Who sets game size?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon.

Another discussion point, this time about expectation of army size.

Where does it come from? Why is it agreed? Who is setting the trend? Does it have to be this way?

I understand the Tournament scene tends to have a fairly level points limit (1850 is a common one I see), but outside of that aspect of gaming, why are we playing certain sized games?

I've attached a loose poll just so we can get a rough idea of who favours what limit, setting it in 500 point increments. Have also made it multiple choice for added flexibility.

Oh yeah, and my choice. I like 1000 point games. I find writing a flexible list within that limit really quite challenging, and find that that challenge carries over into the game itself. Sometimes you made the right cut, and your opponent is in for a slapping. Other times you judged it wrong, and find yourself on the back foot. All experience to me!

But local store? People always want 1,500 point games. It's become a sort of accepted 'minimum standard'. Not sure why!

[Pssyche]

In my area it used to be 1,750 Points in 5th Edition.
That's crept up to 1,850 in 6th Edition and that happened pretty much overnight, although not for any specific reason.
Everybody tries to stay below 2,000 Points because of Double FOC.
Store Games seem to be 1,000 Points or 1,500 dependent on what day it is.

Me personally.
I prefer 4,000+ Points Apocalypse.
Failing that 1,850 Points and I won't play below that.

[SaveModifier]

I like smaller values myself, limiting yourself like that really makes you have to think about your army choices, you can't just throw everything in

[Mr Mystery]

Any reason why 1850 is your minimum? (just out of discussion interest)

[Wolfshade]

1000.

It is small and quick, but most importantly, you have to make some seriously hard choices for every item, each upgrade is a hard thought out. As you get larger the points are not so hard to come by so a 15 point upgrade isn't a problem but at 1000pts it is a challenging decision.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?37315-Your-favourite-size-game

[DWest]

For myself, I tend to play whatever is the popular size for tournaments at the FLGS-- easier to stick with a similar-sized list. Currently that's 1500, and the reason behind that is we want to try to squeeze 4 rounds into a not-overly-long day. Generally speaking, even when my local group aren't playing by FLGS rules, we tend to choose bigger-sized games- we both own Stormravens and Land Raiders and Terminators, and it's nice to be able to take those beasts off the shelf and get some use out of them.

[SaveModifier]

Getting into Zone Mortallis after getting a load of tiles over christmas, max recomended points is 1000 for a 4x4 table and its really interesting, building a 500 point list is hard, yes Terminators are going to be the most powerful thing on the table most likely, but good luck getting anything else in that list then!

[Anggul]

It often depends on upon time. 6th ed takes longer to play than 5th purely because there are more random things and you can pre-measure so you tend to think longer about your options rather than going for the one that you're more sure is in range. 1850 is the 6th equivalent of 5th ed 2k I feel in terms of time.

When people get new codices and shiny new toys they want to play bigger games to try them all out. When people want a more gruelling, tough decision making battle they play 500-1000, where every casualty is felt and every wrong move is paid for harshly. 1500-1650 has always been the standard 'got a decent length of time, don't want the battlefield too busy though' points level. Also at 1500 you're restricted just enough that you can't have everything you want, you have to make tougher decisions in your list building. 2k+ is 'Use ALL of the things!'

[Cactus]

I usually play 1,500 - 1850 point games. I really like the 1,999 +1 format to play 2,000 points and still keep a single forceorg chart.

I also feel that named or special characters shouldn't appear in games of less than 3,000 points, but that's the way I like to play.

[DarkLink]

It often depends on upon time. 6th ed takes longer to play than 5th purely because there are more random things and you can pre-measure so you tend to think longer about your options rather than going for the one that you're more sure is in range. 1850 is the 6th equivalent of 5th ed 2k I feel in terms of time.

If you weren't estimating ranges and weighing options before premeasuring, you were doing something wrong.

[Anggul]

If you weren't estimating ranges and weighing options before premeasuring, you were doing something wrong.

I was, but there was less certainty, so sometimes you had to go for the one that was most likely to work out.

On the other hand you now have the same sort of thing wondering whether it's worth attempting to charge and so on. Overall I feel the game takes longer, not least because of more random stuff. Not necessarily bad random stuff, but more of it.

[Phototoxin]

1650-1850 as its not as silly as 2k and local tournaments tend to either be 1650 or 1850. However people tend to arrange their own games so we sometimes have 3k games and 1k games swell. I think a lot depends on what type of game - larger is usually more casual, whereas the 1650-1850 bell curve is more 'gamey' at times.