Incursion tournaments and circuit, does it exist, if not, why not?
By - Blind-Mage
There are some tournaments that are non 2000 point tournaments. But they aren’t really common, typically are only RTTs in size and rarely reported on (GH did report on one though).
The game isn’t well balanced at 1000 points.
I’d love to be able to crank out 5 1000 point games a day, but so far the 1000 point games don’t feel right. Too bad.
Edit: Locally, you should try to run one! Build the community you want to be a part of.
Apparently ~1500pts is when the game starts being relatively balanced.
Why do you feel this way? Are there broken things at 1k?
I haven't played any "half-strength" games besides crusade, so I honestly don't know.
at 1000 points unit efficiency and size become more of an issue, you can bring a really efficient unit, but it is like 350 points and now most of your army is built around that unit + support, so lists tend to skew towards death stars.
some armies can also bring what feels like a lot more due to msu point costs, armies like custodes can create near unkillable shield captains whilst no one can bring enough dakka to kill 20 necron warriors (these are more issues at sub-1000 points but still appear at 1000 in my experience)
Theres entire factions such as custodes and knights which just cant bring enough stuff to even stand on objectives at 1k
But others are saying Custodes can be unkillable, lasting longer than Necrons. That would mean you can plonk them on objectives, right?
Maybe one objective. The other player basically wins by default by walking on to all the others and just not engaging you
Right so imagine these "unkillable" custodes with absolutely no shooting power. Either they stand on an objective or they run off it to try and engage you (and at 1k they really cant do both).
1k games are like playing chess with only half a board, there are significantly less choices to be made
I've played a bunch of 1k games as Custodes (mostly vs DG, Admech and Necrons) and you can have perfectly great games at that size. It just forces you to make more difficult trade offs.
Difficult trade offs in a tournament setting means you’re going to show up to games where there is basically no point going past the list review stage to determine the winner.
I think 1k can work as a tournament format, but I think it requires a lot of (house)rules on army composition, detachments, CP and stratagems to be even remotely close to the balance at 2k. And we all know it’s not even good at 2k.
Mostly due to how the game is balanced around guns. There are a lot of easy skews that people just can’t answer with a normal 1k point list.
For instance, a knight magaera is just not gonna die in a standard 1k point game, and people don’t back the damage to clear 20 necron warriors, mortarion can solo the whole list without fear, and just in general, you can’t bring enough tools to answer skew builds without you yourself getting a skew build.
I would love for someone in the community to start designing this type of format.
However, it would take a considerable amount of work for a group to make a fun 1000 point league **that is also competitive.**
The current rulebook is a nice place to start, but unfortunately, isn't going to cut it. Everything has to be on the table for changes and tweaks; from board size, mission types, and even ban / restricted lists of problematic characters and units to possibly even detachments as well.
My guess as to why this kind of thing hasn't happened yet, is by the time a community could curate a good little list of rules to make 1000 point format fun, and competitive and worth growing is, new edition probably comes out and destroys all your hard work!
My playgroup has actually created a plan for lower points tournaments and a league (1250 points, not 1000 but near enough the same). We did this as we had a pretty big influx of new players this year. We want people to be able to play more games in a day (a 2k point game with 2 new players can sometimes go 6+ hours), have more fully painted armies on the tables, have full 5 turn games, and make sure each table has plenty of terrain. The adjusted rules are:
* No Lords of War models (only exception are Knight Armigers/War Dogs)
* No models with a point total over 250
* Only 1 Warlord trait and relic/CP upgrade per army
* Everyone starts with 6CP regardless of detachment costs
* Strategic Reserves cost 0CP (we want to encourage the use of this so people don't get tabled quickly or bring Alpha Strike armies)
I'll be sure to post about how this is going for players after the first half dozen or so games are played.
No CP cost for strategic reserves makes a lot of sense at 1k pts and lower. Putting stuff in reserves usually does more harm than good at these games so removing the CP cost makes it a bit better of a gamble.
Just models over 250 or do you mean units too?
Models though the more I think about it, we might want to make it 250 points per model or 200 points per unit. Just to prevent some crazy death star unit or Necron Warriors, Boyz and Chaos marines bombs dominating.
Sounds pretty awesome! I like where this is starting. The 0cp for reserves is brilliant. Never thought about that as a viable restriction.
Fast melee armies are best in 1k. Play in a 1k league.
I play wolves and do ok but the WS stomp. Mate has had 2 90+ games
I beat down a 1000 pt league, in 8th, before Engine War.
Yep i imagine they would be awesome too.
We've run into this issue in a 1k pts league. Deployment zones are too close in most missions and the map is small as a whole.
One solution I've been wanting to try is stuffing no man's land with difficult ground terrain. Maybe with those as bumpers, plus some non-breachable terrain in the middle, most armies would have enough room to play against fast melee armies even with the smol missions.
Nah, harlequins, anything with fly, double movers, etc will effectively ignore difficult terrain and get T1 charges same as on 2k point boards, plus a handful of others that can squeak over/around or have just enough movement.
There's just no changing the fact that closer deployments means more T1 charges - a raider moves 14", many jet bikes do the same, jump packers do 12", etc, and any +1" or advance & charge ability means those are almost automatically successful.
1000 point games can be made balanced, though it likely requires things like:
* Only patrols
* No LoW
* Better missions
It’s not like 2K is a paragon of competitive balance at the moment either so it’ll likely just be broken in a different way.
Considering that Incursion already limits you to a max of 2 of each non TROOP or DEDICATED TRANSPORT, and a max of 2 detachments, there's some limits already.
If someone brings a LOW to an Incursion tournament, they'll suffer with being really limited on getting VP, 2 Scarabs beat Morty for the objective.
2 of each non-troop doesn't feel terrible? DG engine skew can go 2 blight haulers, 2 FBD, 2 PBC, and have room for what... a LoC and plague marine squad and poxwalkers?
The solution to "but 1000 will lead to more skew" could also just be doubling the VP given by killy secondaries. Don't bring 6 daemon engines or they max one (or more!) secondaries turn 2.
All this talk about 1k being inherently more imbalanced/prone to skew/having garbage missions makes me wonder if 3k games would be any more inherently balanced than 2k in turn.
I agree with you, OP. Would be nice to have 1k tournaments and more attention in general. But it feels like there's some serious work missing before that can happen.
Maybe it's the missions that need to be reworked, maybe it's the terrain layout that has to be figured out, maybe it's the community's preconceptions that have to be challenged and validated or adjusted. Who knows?
I just hope something changes for the better here when the next CA missions drops.
Problem with 3K points is that it removes the penalties for taking big bads. A DG list sacrifices a lot to bring Mortarion, same with a Necron list with Silent King or multiple CTan. At 3000 points they can bring their jankiest stuff and still have a fully optimized army behind them. A lot of factions either don’t have access to big scary units or their allegedly big scary units are not actually very good, and simply adding more dudes to a 2000 point army doesn’t necessarily scale the power level in the same way.
From what I have seen going over 2k is then you get into heavy alpha strike lists that make it very hard for your opponent to generally have a good time if you go first and blast his best 2-3 units off the board
Isn't that the same for all levels of play?
It depends on the access to force multipliers. How much stuff you can hide behind terrain is also a big factor. You might see different best thing like:
1) In low points costs, fighting twice is very very good, as are stratagems like green tide and tide of traitors.
2) In 2000 point battles, a very solid character that punches way above their weight can be very powerful.
3) In even higher points, space marine chapter masters, primarchs and such with good buff auras are very good.
Ive also been thinking about terrain. I've seen a good level of terrain described as: you can hide 80% of your army in your DZ if you want to. I find that would scale up in points, but perhaps not across armies
I would imagine you could fill out the remaining 1k with more killy threats as you’d already have scoring, screening and the like cheaply covered within your initial 2k.
It doesn’t scale in a linear fashion.
I played 3000 + a few time before, and could say that around 2000-2500 the game is quite balance. 3000, the game will be a bit tilted to one side, above that, the game is completely favor some faction.
1000 points vs 2000 points brings the following negative changes with it:
- the best units become even better, making the best lists even more min-maxed
- lists are more rock-paper-sissors, meaning more games are lost before the game starts and on turn 1.
- lack of redundancy in lists makes both prior points more exaggerated. In 1000 points, you can often only fit in one anti-tank unit in your army, and if that gets taken out against a tank-based army, the game is over. Best to go rock-paper-sissors with your list and hope for good matchups.
- missions and secondaries don't scale down very well
- smaller board size and smaller armies makes turn 1 advantage even more brutal
Playing in low point games a lot in 9th I see 3 main things that are different:
* If a unit is important to your army, take 2 of them
* Use Reserves!!!
* Use more terrain than you normally would. In fact use what you would for a 2000 point game and fill up as much as the board as you can. This will ensure that games aren't over by turn 3 (you honestly don't need a ton of room as you are unlikely to see anything on the table larger than a Leman Russ.
This works if you remove stratagems and expansion factions. If you do not there are some really broken combos at 1000 points as others have stated.
My guess would be that they mean the Marine expansions.
Honestly, I've been playing without stratagems for a bit, and while it really takes the oomph out of units that had their unique rules made into stratagems, it lets some of the other units have a chance.
I find my enjoyment of 40k improves tremendously when I take away stratagems and CP. You can have any pre-game upgrades you want (that are still legal), but once deployment ends it's a big 0.
That gets messy too.
As every custodes character gets Victor of the Blood Games since theres no need for the CP.
Armies without an abundance of those pre game upgrades get the shaft.
Oh yeah, 100%. I completely agree that 2000pt matched play is the way to play for competitiveness. But my group has more FUN when we get to play with our toys. Games go faster, you can try out crazy combos you usually wouldn't, and the models you've grown attached to can really shine when you don't have to worry about gotcha strats.
But only use it when Fun>Competition.
That seems like an interesting way for every character in my army to have double warlord traits, as a space marine player. The reason making a s7 t8 Gravis captain isn't broken mostly has to do with the opportunity cost throughout the rest of your army. Kinda breaks the game in favor of factions with better Relics and warlord traits
Well like I said, we play where we aren't breaking any rules (can only use hero of the chapter x amount of time, no duplicates, and so on) but you're right, characters who's faction has strong traits tend to be better. But they aren't infallible.
Fwiw, my FLGS does regular incursion nights using PL, not points. PL has issues, of course, but at this low amount it gives enough of a buffer to bring a few more models or add that neat gun without paying extra. So my 50PL list is around 1250pts.
And this is why PL is bad :)
Or just not for you
No, it’s bad in a competitive format because the playing field isn’t level.
We really gonna pretend that points is significantly more balanced? PL is less granular, sure, but the game as a whole has balance issues
The game is inherently unbalanced at any given time. This is a given, not really worth discussing much.
PL is by its nature more unbalanced than points for most armies. You can bring two identical lists of space marines at 50 PL or whatever and one of them can be much stronger than the other by taking a lot of free upgrades to the units.
It’s not necessarily a *bad* way to play, but there’s a reason that tournaments use exclusively points.
PL removes any interesting choices from army building. Theres no point in ever bringing a 5 man ranger squad when you can bring a 5 man ranger squad full of plasma calivers and arc pistols and taser lances. There is no up and downside anymore to bringing a thunderhammer on your intercessor sergeant vs not doing that when everything is free.
Yeah. Let’s play at 50PL and watch me shove upgrades on everything thereby totally warping the balance.
To your point, wouldn't your opponent do the same, thus making it more level? There are more upgraded units for sure, but both sides of the field do the same, leveling the balance.
There are ways to leverage PL to get a 1250 point list. It's also very easy to make PL choices that will give you 900 pts. It's a balance. Upgrading to that Uber plasma weapon may be nice, but against hordes - not so effective. It's a similar choice for points based lists.
Have you played many PL games? It's not the scorched earth doomsday scenario where one side get hammered that some are suggesting. It has a similar feel to points based games.
The issue is that some armies literally *DON'T* have an option to "upgrade" units.
Look at Necrons, and the vast majority of units only have "sidegrade" options; I honestly can't think of ANY unit they have that can get upgrades that would make the unit be worth more than 20% of it's starting cost
Now, take a Deathwatch Proteus Kill team, where I can start with a Boltgun and Chainsword in points (20) and end up with each model with a Combi-Plasma and Thunder Hammer (bringing each model up to 42 points).
Many Xenos armies simply only have Sidegrade options that don't upgrade the cost, whereas many Imperium armies have literal upgrades.
Just going on PL, I can make a 50PL list that is approximately 1600 points, where the BEST Ive seen most Xenos armies able to do is 1100-1200, IF they can even do it
Hey make excuses all you want, we all know PL is meant for introductory games and not meant for competitiveness. The fact the discussion started about 50PL/1000pts and an ‘upgraded’ list came up to 1250pts already should tell you that doing that makes one ‘that guy’. And I will re-state it, it is an introductory system for those who are new and fell into the rule of cool trap.
I play T'au... like 2nd from the bottom last I checked. This has to be the first time I've been called "that guy". My 50PL list is currently 1-7. Because it's a list that's meant to be fun - not meta chasing crush people. But to re-state my point, it's also going against other pumped up 50pl lists.
"Rule of cool trap". Ouch. You know this is a game. For fun. Right?
And you know you’re on a sub for competitive play and not beerhammer, right?
Now that is some "that guy" energy. 😁
Actually, that is according to the sub rules.
There was just a post recently by a mod about how this is the competitive sub, and what that means. He/she was talking like all the content on here should be about, or at least applicable to, tournament play.
So any of your arguments for using PL are already irrelevant to this sub. The fact that you keep arguing when this other guy is right is what's giving me "that guy energy."
I think you can make Incursion missions work but 1000pts is slightly too low . In my local scene most of the tournaments I've been to have been around 1250pts with a starting CP of 8 and some slight tweaking of secondaries.
With the extra 250pts you can survive a stronger alpha strike but games are still a reasonable length. I prefer 2k as I can compare how well I do to the wider meta but think this level can work really well. It's especially good for newer players who struggle with finishing 2k games on time and means I get to play more games and more diverse opponents.
Attendance at tourneys has also ballooned from 20-25ish to 50+ which is exciting too.
I’d like to see a 1k point tourney where you can bring 1250 points - you can use the extra 250 points to swap units out depending on your opponent’s 1250pt list, while still maxing out at 1k pts.
Honestly, the game isn't that well balanced at lower points, not at a competitive level.
Take Necrons, the classic example. Resurrection protocols is sooo much better at lower points levels as a lucky spike brings back a much bigger percentage of the army. Same for something like a space marine apothecary - when he brings back a model, that can be easily 5% of your list, if not more. Do that a few more turns and you have a huge advantage mathematically.
Another issue is skew lists. It's bad enough in a 2k list when your rock meets their paper. But at least a competitive list has the design space to have multiple tools to deal with it, whereas a 1k list simply doesn't. Even if you introduce comp to the setting (such as highlander), some armies can go all mech/horde/flyers way easier and unless you run against a specific counter, they roflstomp everything.
Last point is that the missions are garbage at incursion level. For many armies, they simply aren't playable. The map sizes are wrong as nothing else is reduced in scale and the secondaries don't make sense.
It's a great entry point to casual new gamers, but it needs a dedicated look at how to be balanced and competitive, not a handful of throw away missions they gave to the intern on their last day
But it's not well balanced at 2,000 either.
It just means there's a very different meta. Ok, so Necrons are stronger at 1,000, that's great, we're already seeing a difference.
How about Tau? Folks say Tau are bottom tier at 2,000, how well can they do at 1,000?
2000 points is still more balanced than 1000.
It’s not about X faction being good or bad at Y points, it’s that the lower the points the less tools you can fit in a list which means the less lists you can then interact with.
It’s a given that 1k would have a different meta, but the point people are trying to make is that the 1k meta would be less fun, less balanced, and less interactive. This isn’t an issue in casual, but in competitive play it becomes a big issue.
For example, a tank commander shooting with vengeance for Cadia and max shots could kill 200-400 points worth of models. That’s 10-20% of a 2k point army and 20-40% of a 1k point army. Having an interaction where you can easily pick up that much of your opponents army leads to gameplay that just isn’t fun and is why you don’t see 1k point tournaments.
There is also the issue of dice spiking. In a 2k point game you could assume on average you roll twice as many dice as a 1k game. That means those dice have a much higher chance of averaging out. In 1k point games, 1 turn of bad rolling and you’re done.
And for the record, I would love 1k points if it worked. My biggest issue with competitive 40k is the BO1 format and 1k point games would let us play BO3, but it’s just not as competitive.
I think at 1000 points a “sideboard” would be a nice edition. Able to have some tools to swap in.
I’ve tried working out a way to do that. It just gets really tough and would ultimately fall on players validating lists prior to each match which could get hairy. I do like the idea though! It’s similar to crusade where you have your roster.
Some team tournaments have been done where each player has a 2k list and a 1k list. 3 person teams, 3 rounds per match, and each player can only play their 2k list once per match. This type of format kind of leans into the skew and by being a team game it some what lessons the effect of dice spikes, but still not as balanced as 2k. Still a fun format, but it runs into the same issue other player formats run into where you need people willing to play the format.
I hope a 1k format catches on, just having tried to work out a format in the past, it’s not something I have time to do. You really need a team and a ton of testing. Made me appreciate GW rules teams more even though it’s their actual job to do it.
Sideboards heavily favor armies like marines that have unit for every problem, while some armies don't gain much from being able to swap things around a bit once they see their opponent.
Welcome to Killteam, where you submit a 20 Model Roster before starting the tournament and build your point-limited List for each Mission on the fly out of that.
My playgroup has talked about limiting some strategems for small point games. Making a list for each faction is too confusing so we've been trying two ways:
* No strategems of more than 1CP besides generic ones
* Each army chooses 3 non-generic strategems to use in a game
I'm actually liking the combination of those two rules, especially with the amount of new players we have.
What are BO1 AND BO3?
Best of 1/3 games
Would the GT2020 limitation on multiples of a datasheet help here? You can only have 2, including detachments.
If it's so obviously bad, why did they even put it in the book?
It's frustrating that the GT2020 rules are standard everywhere, what with so many groups wing competition focused. If they had an option for 1,500 I'd be happy-ish.
You'd think that with the smaller tables, meaning less terrain per table, that event runners would at least try it, as it lets them have more participants and more, shorter, games.
Logistics wise it would be a ton easier for smaller games I 100% agree with that.
Restrictions could help, but not having those restrictions come from GW would provide a road block to people adapting the format.
We just finally got competitive missions out of GW themselves. For the majority of 40ks existence the competitive format was run by player organizations so we are kind of in a renaissance of actually playing “book” missions.
I could see people be hesitant to return to a player format but I’m sure it could work on a smaller scale.
Really you can play however you want. Most game stores would be happy to have a volunteer handle setting up an event and with things opening up and lots of returning or new players I’m sure you could set something up. You could start with the suggestions here (maybe some banned stratagems or a rule of 2 instead of rule of 3 etc...) Then as stuff comes up that seems too strong adjust the format.
I don’t think people here are saying you can’t or shouldnt, just that as is, it’s not currently a “balanced” format. Doesn’t mean you can’t make it work or find people that will enjoy it!
Option of 1500 is available. It's strike force. Strike force is anything 1001-2000. If you want a little smaller, play 4x4 tables which is a bit of a happy medium.
Counterpoint: if you're rolling half as many dice per game but fitting in 3 games instead of one, you're actually rolling 1.5 times as many dice across the event. This, coupled by the fact that you're not simply screwed if you get a single bad matchup but rather get three different opponents, leads me to believe that you actually have better variance smoothing at a 1k tournament than a 2k tournament
I've been trying to figure out the right number of games for an Incursion tournament.
Assuming that it's a one day thing, a two day/weekend event could be really amazing, but it's beyond my ability to manage.
How many tables and games would I need? Terrain needs would be lesser, but still substantial.
I've been collecting resources to begin running small tournaments, and I want to start with 1k primarily because a lot of our local playerbase don't have large collections yet. I'm thinking I'll be able to manage a 4 table, 3 game event. Might be able to step up to 4 or even 5 games as we get better at time management.
How long are you allotting for each game?
How are you picking missions?
I was gonna go with GT2020 (details tbd), the venue I'm hoping to use is open 11-8 so that would be 2 hours per game plus some moving around time, and i just ordered some terrain sets
That's awesome, man. Good luck with that!
Very good point!
> how well can they do at 1,000?
Well, they wont have as many riptides/broadsides/commanders/battlesuits, and thsoe are the only things in their army that arent trash really, so much much worse.
You're not going to gain much traction.
Competitive 40k players have brainwashed themselves into thinking "take the hardest to kill units with the biggest guns as much as possible" is somehow brilliant beyond measure and *any* obstacle that renders that technique ineffective is met with "I just don't think it's balanced."
It is ignored all the time. No matter what level you play at or what missions or armies you use. There is always a "best thing in the codex" "best unit type" "best weapon" etc. They just merely change.
What this means in theory is that the game is scalable and at 1k you aren't playing a baby 2k game. It's it's own thing.
What it means in practice is 18-eradicator big brains don't like to play that mode.
I play 1250 point games a lot and I totally love the models that become much more viable at that level. Craftworlds are even decent.
Do you play with the full sized table and everything?
It's frustrating beyond belief that the GT2020 book fixes the points, or else I'd totally be suggesting 1,250/1,500.
Granted, I'm a fan of the smaller board size, as I have a tiny apartment and most of the local stores are full of bigots that's have made it unsafe for me to play there.
We use either the small table size, or we use 4x4s since the shop has a bunch of 8x4 tables from the old days. We also use 9cp.
Dont feel restricted to the GT book top much. It's a fantastic tool, but it's more a guideline to helping you create the event you want. Making sure people get to play and have fun is the number one thing.
How do you do the missions though? Do you use Incursion or Strike Force or do you make your own?
Do you change any of the measurements of the objectives to scale to the stretched board? Or do you just use the default measurements?
We preserve measurements between objectives and deployment zones. It's only super odd on one mission if I recall correctly. Most of them are pretty central so it doesnt make as big a difference as you might expect.
I totally agree with you.
It's not like I'm talking about some obscure variation of the game. Incursion tournaments are built right into the GT2020 book just as much as Strike Force games are.
People just want to use all their toys, which k get, but having to trim things and reassess for the different meta should be seen as a challenge.
I bet it's be rare to see the same person winning top in both Strike Force and Incursion tournaments. They require very different mindsets.
>how would Tau do at 1,000
In Vietnam, we played 1k and 1250. Farsight took them. FSE is \*really\* good at that point range.
FSE’s the exception as they need a lot less support to be fielded compared to the other septs. You can even build lists that don’t have any Markerlights and still do well.
That's because markerlights is a poorly implemented mechanic and the vast majority of units that has markerlights are overcosted and lacks any further use.
Take the pathfinders as an example, 11 points per pathfinder, each equipped with a pulse carbine and a markerlight, their survivability is comparable to a guardsman, they've got a 4+ BS and suffers the heavy penalty when moving and firing their markerlight and can't shoot their pulse carbines if they shoot their markerlights.
Markerlight drones has the same problem of a 5+ BS that can at best be boosted to a 4+ with a drone controller (which takes a battlesuit hardpoint), and they cost 20 points per model if you don't take them along other units, which then gives up kill secondaries a lot easier.
If markerlights were better, support abilities weren't so needlessly restrictive and auxiliary units didn't just outright suck besides vespids, other septs would probably see more play.
Marker drones are ten points if you take them as compliments to units, which you should be doing. What kill secondaries do they give up?
If you run a lot of 2 drone squads from various units you'll be vunerable to giving up Attrition/Grind-Them-Down, drones are not exactly known for their resilience beyond the shield drone.
With their 5+ BS you'll need at least 8 of them supported by a drone controller to reach 5 markerlights. Which at that point you are spending 85 points to effectively do nothing so that you're able to hit better with your other units at a single target.
Enclaves avoids that by using Veteran Cadre + Coordinated Engagement for crisis teams and spamming commanders who's already at a 2+ BS. Flamers have also become rather popular to circumvent poor BS and Markerlights.
My proposed fix for markerlights are to make them assault and remove that stupid rule that only vehicles can shoot with markerlights and other weapons. With these changes Pathfinders might actually see play.
Grind-Them-Down is an absolutely horrible secondary to take against Tau, as shown in the recent Siegler vs. Lennon game. You’d just Savior Protocol your drones right off the bat and make your opponent find that later in the game, they don’t have any more drones for easy Grind points. Siegler did this back in 8th edition where Kill More was a primary objective, and ran loads of 2-man drone squads, despite the Tau community claiming that is something you should never do back in ITC.
Marker Drones are still taken because for the same cost as gun drones, will provide more impact in the game if their shooting actually does end up landing, and aren’t relegated to targeting the unit that’s closest to them. In addition, with Shield Drones having seen a price increase, they end up saving around the same amount of times per point via savior protocols, and still leave you with more points to spend.
I've had success simply just not using a lot of drones, I've rather just spent those points on more dakka and it has worked for me.
FSE is also a skew list when you go heavy suits which backs up what most people are saying.
The way to do it would to make something like Horus Heresy's Centurion format. The idea there is to focus on on infantry and walkers, completely cutting out tanks, fliers and super heavies and making other non-infantry units 0-1 choices. Maybe not that exact focus, but providing limitations in some capacity to make for interesting list design.
There'd also have to be a balance pass on existing secondaries, and a creation of new ones.
The 9E missions and table sizes for 1k point games are hot garbage. A number of factions are just unplayable and a lot of games end on turn 1 with a lucky charge.
It’s honesty not worth playing in the majority of circumstances. It even effects non-competitive play like Crusade where you are essentially forced to start with godawful missions.
Smaller points games arent as popular and are less balanced I feel. Personally I just like 2000 points for the feeling of a "huge" army
Case in point, durable armies like custodes and death guard are outright oppressive the lower the point count.
Play in a 1k league WS are king in 1k. Meltas and melee 1st turn charges. Small maps etc.
I play wolves and any fast army with strong melee is in a good spot.
You can still have huge armies at 1,000, look at horde armies.
Isn't tournament play all about being able to adapt on the fly, seeing who's the best general?
Wouldn't Incursion games be a challenge then?
I had a store that was really into 1000 point games in 8th edition. They always end up feeling very rock paper scissors since you don't have enough points to build a rounded list. It's way more prone to skew lists than even 2000 is.
You don't have the points to build a rounded list, if you're thinking of it in terms of a Strike Force meta.
You need to shift your thinking.
You can totally build TAC lists at 1,000 points.
Dude, the points values for units don't change between 2k and 1k. In 2k you can afford 500 points worth of stuff for a very specific purpose and it's usually fine. At 1k, trying to bring in things to balance out a list is incredibly difficult, and just generally makes your list worse instead of just going all-in on one playstyle.
First, not a dude, I'm a girl.
Yes, lists building will be very different, but you're also building against different things.
With the lower CP, the combos that work in Strike Force games might not be viable in Incursion games.
It's a different style of game. Still just as tournament viable. It's in the same dammed book, and gets the same amount of focus from the rules side.
The tournament scene could do with having two different circuits. As a beginner, needing 2,000 to play is a huge barrier on money, and time.
Having the Incursion circuit would be a way to showcase different playstyles from the bigger Strike Force games.
I'm saying I played dozens of games of 1k games and won a league of it. No one could do anything about monster mash because you can't fit enough anti tank in a 1k list to handle it and still hold things. Slaanesh is also busted because you got no room horizontal to dodge the daemons. Half the reason I don't want to play it again is you could tell who would win 75% of games before anything hit the table.
Yes, it's a different style of game, in that you have literally HALF the appropriate points. People WILL bring skew lists, because they have been proven time and again to be the most effective way to play at 1k. You can certainly *try* to make an all-comers list, but you will almost always lose to the skew lists. They'll immediately take out the thing that most threatens them, and then you lose.
Yep, it was 8th but imagine how well things could handle 2 disco lords, and daemon prince at 1000. If you got stuck in once the game was over, and that was on a larger 4x4 board. I think 1500 is way more doable for some balance. Then play that on 4x4 or something.
You just gets blasted at 1k playing TAC. WS and slaanesh just rule the small tables. Fleshtearers dominate the table too with DC Intercessors. Absolutely nothing stands up to them, they need nothing to support them, and you cant bring enough density of anything that can stand back due to small board size.
It's hard to say who's the best when the format isnt as balanced. And I'm aware of horde armies but that's not what I play. For example if someone bought a mortarion or a knight to a 1000 point game nothing I could bring would stand a chance tbh
But you'd have a huge lead on primaries and such.
Huge single models in Incursion games really limit your ability to score points.
So they use their scary big guns and can delete units, ok, that won't get them the game.
You can win without killing.
Corollary is that it's also half the board size as 2k.
So that one big model may make up most of their list, but it is going to be in your face immediately and killing things.
True, but if you plan your lists to play the missions, go for secondaries that require minimal interaction with the enemy (just for this kind of scenario), then you can bog them down in combat.
Their skew can backfire if you can play around them. They have a big smashy thing on an objective, but you only need two models to control it.
A massive threat deleting units can win the game. It can table you and stop you from scoring. The board size is small so these threats can get right away, even as soon as turn 1 before you've even gone.
So from my point of view I enjoy 1k games but in a scene that is all tournament players and with 1k point events not counting for points. (The minimum is 1500) people only want to play and practice what they know they will be playing at the larger gts and majors.
My FLGS did a 2k tournament based around new players. You were assigned an opponent, and had two weeks once assigned to meet up with that opponent for a match. Between matches you could edit a certain number of points (like 500) to try and tailor to your opponent/put new stuff in after you decide whatever model isn't as good as you thought it was. My buddy has been playing in it, and has had a blast.
Maybe you could try something like that for 1k? Have like a 250 point "sideboard" that people have to register, like in MTG, and then they can swap that stuff in before the next match. Also, I'd suggest, especially if aiming at newer players to leave plenty of time for matches, as they will likely need to look stuff up, and reference datasheets.
Another thing, is make sure you have judges who understand the rules well handy, and make sure those judges have the right temperament to be getting "dumb" questions.
Warp time Morty in a 1000 point game would be hilarious. I don't think there is any army that can take him down with only 1000pts of shooting and he already makes a turn one charge like 80% of the time in a full size game.
I think the way 9th edition CP allotment/detachments is set up hurts 1000pt games too. If you want to have more than 2 elite units, you need to either run a battalion (which means 2 HQ and 3 troops) or have multiple patrols (lose 2 of 6 command points). Factions which don't have competitive units in all categories are gonna be limited in possible lists at the 1000point level or they need ways to regain CP from multiple detachments (drukhari patrol stuff and Deathwing vanguard come to mind).
Goonhammer actually did a report on a 90+ player 1000 point tournament.
3 out of the 4 undefeated lists were just Necrons.
I recently ran a 52-player tourney at 666pts using GT Incursion missions--it was a lot of of fun, and we had some really crazy army lists. The winner was an all-buggy Ork Deathskulls list!
That sounds amazing, can you tell me more?
The biggest issue is that for Incursion, you need even MORE terrain than you might even need in Strike Force, in order to minimize the effects of having first turn and the efficacy that alpha-strike tactics have.
In Incursion, an alpha strike unit doing it's thing against 200 points of units has taken out 20% of the enemy force; in Strike Force that's only 10%.
The simple fact of the matter is that the smaller a 40k game is, the more swingy it gets with first turn win rate, even BEFORE 9th edition scoring got involved.
I think folks aren't using the right amount of terrain in Strike Force games. From looking at the boards in the books, then looking at what folks are using, with the books specifying more terrain than in 8th, and in 8th people didn't have enough.
Ok, but, as discussed in a different comment, all levels of game have alpha strike issues. I keep seeing people saying "XX can destroy Y point of units in one turn", but wouldn't that depend on my unit layout, what if I use more, smaller units, which makes sense at the smaller points level, you want to have lots on the go.
It doesn't matter if you have more, smaller units when the vast majority of alpha strike units are good at shooting, which allows for splitting fire.
A Gate of Infinity/Shoot in the Psychic Phase then shoot again in the shooting phase GK bomb isn't going to care how many UNITS you have for them to shoot at: it just might mean they are splitting shots between 3-5 units instead of 1-2.
Either way, it's a single unit that can be anywhere on the board, be anywhere ELSE on the board when it becomes time to shoot, and can effectively shoot twice by doing it in the Psychic and Shooting phase, meaning that single unit is pumping 80 shots into the opponent in some fashion, first turn.
Those 80 shots will likely kill the same number of models they would kill in a 1000 point game, vs a 2000 point game: the difference is in how much of the enemy force those models are.
How many units those models are spread around us largely irrelevant, as again, split fire exists.
It could be really cool in a team format with a ban phase. Have teams of 4, 1 faction per player. Then teams take turns banning a data sheet (probs not troop choices) from each faction.
Rob from the honest wargamer is doing something similar for AOS and it brings up some cool off meta stuff.
I'm just looking at my Harlequins army like hmmm...
We only have 1 troop, 1 transport, 1 fast attack, and our characters. I'm pretty sure you could make the army unplayable with a single ban.
Haha that's true. Could do aeldari keyword unit instead maybe
Most of the GW stores organize 1000 pts tournaments because you can play three games in a afternoon. Personally i'm not a fan of big and long games (That's why i really like Kill Team) and i enjoy 1000 points over 2000.
However on the real competitive circuit 1500 is usually the least you are going to play.
I played one recently agains Craftworlds (as Tyranids) non competetivly and still won 42 - 10 in 3rd battleround so I would say the game isn't balanced
I have a 1000pt RTT coming up.
Trying to figure out a Dark Angel list is interesting!
I can go a big terminator blob plus support and that is pretty much the whole list...which doesn’t feel good. So I try for a more TAC list with a variety of units and I could see it being completely ineffective against an alpha strike melee army.