Army sizes and points costs

[TheArtilleryman]

14 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

Quite boring. The SM predators and Razorbacks were erased quite rapidely or impeached. And the low count of other infantery and units made that SMs were outgunned and wipped out by the LR company. As the latter enterred as reserves, they were preserved from the alpha strike from SM, as these were getting most of the fire power and initiative in 1st turn.

 

Only SM units performing well in term of return on investment were the Deepstriking termies and the landspeeders; but they were too lonely to really make a difference in the final math as far as I remember.

 

At second turn the game was almost off as all SM units that could have done something were sufficiently weakened not to be a real threat. Or blocked due to poor deployment, or with too limited LoS, or simply destroyed: with, I do not remember exactly the army composition, something between 12 to 18 Rhino chassis on the table, you rapidely end up being cumbersome in the movement phase; especially if you deploy in columns or spear heads when coming from reserves.

I brought my SW at this game and I did the mistake to play my deployment in spear head (as in the "historic" game). I should have gone in line instead. There was enough room for it, I did not play it wisely.

 

It is also true that the scenery in the middle of the table was really blocking LoS and made that a wisely positionned LR could be really effective as it sniped key assets and remained then largely untouched (a little bit as in this piece of Lore where a single Vindicator blocks an ful armoured column....). In that game Scenery is a real additional asset for IG defensor.

 

But it is a little bit blurry (4+ years have passed or so), and the fact that the after game beer was great, clearly, does not help remembering details...

 

Conclusion: this scenario needs more predators annihilators and more lascannon to give SM a chance vs a full company of Russes. Or Land raiders and VIndicators but these weren´t a thing at the time.

Thanks, that’s a really interesting write up! I think the tactical factors you mention are highly significant but I wonder what the points values would be today of the two armies and whether they would be equal. Did you do it model for model or did you balance the points?

[HeadlessCross]

3 hours ago, Frogian said:

This is a silly argument - if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be apocalypse just the for the spectacle of it all...

Have you gone through the rules for the last iteration of Apocalypse?

 

That should've been the starting point for anything GW wanted to do for 9th/10th!

[Tawnis]

9 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Dark Eldar lack enough tools for their alpha strikes to really work at low points and, depending the lethality of the opponent, Necrons won't get their army rule due to dying too quick. 

 

As I stated in another thread, if you're going to play 40k, it might as well be a large game just for the spectacle of it all. 40k isn't even GW's best rule system. If you're gonna run smaller amounts of models, might as well just go smaller and do Kill Team. 

I don't know enough about Dark Eldar to speak to them, but as someone who plays Necrons a lot at 1k, it's actually the opposite. I find I'm using re-animation a little more because my opponents have a harder time alpha striking down a whole unit. 

Large spectacle games are plenty fun and I do love them, but many of us rarely have that kind of time. 

[Tawnis]

6 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

The doubles tournaments that Warhammer Wolrd run are a nice idea - you and a friend take 1k each and team up.

 

We have a few of these every so often in our FLGSs, they're always lots of fun. 

[tychobi]

I am going to suggest that poor balance is magnified at 2k compared to 1k. Low point 40k is fast fun and far more approachable to newer players. I find 500 point games to be one of my favorite ways to play. Your mistakes get magnified making the learning process clearer and cleaner. Full send 2k 40k is fun but certainly not the only way to play. 

[DemonGSides]

9 minutes ago, tychobi said:

I am going to suggest that poor balance is magnified at 2k compared to 1k. Low point 40k is fast fun and far more approachable to newer players. I find 500 point games to be one of my favorite ways to play. Your mistakes get magnified making the learning process clearer and cleaner. Full send 2k 40k is fun but certainly not the only way to play. 

 

Feel free to suggest it but there's no way to prove it and is ultimately just a "I like this, therefore it's better" which is lol 

[Tawnis]

29 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Feel free to suggest it but there's no way to prove it and is ultimately just a "I like this, therefore it's better" which is lol 

Yeah. problem is since 2k is the only big tournament play, there's no way to get the data one way or the other. All we can go on our people's personal experience and anecdotes.  

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Tawnis said:

I don't know enough about Dark Eldar to speak to them, but as someone who plays Necrons a lot at 1k, it's actually the opposite. I find I'm using re-animation a little more because my opponents have a harder time alpha striking down a whole unit. 

Large spectacle games are plenty fun and I do love them, but many of us rarely have that kind of time. 

I said it's dependent on lethality. 

 

Also skew Lists are MUCH harder to counter at smaller point values. 

[Tawnis]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

I said it's dependent on lethality. 

 

Also skew Lists are MUCH harder to counter at smaller point values. 

Ah, I thought that was in relation to the Dark Eldar, not the Necrons. My mistake. It's hard to get that level of lethality in a 1k game though, it's cake in a 2k. 

Not saying that you haven't had those experiences, but personally I've found skew lists much harder to deal with in 2k than at 1k. At the smaller points costs on larger tables, it easier to evade armies you have trouble dealing with and play an objective game rather than just sitting there and getting your teeth kicked in. I've gone into many 2k games and been able to tell who would win before anything was deployed just by seeing what armies are against each other. I've seen far more unexpected turnarounds in 1k games where tactical maneuvering and strategic use of resources carries the day. From my experience, skew lists are twice as problematic at 2k because you're essentially just doubling the problem and the hill you have to climb to overcome it. 

I like to play heavily themed lists myself, which by their nature tend to be pretty skewed sometimes. I'm one the best competitive Kroot players (though that's not saying too much since there are so few of us) but there are some armies that just straight up can't deal with us at 2k because we are so fast with so many bodies. I've had far more easy sweep wins at 2k than I have at 1k. I've had the reverse happen too, back in 9th, at 2k, I could not beat Thousand sons, that matchup was dreadful, but at 1k, I could play objectives and avoid problematic units, it was still a rough matchup, but it at least felt possible to win it. 

Edited January 23 by Tawnis

[Cpt_Reaper]

Using Space Marines as the yard stick as, besides being the poster-child army, their lore composition is the easiest to parse I believe that at 2000 points one should be able to field a full Demi-Company worth of infantry. For those of us who played in yesteryear, at 2000 points you should fill up the old Force Org Chart. Additionally, every squad in this hypothetical 2000 point list should be at maximum size and with a default loadout.

 

Now I know Marines have gotten a lot more robust in a vacuum with the second wound, but I maintain that 2000 points should allow for at least 5 10-man squads of marines (thank you primaris squads for being annoying with 3-6 man squads).

 

Throwing a quick list together, a captain+company heroes, 3x10 intercessors, 1x10 jump intercessors and 1x10 devastators comes in at 1015 points. Plenty of room to add supplemental forces like transports, a few tanks or some specialised infantry.

 

As much as I do not miss formations from 7th (or any edition as a whole between 5-7), they do make for a good approximation of what a 2k army should look like for a faction. If GW stopped being moronic and brought back granular wargear costs, balancing would be a lot easier.

 

TL;DR - 2k points should be fit a full 50ish marine demi-company with default loadout. Apply equivalent formation to each faction.

[Scribe]

Would love to see a breakdown of a 1500 point 5th Edition army, it's cost in real money, and then adjusted for inflation, and that same armies points as well as cost to buy today.

[Dr. Clock]

4 hours ago, Scribe said:

cost in real money, and then adjusted for inflation,

There appears to be USD 21.70 added to the price of a tactical price over and above inflation since 2005 ($30 in 2005 is worth 48.30 today, but from GW MSRP 70.00 today). If memory serves, back then a kitted tactical was basically 200 points, down to 140 today, or roughly 30% deflation in points? So to get the same number of points of tacticals as 20 years ago you're paying ~$90 today?

 

I'm not doing the rest of it lol.

 

Cheers, The Good Doctor.

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

There appears to be USD 21.70 added to the price of a tactical price over and above inflation since 2005 ($30 in 2005 is worth 48.30 today, but from GW MSRP 70.00 today). If memory serves, back then a kitted tactical was basically 200 points, down to 140 today, or roughly 30% deflation in points? So to get the same number of points of tacticals as 20 years ago you're paying ~$90 today?

 

I'm not doing the rest of it lol.

 

Cheers, The Good Doctor.

 

So, not only did the costs go waaaaaaaaaaaaay up, but the value of the unit went down, while they also arbitrarily increased the 'recommended' points value for a 'suggested' competitive game.

 

Quite the racket.

[DemonGSides]

If you didnt know that til right now you just havent been paying attention.

 

No one is happy about GW prices, we are just addicts lol 

[Bouargh]

15 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Thanks, that’s a really interesting write up! I think the tactical factors you mention are highly significant but I wonder what the points values would be today of the two armies and whether they would be equal. Did you do it model for model or did you balance the points?

Model to model. How much would it reach today with 10th points values? No idea. First step would be finding back a copy of the bat rep to refresh my memory about armies compo at the time... It has been a while.

[TheArtilleryman]

I’ve got the bat rep and the points…. I’ll post a rundown of it later :)

[AutumnEffect]

20 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

That’s a fair point. Ok so we pit 1k points of gladiators with different variants vs 1k points of vanquishers then. Guard’s supposedly best anti-tank tanks (apart from super heavy of course). I know it’s not a mash-up we are going to be able to easily test but I know which side I’d bet on.

 

I think 1k of Vanquishers will beat the hell out of gladiators.

 

The vanquishers are 15 points cheaper, tougher (+1 toughness, wounds, save) and better armed with a lascannon and multi melta sponsons as well as a cheeky hunter killer.

 

It's only downside is the slightly worse BS but it's not like they are orks.

[Bouargh]

18 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Thanks, that’s a really interesting write up! I think the tactical factors you mention are highly significant but I wonder what the points values would be today of the two armies and whether they would be equal. Did you do it model for model or did you balance the points?

 

You gave me "food-for-though":

 

 

So I did a quick maths. Points wise, SM are quite over the AM. But does it means they have a more powerful forec? I still doubt.

[TheArtilleryman]

Thanks @Bouargh! Your list is a lot more detailed than mine but I got slightly different numbers. That could just be because my BattleScribe is out of date. I also included the comparison between 2nd and 10th. I haven’t added up all the 2nd edition upgrade costs, so that would make some difference, but it isn’t clear from the bat rep what upgrades stuff had so it was easier this way than going through the photos and squinting! I’ve done my best to approximate the closest comparisons, using some legends units and some straight up replacements as close as I can get.

Here’s my breakdown:

 

Imperial Guard:

 

 

2nd edition cost - 3135

10th edition cost - 2265

28% cheaper in 10th.

 

 

Space Marines:

2nd edition cost - 4047

10th edition cost - 3160

32% cheaper in 10th.

 

So in both lists the marines had about 900 points difference to the guard: 

2nd - 912

10th - 895

 

Looks like the points reductions here are a bit more balanced than they were with the SM vs Orks report. Marines have still come down a bit more but it hasn’t made as much difference here. However, it is worth reiterating that I didn’t add up all the upgrades in the 2nd edition list so this might add an extra percent or two.

 

What’s clear in both is that it’s not a very balanced match-up! However it looks like the guard have a lot more by way of high strength weaponry so might have a better chance of blowing some stuff up.

Edited January 24 by TheArtilleryman

[apologist]

Cor, Evil Lord Varlak – there's a name I haven't heard in a long time! A very fun battle report, and one that I believe mentioned that points values were tossed out of the window in favour of creating a more fun scenario. That was fairly common in a less Matched Play-dominated environment. 

 

Despite the size of the game, I think the result hinged on a simple objective – whether the hastily-assembled strike force of Marines could cut off and capture or kill the rogue psyker. I think asymmetrical objectives like this go a long way to making unfair forces fun to play with – desperate last stands and unwinnable fights can still be satisfying gaming experiences if the superior force has more difficult or onerous objectives (particularly an in-game time limit) than the inferior force.

 

Special rules can also be used as a way to give the forces more of a challenge (or a less onerous climb!), and can add a fun novelty to a big group game. Disrupted communication, for example, can be represented in-game through imposing a test before units can act, or requiring officers to be near to units. It can also be represented out-of-game, by having the superior force only allowed to communicate through short written messages.

 

Basically, it boils down to experience with the game and army – but also of the group you're playing with. If your gang prefers fixed-point fair fights to find a definite winner and loser, then adjusting the armies of these classic battle reports is probably the best way of doing it – but it has the potential to miss the charm and appeal of more story-led gaming. If your aim is to recreate or evoke the atmosphere of these reports, I'd suggest just using as close an analogue as possible to the original armies, and using your experience to add some weight one way or another, if you feel it'll be an unenjoyable playing experience for anyone.

[apologist]

... and on a more specific related note, I recreated an army from a Rogue Trader battle report, and translated it into 9th (I think?). It showed that points had roughly halved:

 

The original Blood Angels army came to 1993pts:

 

...and here's the modern equivalent. I ummed and erred about whether to take them as Blood Angels or plain Adeptus Astartes, and ended up opting for the latter, on the basis that I think that's more in keeping with the Rogue Trader/2nd ed. background. 

 

 

Faction  Adeptus Astartes – Gladius Task Force

• Army rule  Oath of Moment
• Detachment rule  Combat Doctrines
• Captain Erasmus Tycho – 80pts Artificer Armour – 10pts
  • Warlord
• Epistolary Ureolo – 75pts
• Chaplain Savonarola – 70pts The Honour Vehement – 15pts
• Medic Sansavino (Apothecary) – 50pts
• Tactical Squad Raphael – 160pts
  • Combat Squad Raphael
  • Combat Squad Mephisto
• Tactical Squad Lazarus – 160pts
  • Combat Squad Lazarus
  • Combat Squad Cleon
• Devastator Squad Castigarius (10) – 200pts
  • Combat Squad Paulo
  • Combat Squad Michelino
• Terminator Squad Redemptor (5) – 190pt
• Thudd Gun (Thunderfire Cannon) – 90pts
  • Techmarine Haynes Mirandola – (part of Thunderfire Cannon)
• Rhino – 75pts
• Land Speeder – 80pts
• Lieutenant – (part of the Land Speeder)

Total 1260pts

 

 

I hope that's relevant here. I'm planning to finish the Alaitoc army that these heroes of humanity faced, so one day I'll be able to refight the battle report :)

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

2nd 40K was a proper Sci-Fi game which can still be enjoyed today by downloading the Battle Bible from the interwebz. Modern 40K by comparison has devolved into a fast food game geared towards quick tournament play where you score points by standing on circles. 

 

And now more depth to it:

In 2nd 40K the Space Marine was clad in power armour which made him immune to the threats of gas weapons and viruses, gave him protection versus blinding attacks and provided him last but not least with a saving throw of 3+. The Tactical marine was armed with Bolt pistol, Bolter, Combat Knife, Frag & Krak grenades and he could CHOOSE which ranged weapon (including grenades) for use in the shooting phase.

And to compare it again to modern 40K: Power armour provides a 3+ save and the marine can choose to fire either a Bolter or Bolt pistol. Depending on edition the grenades either became gimmicks which could only be used in certain situations or were restricted in application (e.g. only one model of a squad is permitted to toss a grenade).

 

This is obviously only the tip of the iceberg although it makes it clear that we have here two completely different games. One plunges you into a rich Sci-fi setting where a lot of stuff happens on the tabletop whereas in the other case you have a dumbed down version for tournament players fighting in L-shaped ruins.

Edited January 24 by Deus_Ex_Machina

[Scribe]

12 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

If you didnt know that til right now you just havent been paying attention.

 

No one is happy about GW prices, we are just addicts lol 

 

Oh I've known it for a long long time. I just question how people defend it, outside of the addiction angle which is valid. ;)

[ZeroWolf]

29 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Oh I've known it for a long long time. I just question how people defend it, outside of the addiction angle which is valid. ;)

Not so much as defending them as understanding them for me. I don't like them any more than the next person here but the thing that seems to be the reason for the high prices (and in turn price rises) is their wish for 70% profit in order to maintain their 3 month emergency fund and build up their money to make large purchases since they pay for everything up front instead of dealing with loans or things like that. An odd way of business but I guess it works for them. Though I can think of a few ways they can do all that and still have lower prices...like looking at how much salary those people at the top are earning 

[TheArtilleryman]

4 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Though I can think of a few ways they can do all that and still have lower prices...like looking at how much salary those people at the top are earning 

Hey, if you’re successfully running a business that sells luxury goods and consistently maintaining a 70% profit margin year in year out then you’ve probably earned it - and don’t have any moral obligation to keep prices down, unlike food stores, for example.