Small games or Big games?

[Victus Mortecarium]

I'm fan of smaller games. I set up my 500 point game to have a splash of everything. Dreadnought here, Company master there, Devestators here, Scout snipers there...

I'm one of those guys that has been into 40K for a while, but really got into it during 5th. We were all newbies, and the 6 of us all got into it together. We bought armies that were way too big for the amount we knew of the game, so most of our games consisted of flipping through rulebooks and arguing.

Once 6th came around, we decided it was time to play smaller games and really get the rules down for what we knew. A couple of my friends left the hobby altogether because they never had a chance to learn all the rules. Otherwise, it really sped up the games, making our turns more frequent, allowing us to practice the basics better.

But yeah, why I like small games:

1. The map looks wayyyy bigger!
2. Faster paced action.
3. It makes my HQ choices feel more important. (I understand they are still important in big games)
4. With unbound lists, making a small game is even easier!
5. Great for learning.

So how many points do you like in your list? Sometimes we play games with 700 points, and 50 "Bonus Points" that can only be spent on upgrades.

[GrauGeist]

I prefer 750 to 1000 pts, because the games play faster and there is more emphasis on maneuver. 750 is a great size, as you definitely have points for "something interesting" on top of the mandatory HQ and Troops.

1250 or 1500 is a little "large" and starts to crowd the board.

At 1750+, the game starts to bog.

400 or 500 pts sometimes feels like you're too heavily taxed to meet HQ and Troops minimums.

[Wolfshade]

I like smallgames, like the erm, Kill Team? or whatever.

But my mates and I usually play around 1000pts which is fun and requires a tactical game of trying to second guess what to take, we have a gentleman's agreement that no flyers at this level, but you still can get rock-paper-scissor games so you get another game of guessing what army they took last time, what is in their collection and what they might take next time.

[CoffeeGrunt]

We tend to play 1k-1.5k sometimes, but 2K is very popular. The games don't get bogged down too much when you're playing on a 4x4, though. :P

[Victus Mortecarium]

That is why I love unbound, great for small games.

[Caitsidhe]

Small games. Less rules to worry about in this ever growing mish-mash. It is also more economically viable for people who can't afford to pay to play. It also gives me a devilish glee to see the games getting ever smaller as Games Workshop keeps trying to make them bigger.

[Victus Mortecarium]

I want to scan all of my armies special rules and put them onto a couple cheat-sheets. I paid 100 dollars for that damn rulebook (That's as much as a textbook). I'm gonna do what I want with it. There are so many darn rules it is getting ridiculous.

[John Bower]

When I'm playing mates it tends to hover between 1500 and 2k, on my own it can be any size for my campaign and is not set by me but by a random number in an Excel sheet that also tells me the mission to play, the weather and even whether to use the tactical cards or not. It also randomises the use of Super heavies.

[energongoodie]

At my gaming group we had been playing 750 games due to limited space.
I was really enjoying them and wasn't too bothered about going bigger.
Then we moved in to our new gaming space and we have more tables and boards than we can use! I have been playing 1500-2000 point games and I'm loving it!
More toys to play with, more models on the other side to blast, more interesting models, more rules more, more, more!

I'm lovin these bigger games. But I'm still looking forward to the challenge of a smaller battle. With the tactical objective cards, less units makes it tougher to spread around the board and score.

[Path Walker]

I love small, quick games but every now and then, when I have the time, its nice to have a 3000 point blowout with all the toys, I think more than 1500, a lot of the tactical challenge of the game disappears as you tend to be able to get more overpowered nonsense and most armies are able to cover all the bases.

I think 1200 is about right for my liking.

[Brandon Frazier]

I've always preferred bigger games(1850-2000), it makes me feel like I'm actually playing a battle as opposed to smaller unit based games(<500). If I could afford it, I'd play apocalypse(3000+) all the time and play with the big guns

[artisturn]

1200 points is my sweet spot for fantasy , just enough troops to look like an army but a small amount of models so the games go quick.

I am still working on my Orc army so I can give any input.

[Sarg]

i like to play games from 1500 points and onwards just because the games get epicer (if ever that's a word) and being able to be proud to see a full army on the field to face whatever apocalyptic force out there, even if i lose i would have the most enjoyment playing the biggest game out there.

[Caitsidhe]

i like to play games from 1500 points and onwards just because the games get epicer (if ever that's a word) and being able to be proud to see a full army on the field to face whatever apocalyptic force out there, even if i lose i would have the most enjoyment playing the biggest game out there.

Well it gets more expensive; we can agree on that. Epic has nothing to do with size.

[John Bower]

I love small, quick games but every now and then, when I have the time, its nice to have a 3000 point blowout with all the toys, I think more than 1500, a lot of the tactical challenge of the game disappears as you tend to be able to get more overpowered nonsense and most armies are able to cover all the bases.

I think 1200 is about right for my liking.


This is not the fault of the game but the players. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. :)

[Haighus]

I think it would be interesting to do a survey of this, and get rough ideas of what standards are common in what areas. However, I don't think BOLS has a good method of doing that without some super-huge unwieldy poll. For me, games around the 1000-to 1500 pt mark are best. Plenty of flavour, have to make some hard choices over options and the game doesn't take too long.

[Wolfshade]

I think that that is it really.

There may be a difference between your favourite point scale and how you play it.

I once played a 30,000pt game which was great fun, but took all weekend to play. It was great fun, but I wouldn't want to play that game each week.

Evening games 1-1.5k games are fine in terms of time. At the weekends it can expand to twice that without too much difficulty.

[Charon]

This is not the fault of the game but the players. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. :)

The problem is that indeed you kinda "have to".
Target priority is not a difficult thing. Most weapons do not mind if you point them at a 20 point model or a 4 point model.
When 3 units of Guardians face a Leman Russ Battle Tank, they will all die a horrible death.
If 2 units of Guardians and a unit of Fire Dragons face a Leman Russ Battle Tank, they still will die a horrible death since all the tank has to do is getting rid of the Dragons (which is as easy for him as shooting the guardians).
If finally 3 units of Fire Dragons face a Leman Russ Battle tank, the tank has a high probability to die, while you will still lose one or two units of dragons.
The reason why you spam units is in most cases is not "haha this unit is invincible!" but more "I need at least ONE of these units arriving at the enemy to do at least something". Thus you are forced to "spam" said unit unitl you feel comfortable.
Likewise if you have an expensive and strong unit you want it to survive and not going "booooom" due to a 20 points barrage S9 AP2 template with unlimited range. So this kinda forces you again to take as much precaution as possible and leads to buffed up deathstars.

[CoffeeGrunt]

due to a 20 points barrage S9 AP2 template with unlimited range.

What fires that?

[Charon]

Master of Ordnance from IG
its Ap3 my fault. Also "template" is not the correct english word.. its large blast.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Also it always scatters at least 2D6, if not 3D6. I have yet to hit anything I aimed at with it, but I've hit my own side plenty of times.

[Charon]

According to which rules?
On a hit! it does not scatter at all (33%).
If you fire direct, you scatter 2d6-BF according to the rules for blast (unless you hit)
If you fire indirect you scatter 2d6 (unless you hit)
So I really dont know wher 3d6 should come from or the "always scatters at least.."

[CoffeeGrunt]

If you actually read the rules for the Master of Ordnance, he scatters 3D6 if he rolls an arrow, and 2D6 if he rolls a Hit in the direction of the small arrow. He may remove his BS from the distance rolled if he has LoS to the target.

It's a special rule for him that I'm reading from the Codex right in front of me, and is the reason he only costs 20pts. If your opponent isn't following these rules, that explains why you're having such problems with him.

[Path Walker]

This is not the fault of the game but the players. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. :)

I agree with this 100%, players are the worst part of this hobby.

[Mr Mystery]

Around the 1,500 mark does me well.

Nothing to do with time available, as I can rattle through most point sizes at a decent rate. Instead, I find it's a decent limit as although I have enough point to set and represent a theme of some kind, using Battle Ready FoC, I can't really fit in all the ming I might like. Get much bigger, and once I've done my core theme (whatever that might be) and I've got points left over which I'm likely to spend on stuff just because it's a bit tasty!

[This Dave]

If you actually read the rules for the Master of Ordnance, he scatters 3D6 if he rolls an arrow, and 2D6 if he rolls a Hit in the direction of the small arrow. He may remove his BS from the distance rolled if he has LoS to the target.

It's a special rule for him that I'm reading from the Codex right in front of me, and is the reason he only costs 20pts. If your opponent isn't following these rules, that explains why you're having such problems with him.

This is true. My MoO really isn't a master, more like a lunatic yelling into a radio telling a gun crew to fire blind. The only way to use him is to place the template near the middle of a large group of enemies and hope for a beneficial scatter. Actually hitting anything is a bonus.

[Victus Mortecarium]

I think it would be interesting to do a survey of this, and get rough ideas of what standards are common in what areas. However, I don't think BOLS has a good method of doing that without some super-huge unwieldy poll. For me, games around the 1000-to 1500 pt mark are best. Plenty of flavour, have to make some hard choices over options and the game doesn't take too long.

I made it a poll. I didn't get too specific, though.

[oni]

1500 points is where the game balances out. Anything more or anything less, the game can become very one sided. 1500 pts. forces players to make hard army composition choices, the game is very strategic at this level because every unit matters, but it's not crippling should you loose a few, it allows the game to be played in a decent amount of time... 1500 pst. is the point level the game is designed around and play tested at. That should be enough to make it the default level everyone plays at.

[SON OF ROMULOUS]

I actually voted for 2500. I believe that this and the last edition moved beyond smaller point level games when you start to take into account all of the new options. i think 2k is the new 1500 and i think 2500 is the new 1850.2k. I look at it this way. shooting is very very nasty you have the option of removing large swathes of infantry in almost every army. once you get into the higher pointed games there seems to be more flexability in army list and actual game mechanics. I think esp now that you have lords of war that these higher point levels allow you to balance out that aspect of the game. okay you want to take a titan but i do not have a titan. okay well in response to your titan i'm going to take more tanks or anti tank platforms. the above point limits allow you to do so in my opinion. For right or wrong that's how i view the topic and thats why i said 2500

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'm more in the 500-1000 point range. I dont like small games ala necromunda, malifaux, infinity, WM ect - too small, but 40k and Warpath ect are too big for me, I like it the 500-1000 range, about 25-40 models max. That's just right for me, taking in things like game time, model count, painting/assembling ect

[Anggul]

Usually I go for 1500-1850, but that's really just because I want to use a fair few of my pretty toys. I get just as much enjoyment out of smaller games, but as many people only get to play once a week they like to take the chance to use more of their stuff, which is understandable.

[Voltigeur]

I'm fond of 1000-1500pts. It's enough to have a couple toys in your army while still being quick enough to play that you might get something else done in the same day. On a separate but related note I've always hated the points creep that seems to come into play every edition. It makes me yearn for 2nd edition and 28pts per model genestealers.