Should points increase across the board in 11th?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Personally I’ve felt like games have been a little big for table sizes this edition.

 

i often struggle to fit my guard into my deployment zone at 2k

 

for my blood angels, they just don’t feel like a rare elite force when I have 40 infantry, and 2-3 vehicles on the table.

 

as much as I have fun playing most of the time, I also don’t like having to block out 5ish hours of my day to play and travel.

 

increasing points across the board will solve all of these problems to some degree. Am I the only one who feels like this?

[Karhedron]

Just play smaller games. Most people at my club play 1000 or 1500 points for an evening game. Just because 2000 points is the tournament default doesn't mean we have to play that for all games. If points were increased tournaments would just switch to 2500 or 3000 points as their standard. 

[HeadlessCross]

The main draw of 40k versus other games with better rules is the grand spectacle of the game itself. 

 

You can double the points for all I care as long as games are 4000 points instead of 2000. At least at that point the points are granular enough for easier balance. 

[Antarius]

Honestly, I don’t really care. The most important thing is to play games at the size that feels right to you.
 

This edition I had absolutely no interest in the game, until I started playing 500-750 points games and deployment and maneuvering suddenly started to matter again and army building became about prioritising, rather than taking one of each and doubling up on “optimal” choices.
If they doubled the points, I would just play 1000-1500 points, because that’s the army size that appeals to me.

 

So, to make a long story short, I think the points values matter less than the game size and I think the latter is where problems arise, because a lot of people tend to believe that there’s a “correct” game size. I know there are several reasons for this, some of them might even be good, but it’s still a notion that ruins the game for a lot people

[Craig]

From personal experience points seem to have decreased with each edition from 8th to 10th. Whether this was done to encourage people to buy more models I couldn't say but I suspect that has something to do with it. My 2000 point Ork army from 8th barely hits 1000 points in 10th and most of my other armies have dropped significantly from the 2k points they were all hovering around.

[Lathe Biosas]

22 minutes ago, Craig said:

From personal experience points seem to have decreased with each edition from 8th to 10th. Whether this was done to encourage people to buy more models I couldn't say but I suspect that has something to do with it. My 2000 point Ork army from 8th barely hits 1000 points in 10th and most of my other armies have dropped significantly from the 2k points they were all hovering around.

 

I've noticed this too. With the latest round of Imperial Knights. They all dropped in points, so now I see more of them on the tabletops.

[Evil Eye]

Playing on bigger boards might help. Just because GW recommends certain sizes (recommends being the key word here) doesn't mean you have to play on that size- the game isn't going to suddenly break from a nonstandard board size!

[Jukkiz]

I think rules and command point strats bloat should be toned down first. 

[kabaakaba]

25 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Playing on bigger boards might help. Just because GW recommends certain sizes (recommends being the key word here) doesn't mean you have to play on that size- the game isn't going to suddenly break from a nonstandard board size!

They recommended certain size As a minimal size. So it's don't even break rules some how

[Karhedron]

11 minutes ago, Jukkiz said:

I think rules and command point strats bloat should be toned down first. 

 

I feel that 10th has done a good job of toning down strats and CPs since you only get 1 CP per turn, it limits the alpha strike potential. Also armies only ever get 6 strats plus the core ones. It really limits the killer wombo-combos that you could pull off in 9th edition.

 

As for unit special rules, I actually quite like them. It means that units with similar weapons can function quite differently and have different roles in an army. Take those away and Intercessors/Infiltrators/Incursors suddenly look very similar.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Just play smaller games. Most people at my club play 1000 or 1500 points for an evening game. Just because 2000 points is the tournament default doesn't mean we have to play that for all games. If points were increased tournaments would just switch to 2500 or 3000 points as their standard. 

I have but the game is currently balanced around 2k

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't think they would or should increase points across the board. Since I started back in 3rd it's felt like GW wants a space marine army to be 40-50 infantry models with 4-7 vehicles. My current lists fit within the range and after 7 editions I don't expect them to change that. I don't think that they should do it either, this a premium hobby they should support at multiple point levels. 1000-point games are a lot fun, but people can bring some pretty crazy lists, adding a bit structure could take out a fair bit of the feel bads. I'd rather have multiple options, rather them keep trying to make a "right way" to play.    

 

I also really wish GW would play around more with formats. They could make a classic 1500-point format that used the old FOC and didn't have LoW or flyers. It wouldn't be hard to add the old roles into the unit datasheet's keyword section and maybe an army rule for each fraction. Then reprint some old missions or just tell us to use our old books and then just leave it alone. 

[kabaakaba]

I love 7th with a tender love, but please no FOC again.

We have rule of 2 for incursion and 3 for strike force and onslaught, tough I've prefer rule of 4 for larger games.

 

[Karhedron]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I have but the game is currently balanced around 2k

 

That may be the ideal point but I find games of 1500 points is perfectly fine too. Even 1000 points is OK unless someone is playing Knights or a really elite army like Custodes. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

1 hour ago, kabaakaba said:

I love 7th with a tender love, but please no FOC again.

We have rule of 2 for incursion and 3 for strike force and onslaught, tough I've prefer rule of 4 for larger games.

 

 

IMO the biggest reason small games don't work well it that a lot of fractions can just bring a ton vehicles or monsters and skip infantry all together. I'm sure that there are other solutions towards getting a better mix of units, but the FOC is an option. I don't really associate 7th with FoC (honestly I think the purpose of 6th + 7th were to kill it). 

 

[kabaakaba]

What stop me from bringing all Russ list in 2k pts game ? Or even to 3k?  People would  just refuse to play with me. There is always the way to broken your and your opponent's fun. And I think we talk about adequate approach. There is no problem to build 1k list(which is the standard size game recommended by GW) for any faction. You overscore elite but very few opponent's units. Or be in equal position with other normal list.

[Antarius]

I don’t think either the FoC or “rules of 2-3” does a whole lot to curtail abusive lists, to be honest. If a unit is overpowered “only” being allowed to bring two is kinda closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. Better to take a look at the points cost of such units, in my opinion.

 

That being said, some units can be a bit overwhelming at certain points levels, but even then, we’d have to look at “rule of 1” (or even “rule of zero” for certain units at certain points sizes). Something they actually used to have in army composition rules way back in the day.

[kabaakaba]

Such a rules is a FoC. It's not like FOC is a bad thing. Look at LI and HH. Problem is GW can't be consistent. And ass always SM start breaking such restriction. And we get same idiotic situation where we have rules but they work not for all.

 

Certain system is good. Yeah I can bring Hellhammer into 1000 point game. But I obviously loose simply overscored. Also current map's layouts prevent big nasty units from being real pain.  But it's a problem only in lgs against random guy. In your "Home" group you always can have conversation on such matter.

 

[Karhedron]

10 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

What stop me from bringing all Russ list in 2k pts game ? Or even to 3k?  People would  just refuse to play with me. There is always the way to broken your and your opponent's fun. And I think we talk about adequate approach. There is no problem to build 1k list(which is the standard size game recommended by GW) for any faction. You overscore elite but very few opponent's units. Or be in equal position with other normal list.

 

The fact that even lasguns can chip tanks to death means that all-vehicle lists aren't the bogeyman they used to be in 3rd-7th editions. If you look at top tournament lists, vehicle-heavy builds don't seem particularly popular outside of Knight armies. I have played against all-vehicle lists with my Space Marines and it isn't a big deal anymore.

[kabaakaba]

Regarding lasguns, it would be very long process. But yeah any unit now theoretically could remove vehicles. 

Considering this thread I think points now are almost perfect. We just need bigger boards. Like current 44x60 for 1000, 66x90 for 2000 and 88 x120 for 3000 

Edited February 1 by kabaakaba

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

17 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

What stop me from bringing all Russ list in 2k pts game ? Or even to 3k?  People would  just refuse to play with me. There is always the way to broken your and your opponent's fun. And I think we talk about adequate approach. There is no problem to build 1k list(which is the standard size game recommended by GW) for any faction. You overscore elite but very few opponent's units. Or be in equal position with other normal list.

 

There is nothing that would stop you from bringing a list of all Leman Russes at 2k, but I don't think people would refuse to play you either. At 2000 points it's pretty easy to fit in a lot of specialists, and units like intercessors are so cheap that it's easy to justify them just for the actions/stick objectives. In a 1000-point game it's a bigger proportion of your army doing those actions, secondary objectives still score the same, and the game is played on the same table size so you're running the same number of those units with the half the resources.

 

Your point about outscoring them is valid, and I do think that's a big part of why we don't see a lot of vehicle/monster only armies at 2k points. I just don't find winning that way to be fun in a small game. It just feels to much like being a punching bag if you're relying on chip to get the job done. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Antarius said:

I don’t think either the FoC or “rules of 2-3” does a whole lot to curtail abusive lists, to be honest. If a unit is overpowered “only” being allowed to bring two is kinda closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. Better to take a look at the points cost of such units, in my opinion.

 

That being said, some units can be a bit overwhelming at certain points levels, but even then, we’d have to look at “rule of 1” (or even “rule of zero” for certain units at certain points sizes). Something they actually used to have in army composition rules way back in the day.

 

That's fair point, was it 4th edition that you couldn't bring a unit with AV better than 11/11/10 into small games?

[Karhedron]

21 minutes ago, Jorin Helm-splitter said:

There is nothing that would stop you 

That's fair point, was it 4th edition that you couldn't bring a unit with AV better than 11/11/10 into small games?

 

That rings a bell but I think it might have been a special rule for Combat Patrol.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

17 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

That rings a bell but I think it might have been a special rule for Combat Patrol.

 

That would make sense, cause wasn't that meant to be the rules for 500ish point games at that point. I was in college during 4th, so we always ended up playing bigger games or team games.

[Xenith]

40k in 40 minutes, which then combat patrol, then kill team in various forms had the rule of no total armour value over 33 I think, so an 11/11/10 think was ok but a 13/11/10 predator was out, also only one model with a 2+ save as I recall, or it might have even been none! 

 

Unfortunately abusive lists is a moot point as jerks be jerks at any points level. As has been said before, the US tourney scene that now dominates the game favours large armies where you can take every tool you need to bring to a game, over the UK scene with smaller armies making you think hard and have to play a more tactical game. If point levels increased, TOs would push for increased point totals, and it won't change as GW immediately gets to sell 33% more models. 

 

I'd suggest playing smaller games. The game isn't event balanced at 2000pts* so why worry?

 

 

*Ok, a very small selection of units taken in specific detachments are somewhat balanced, kind of. If the game was balanced, every unit and every detachment would be viable. When is the last time you seen the Eldar farseer detachment on the table, or some of the GSC ones, or the nid crusher stampede?

Edited February 3 by Dr_Ruminahui
Removed swear dodge

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 1/31/2026 at 4:02 PM, Karhedron said:

 

That may be the ideal point but I find games of 1500 points is perfectly fine too. Even 1000 points is OK unless someone is playing Knights or a really elite army like Custodes. 

At 1000 points it gets very difficult to deal with any army that is armor/big monster focused.

As an example. A lot of armies will struggle against a guard army that has a Dorn, and a few chimeras with infantry.

 

they’ll likely either be too short on AT or short on anti-infantry.