Topic: What's your typical game size?

[uarusstrabo]

My group usually plays 1500 points on a 6 x4 table. Just curious as to what everyone else plays, as we are finding that shooting armies have a significant advantage over those geared for close combat.

[Spectral Arbor]

1500 on a 6x4 table is probably as "standard" a game as you will find.

My games at my LGW have a "limit" of 1850 pts, which most long-timers prefer since they can use more toys. I played for 15 years with 1500 being the "standard" game, so I still tend to think of armies in that light. It's probably the most interesting and challenging point level to play at. The level at which I find all armies are pretty balanced to each other.

6th edition is shooting focussed, whereas 5th edition was so cc focused that if you didn't take a Power Fist everywhere you could, you weren't playing the game right.

In general, more LOS blocking terrain [completely blocking, like a 5" tall brick wall] can often give cc armies a boost, but a mobile shooty army will just use the terrain to box you into predictable avenues of approach, which will work to their advantage too.

CC "only" armies just won't work as well as a balanced army, in my experience. The rules of 6th edition have swung that direction.

[Wyddr]

Around here, games range from 1500-1750 in most cases, all on a 6'x4' table. This, incidentally, is where the game is most balanced anyway.

Shooting is certainly easier in 6th Edition than assault. That said, assault is more decisive if you can pull it off. Assault-focused armies can work just fine, but they need to be carefully constructed and are working at a greater disadvantage than shooting-focused armies with no assault capability.

Daemons, in particular, can do assault-only armies quite well. It still isn't easy, but it is certainly playable.

[Ludo]

I prefer 2000 point games and I don't like to go below 1750.  I find that the more experienced players prefer the 1750-2000 point range because they can include more units, use more combos, and have better list synergy.  Most 1500 point games I play have been against newer people and they end up completely annihilated.  Not particularly fun for either of us.

I have seen that the average points has gone down in 6th edition.  With the switch away from tank heavy lists to infantry based lists the higher point games are taking longer to finish.

[Spectral Arbor]

You should try 1500 pt games against your best opponents. List building is very challenging at that level. There's no way to have everything that you want, but neither does your opponent.

I find 1500 points rewards the player that can best exploit the inherent weakness of his opponent's lists, while protecting his own weaknesses... and still achieve objectives.

I've been playing for almost 20 years now, and since 3rd edition came out, I've found 1500 points to be the most exciting and challenging games. When played against competent opponents. I find that by 2000 points, you can actually build lists that have no "obvious" flaws. I find that this makes the first two turns disproportionately critical to the overall game. If someone gets lucky early, they have a weak point to exploit, while their opponent has a distinct uphill battle.

Compared to 1000 points, where I find the last few turns are overly "swingy". Both players have so few resources left, that a lucky break at the end of the game is more likely to dramatically change the outcome of a battle. To that end, I'd say it's more fun for beginners to play at that level, as you can play quickly, and have a "better" chance to win against an experienced opponent. The experienced opponent gets to practice his fundamentals, which is a good way to stay in shape, so to speak.

1500 points is just the sweet spot, for me. I can't exactly quantify my experience in any way, it's just my feeling about the game that I've built up over many years.

[Wyddr]

I agree with the 1500 point as the golden mean. If you have experienced players with big collections, 1750 lets you take one or two more things without overtly swinging it over the other side. Likewise at 1250.

At 2000 points, I've found that the game starts to come down to factors that are beyond the control of the player once the army is on the board: which army you choose, who gets first turn, how much terrain is present have disproportional effects at higher point levels. At 2000 points, for instance, some armies aren't really any better than they are at 1750 (they just take more of the same things) while some armies have access to much more powerful combinations that they couldn't otherwise find realistic. I feel to some extent that the Allies rules were deliberately introduced to balance out higher point games in this way, but still I find 2000 point games to be less tactically interesting and more predictable.

On the other end of the spectrum, 1000 point games or less are similarly simple - few armies can take truly versatile lists at this level - but, as GBT states, they are more prone to random swings of fate and therefore, with that in mind, I find them more fun to play than the really big games. My favorites are still between 1250 and 1750 though, which balances out things quite nicely in most cases. 

[Big Bad Wolf]

we usually play 1500-1850 for 'competitive' games.  If we want to sling a bunch of dice and have a goof around game or try out some new units, we'll bump up to 2k-2500.  Plus, we've found it pretty fun to throw down at those 2k+ point games knowing that both people are going to go into the game using double force org lists and that shenanigans will ensue ... I'm awfully fond of my 2k list featuring 6 squads of Long Fangs ^_^

[Ludo]

The biggest problem I have with smaller point games ifs that the whims of fate can win or lose games in ways that aren't as big an issue in larger point games. if I lose a tactical squad in a drop pod to a mishap at 1500 when I need to take objectives I have probably just lost the game. At 2000 I am hurt but I can make a comeback. what about losing a land raider crusader to a single Lascannon. (I mention these based on previous experience.)

With allies able to plug up those weak spots you tend to get two powerful lists that require much more difficult game choices for their generals to make.

Though back to the question. I asked a few of my friends that go to different stores  than me and they didn't agree with me either. Two said 1850 and one said 1750 because they are the local tournament standards.

[Adrastos]

I prefer 1850-2500 games in honor of our fallen lord and masters the RTT and 'Ard Boyz tournaments.

2500 gets pretty ridiculous but is fun. 1850 always feels very balanced. Where good list building and skill are the most critical parts of each battle.

[khaine]

I'll play anything from 250pt killteam games to Apoc games where a single formation clocks in at 4.5k, but most games in my area are 1500-2000pts with a leaning towards the high end.

All points ranges provide slightly different challenges and game styles but the extremes tend to require a little editing of the rules to get the most out of a game, something which sadly a lot of people seem reluctant to do.

Table size works well at 6*4 for the 1250-2000pts range, the 6 foot side being the most flexible measurement of the 2 as it scales up and down depending on the points being used much better than the 4 foot edge does.

[Irisado]

I only really play between 1750-1850 points these days, although I will still play 1500 when necessary.  The 1750-1850 point range is the most fun for me, since it's not a high enough total to allow some of sillier unit combinations without compromising an army, yet high enough to provide quite a large spectacle, which is something that I like.

[Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)]

For the sake of brevity, I prefer Combat Patrol (400 points) or 1,000 points in regular 40k.