on the bedpost unless they are truly exceptional opponent or storyteller.

But we all love stabbing Erebus, or Sigismund, or Curze. They are the touchstones of the setting we all enjoy, we already know the backstory, we are entwinning it in our heads with our own stuff. The story is better for their presence.

There is one exception, and its loose, for a really exceptional narrative event that has a compelling story played out on the tables and rewards engagement with it. But then even as someone who used to actively look for those type they are pretty rare. And the main one worked in special characters. :D 

 

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Stabbing Erebus!? Ha! Torching him or blasting him to death is fine. Or cutting slowly in very small pieces. But stabbing ... We are not barbarians, are we? XD

On 4/23/2023 at 10:20 PM, Noserenda said:

Even coming from a group that used to regularly play mega games, apocalypse etc that 1st ed Heresy got increasingly bad as you went up in points and we played a bunch of 10k games to field out whole armies at the time. I guess it depends how you see these campaign weekends, are they just some decadent blowout with all the toys or are you wanting to experience the game  because both things are totally valid but you need to be on the same page (and as mentioned plenty of competitive types just see them as another tournament)  to have a good time, and yeah, put more terrain on the table! 

Bigger points values put strain on the FOC too, i suspect a few armies might be driven to allies to fill out the points, and it magnifies inequality between the pricier LoW/Primarch options, pay to win lurks like a spectre too, being able to fork out or print huge tanks/titans (or just the raw points in other things) isnt nothing, though at least the 2nd ed team seems to dislike the things so its less of an issue.

Banning special characters is always a red flag for me, most special characters dont have their whole Heresy mapped out (pretty deliberately) and they are never a less valid choice than a generic set of characters that the majority of players barely bother to name or fluff up anyway, (or really care about their opponents if they do) like, thats a cool thing with regular groups building history and grudges but if you are playing some random guy from across the country who you might never see again its just a notch on the bedpost unless they are truly exceptional opponent or storyteller.

But we all love stabbing Erebus, or Sigismund, or Curze. They are the touchstones of the setting we all enjoy, we already know the backstory, we are entwinning it in our heads with our own stuff. The story is better for their presence.



 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by AGRAMAR

[Dont-Be-Haten]

While I have my own bias towards named characters in narrative events, I'll gladly play however, I personally love the idea of creating your own Praetor, and fielding your own War band with its own nuances.

 

I get lots of people aren't good at doing stuff like that, and would rather just take a primarch or named character to enhance their own idea of fun.

 

I think Alex's approach at the LVO was the best option so far between Adepticon, LVO, and NOVA. I do believe NOVA is going to max out at 3500 iirc.

 

The Heresy event at ATC this summer in Chattanooga, Tennessee will be Centurion first night and then transition to larger scale day 2 but is maxing at 2500 I believe (I need to go back and read my document).

 

From the experiences of individuals at Adepticon several plauers had finished well before time with an alarming 20~45 minutes left between some matches.

 

At the LVO  most of my matches finished earlier than expected. I almost always had 20+ minutes to spare, so I'd just have a couple beers and shoot the breeze.

 

I think the most important part 1 year in and building towards future events really boils down to trial and error. I'm definitely looking forward to next year's circuit.

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

While I have my own bias towards named characters in narrative events, I'll gladly play however, I personally love the idea of creating your own Praetor, and fielding your own War band with its own nuances.

 

I get lots of people aren't good at doing stuff like that,

Thing is in a pick up game which games on an event are your opponent doesn't know and quite frankly probably doesn't care. Everyone just wants to play a game and therefore only sees a Praetor not Cornholio the beatiful, Taskmaster of the Bloodied Claw 34 chapter of the NL, bringer of despair of Engwilon 7. 

Hence imho named characters are way more interesting for narrative events because everyone knows them and instantly see the narrative.

Since I play Iron Warriors I don't have any though... :/

[SkimaskMohawk]

Quote

From the experiences of individuals at Adepticon several plauers had finished well before time with an alarming 20~45 minutes left between some matches

 

How is this alarming? They finished before the maximum time for the game and didn't need to have the game wound down before they had their full amount of game turns.

 

Quote

At the LVO most of my matches finished earlier than expected. I almost always had 20+ minutes to spare, so I'd just have a couple beers and shoot the breeze.

 

This is normal? Good? Not an issue? Back in the days of pre 8th, good players using lists they practiced generally finished well before the time limit in competitive 40k. People dreaded playing opponents that finished close to the wire, or always had their games called due to time. 

 

It's important for players to get their maximum turns in, but it doesn't really matter if it only takes them an hour to do that. Gives the TO more time to run the pairings and fix the terrain on the tables between matches.

[Noserenda]

Its a good point that finishing early is a good thing, im a fan of hordey armies and all too often you run out of time, especially if you are playing against someone a bit slow, or also using a hordey army. Bear in mind HH 2nd ed has only just added its hordiest army back into the game and SA and SOS can both easily lean into that and have only been there a few months.

Id also suspect the huge advantage Dreadnoughts (and terminators) bring right now, alongside plentiful spartans might have sped up games. If they tidy the former up games will likely slow down a chunk.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

19 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Its a good point that finishing early is a good thing, im a fan of hordey armies and all too often you run out of time, especially if you are playing against someone a bit slow, or also using a hordey army. Bear in mind HH 2nd ed has only just added its hordiest army back into the game and SA and SOS can both easily lean into that and have only been there a few months.

Id also suspect the huge advantage Dreadnoughts (and terminators) bring right now, alongside plentiful spartans might have sped up games. If they tidy the former up games will likely slow down a chunk.

Yeah, I haven't seen 300 model counts yet, but I know it's coming. Bring on the Rotor Cannons and Heavy Volkite lol.

 

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Thing is in a pick up game which games on an event are your opponent doesn't know and quite frankly probably doesn't care. Everyone just wants to play a game and therefore only sees a Praetor not Cornholio the beatiful, Taskmaster of the Bloodied Claw 34 chapter of the NL, bringer of despair of Engwilon 7. 

Hence imho named characters are way more interesting for narrative events because everyone knows them and instantly see the narrative.

Since I play Iron Warriors I don't have any though... :/

For me, my armies are mine, I like creating characters that represent me. And being able to kitbash dudes like Aethon Solaq leader of the Sorrow Branded is cool. Certain narrative events reward you for bringing fluffed up armies, that have told a story. The easiest way TOs are handling it are simply saying the primarchs and named characters have all left the system. 

 

While some players are only there to throw dice, some of the dudes I've played against are also there for the immersion of it all. Representing yourself or playing a named hero both have merit. If I see 3 different night lord players all running Sevetar or Curze, at 3 different tables it pulls back from the narrative because those guys couldn't be everywhere at once. It's not a big deal, just how I feel about bigger narratives.

 

To @Brofist I've become a fan of Centurion for smaller points levels. ZM at 1000~1250 feels right. It was a fun adventure that added a lot to the elements of the LVO.

 

[Jolemai]

How fast are folk generally playing 3k games?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

24 minutes ago, Jolemai said:

How fast are folk generally playing 3k games?

At events, my games are around 1hr 30~45 minutes 2 hours tops.

Locals there's more banter and less focus so more like 2.5~ hours.

 

Edit: but I also practice time management before going to events with a chess clock. My turn should have everything planned out in advance so I don't really dilly dally. I'm also more shaped up in rules prior to events and try not to muck that up.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Xenith]

21 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Adepticon had several players finish their 3,000 point games well before time.

 

I think this is the nature of skew 30k list building, and not of the game itself. A superheavy and armoured spearhead list will naturally have faster games than others. 

 

18 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

I think games now take much longer then before and going to 3500 is a bad idea.

 

My 3K HH games are taking about the length of time that a 2k 40k one does, maybe a bit less. Stuff is faster, but theres more of it, so it evens out.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but the US tourney scene from my perspective has always been "increase the points to let people tke everything they want" as opposed to have a middling point level and force hard choices in list design. Increasing the points just encourages further skew list design, and punishes the non-hyper competitive. Though with the guys running LVO, that might be the idea to keep the hardcore tourney players on top and push out casuals so they can keep with revenue generation. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

8 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

I think this is the nature of skew 30k list building, and not of the game itself. A superheavy and armoured spearhead list will naturally have faster games than others. 

 

 

My 3K HH games are taking about the length of time that a 2k 40k one does, maybe a bit less. Stuff is faster, but theres more of it, so it evens out.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but the US tourney scene from my perspective has always been "increase the points to let people tke everything they want" as opposed to have a middling point level and force hard choices in list design. Increasing the points just encourages further skew list design, and punishes the non-hyper competitive. Though with the guys running LVO, that might be the idea to keep the hardcore tourney players on top and push out casuals so they can keep with revenue generation. 

I can see that argument for 40k, but heresy at the LVO wasn't like that. Reese and the FLG group didn't even have a hand in the heresy event it was Alex and Craig from Death and Betrayal Podcast. They had full control of the event. 

[Brofist]

5 hours ago, Xenith said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but the US tourney scene from my perspective has always been "increase the points to let people tke everything they want" as opposed to have a middling point level and force hard choices in list design. Increasing the points just encourages further skew list design, and punishes the non-hyper competitive. Though with the guys running LVO, that might be the idea to keep the hardcore tourney players on top and push out casuals so they can keep with revenue generation. 

 

I'm real sensitive to this myself and its thankfully not at all the case. This said, I do think its important to monitor the situation, and for the community to lead the direction of the game rather than event organizers. I left LVO this year feeling absolutely against third parties like FLG dictating our game. Walking the 40k and AoS halls showed me what I don't want our events to become.

[Gorgoff]

7 hours ago, Jolemai said:

How fast are folk generally playing 3k games?

Around 3 hours or so. Don't know since none of my 3k games lasted longer than 3 turns. Usually that's when it is crystal clear who lost 

8 hours ago, Noserenda said:

Its a good point that finishing early is a good thing, im a fan of hordey armies and all too often you run out of time, especially if you are playing against someone a bit slow, or also using a hordey army. 

[arnesh88]

My games have been taking anywhere from 1.5-3 hours for HH games. A good chunk of the time depends on if I know ahead of time what my opponent is bringing or playing with an army/legion I'm familiar with (so we have less questions for each other or listing off wargear). Also having all models WYSIWYG is a big thing for me because it also speeds up knowing what units are equipped with, no ambiguity (plus it just looks nicer on the table). At Adepticon, I was lucky to get to the bottom of round 3 by the 2.5 hour mark. Both my opponents and I knew the core rules and army rules well enough to not pull out our books all that often. Bumping up to 3.5k is something that I don't think really matters? My experience for higher points games are that players don't necessarily bring more stuff, just bigger toys. I like sticking to 3k for the moment, because tables are crowded enough for units and the lower points cap makes building the army more fun. 1.5k feels a little too restrictive, and some units become too oppressive when opponents can't bring enough variety in tools to challenge them, and reactions become too strong.

[Brofist]

You bring up a really good point. Bigger tables. I honestly feel that games 3K or higher should be on larger tables. It really does feel crowded.

[Gorgoff]

2 hours ago, Brofist said:

You bring up a really good point. Bigger tables. I honestly feel that games 3K or higher should be on larger tables. It really does feel crowded.

The good ol' 8x4 tables from 2ed 40 cone to mind. 

Back in the day when battlereports were worth reading.