40K: Best Point Range?

This has been a pretty hot topic with my gaming group as of late.  The subject of point ranges is not one that we usually argue over, but recently with the release of newer and “better” armies, this subject is now much more subjective.  For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll talk about games at 1k points and under, 1500 and 2000 points.  Some gamers argue that smaller point game are more tactical than larger games while higher point players look at smaller games as a serious limitation.

First, let’s talk about the overall scale of 40k.  A lot of people say that 40k is meant to be played in large scale games and that smaller games simply doesn’t work.  Why?  Because a lot of armies simply can’t deal with 2+ armor save infantry, AV14 vehicles or large amounts of bodies on the field in smaller games.  For 40K to be balanced for these armies, they must play at higher point levels so they can bring all of their toys to the table.  Sure, the newer books outshine the older books in terms of cost effective units, but one can argue that the imbalance is much more noticeable at lower point games.  At 2k points for example, the playing field is a lot more even.  This is why when I look at tournament results from the US (2000 and 2500 pts) and the UK (1500 pts), I look at them with the point cost in mind.  A lot of the common or “must take” units that US players advocate might not be the best in smaller point games simply because the limits at much more demanding.

I also look at GW when I look at the overall scale of 40K.  Sure, combat patrol rules exist, but most of the games I’ve seen is all big and epic.  What about the tournaments?  The UK GTs are 1500 points whereas the US ones are much higher.  Since Warhammer started in the UK, do you think their playtests are played at and balanced around the 1500 point range?  Surely not right.. the US have more players and their tournaments hold a good amount of say in the gaming community.  Not just that, but larger point games also result in more models sold.

This carries on to our next point.  Are smaller games more tactical because you have less units to play with?  A lot of players that play with smaller armies say so.  A lot of the points made by them hover around the fact that less units equals more important decisions.  This means that the movement of each unit must be precise, each shooting phase is a test on a player’s target priority and each assault phase has to be flawlessly executed.  They reason that since an army is so small, everything becomes an important facet in your overall game plan.  Higher point players both agree and disagree with this statement.  While they don’t deny that smaller points means less mistakes, they also stress that larger points has a lot more going on.  Micromanaging more units to achieve victory is more difficult at higher points than lower point games.

Another point I’d like to make is point costs in general.  We all know that the older books are not as cost effective as the newer books out there, but some units just don’t scale well.  For example, my club is currently playing with 400pt armies with Adepticon Patrol rules.  At this point level, Marines especially, find it extremely difficult to fit even a full squad of Tacticals in there and wonder if they have enough points.  Someone like Guard, on the other hand, is able to put out a good amount of bodies, armor and firepower.  Remember those points we mentioned above about having an answer to elite infantry, vehicles and horde armies?  Some armies are just not capable of doing so at 400pts.  Some might even argue that 1K points is ridiculous to play at because of this.

What about list building?  List building is a big part of the hobby for me and the majority of my wargaming time is designing army lists.  I like to tune, optimize and min-max my army lists and I was wondering if this changes as the points scale up and down.  Many higher point players tend to think that smaller games are played and won based on someone’s ability to design a all-comers list (a list capable of fighting all enemies).  On the other hand, smaller point players see higher point games as a mess of repetition and copy and pastes instead of contributing to strategy.

Let’s sum it up:

Smaller Point gamers argue..

• Less points, less units, more crucial decisions
• Faster to play and setup
• More skill needed to construct a balance list
• Less models to assemble and paint
• Skirmish style gameplay as opposed to full-blown war

Higher Point gamers argue..

• More points, more units, more micromanagement
• Bigger, more epic games
• The game is more balanced at this level
• Less stress on list making and more stress on generalship

Author: HERO

Hero is a veteran tabletop wargamer and video game designer. He is the man behind HERO's Gaming Blog. He specializes in Warhammer 40k, X-Wing: the Miniatures Game and Star Wars: Armada. He began writing for BoLS in 2010.