Moving to 400pts?

In Italy there is a general consensum to move 28mm competitions (and standard games) to 400pts with no Incompetent Generals (you cannot buy them, but a Poor general can become Incompetent). Also no halving of maxima but only minina (as per 15mm format).

Is a format that can have consensum?

With no Incompetent Generals there are not many troops to add from 350pts, but it seems to be more flexible for the lists.

Interesting idea....what about table size ? most competitions are on 6x4 tables. Pushing the limit perhaps ?

Same size. With no Incompetent general at least 20pts are spent for generals. At least.
Then you have 30pts, that is 2 cheap Units or a good one. Say 2 additional Units more than 350pts.

It's been discussed a few times in these parts actually...will be interested to hear what others think.

That means all my lists have to be redone!!!!

Seriously, like Tarty I have a concern about table size. At 350 points the 6' by 4' table works well. We still want space to maneuver.

Going to 400 points gives players considerable flexibility in list designs. I wonder if that is a good idea. There is something good about the frustratingly limited choices one can sometimes have.

With that said, I am open to the idea.

Better order some more figures.... excuses, excuses..

Well we use 15mm but 400 points is the minimum we would use. And at 450 to 500 points on a 6 by 4 table it gets interesting :-)

As Tarty says, we have had discussions around that issue. There was a bit of resistance mainly around table size and, strangely, the length of games.

I have no problem with it in competition games but I would go further with the command  - no Incompetent or Genius. An argument can be made for Charismatic but I wouldn't care if that went as well.

For 15mm 500pts is the best. The lists have been designed for this format. The need to move to 400pts and change the composition of the lists (halving etc) it is just to allow the game to end in 2 hours instead of 3, thus making 1 day competitions instead of 2 day events.

For 28mm it is the same. 400pts could fit on the table as in most cases it will be just 2 extra Units. Of course this is achieved by removing the Incompetent Generals as an option.
In 350pts many use 2 of them, saving 20pts, or better, saving 40pts (as the cheaper leader now cost 10pts).

As for timing if you end in 2 hours a 15mm game, that is slower, I think you can finish a 28mm game (that with not Incompetent Generals actually is more around 380pts)

Anyway so far it is just an idea and only some tests will tell.

Hi,

With my friends, for 15 mm we often play with 500 pts. But for 28 mm , 350 pts is good. We like to play with 2 army 350 pts on each side; it's very fun and take 2-3 hours .

We can try it out ... no harm in that and always interested in anything that adds to comp games..
Thing is we haven't had anyone complain yet about the 350pt format as it stands that I can recall. Maybe this will change now ?? .... always the way.

Do you see any negatives or foresee objections Tarty? Other that table size that is

Upon reflection I think allowing the full maximums for 400 point games gives players too much latitude in list designs. Currently, the list for Normans at 1/2 numbers makes it tough to have the necessary compliment of support troops. With the full maximums the Normans will now be able to provide all the support troops needed. To me this takes away from the flavour of each army.

I was thinking that perhaps the maximums could be increased to 50% + 1 rounded down. Sounds complicated but in practice it would be easy to figure out. On the list a selection that has 0-6 would be allowed 4 units ( 3 +1 = 4). A selection of 0-5 would be 2.5 +1 rounded down to 3.

This would allow a somewhat wider selection of units without giving the player the full use of the list at 400 points. List design would still be frustratingly fun at times!

Gaius Cassius wrote:400 point games gives players too much latitude in list designs.

I can only speak for 28mm.

That is an ever-present problem. All lists, and I have checked many lists over time, are fiddles to a greater or lesser degree. Most players like to put on their best face for battle. If you move to 400 pts and maintained the MAX/MIN the effect would be minimal.

The perception of a lot of Oz players is that 350 pts gives an advantage to cheap infantry armies - just because it is difficult to break that many stands in a two hour game. I don't fully accept that but it is something to watch as I have seen several "swamp" armies used to that end. Four hundred points may encourage that view.

I guess it depends ultimately on how you view what we call competition. If it is win at all costs because it validates your opinion of yourself then you will always try to "adjust for success". If you're just there because you enjoy playing beyond crushing your enemy and hearing the lamentation of his women then the points don't matter all that much.

It still surprises me how much intellectual effort is put into finding the ultimate killer-diller army. Tin dollies have that effect on a lot of people, I suppose.

To some extent it would also depend on how many commands people had. For 400 points we'd normally use 3 commands

Empire in the sun wrote:Do you see any negatives or foresee objections Tarty? Other that table size that is

I don't know we'll just have to give it a try . I can see that many of the lists would benefit from an extra 50pts but like GC says having limited points is part of the challenge . Start playing some 400pt club games with no max limit and see how people feel

Jim Webster wrote:To some extent it would also depend on how many commands people had. For 400 points we'd normally use 3 commands

A lot of Oz 28/350 players have already moved to three commands. It really only works for homogenous armies. It would be better at 400.

Obviously we play 400 plus points in 15mm but I don't think any of us have used less than two commands and occasionally people have used four

One of the armies I play with is Nikephorian Byzantine.  At 350 points I can only pick 3 units of Thematic Cavalry which forces me to consider using Kataphracts if I want to have more front line cavalry. The upgraded CM to 6 at 32 points is a much better deal than the Kataphracts at 30 because the CM can attempt to evade and because they can bounce out of melee with infantry. Going to the full list solves all my problems because it gives me  access to all 6 units of CM. Good for me but also a bit less fun because in putting together the list under the old system I had to really wrack my brains to see what the best solution was to my scarcity problem. And my beautifully painted Kataphracts will never been seen.

I am not sure if I understood the limitations for maxima and minima correctly. Could somebody please elaborate this more?

I find it hard to finish a 400 points game within 3 hours. We play feudals, so it might be a problem with medieval armies. The infantry consists of large units with longspears with a screen of crossbows with paveses. So cavalry attacks are not an easy task.

Hmm interesting

Most 350 point competition armies I have seen have been small and hard hitting so a move to 400pts on that basis would not make much difference. Best solution will be to give it a try

We gave 28mm/400 points a trial run earlier this week. As a result this could well become our standard evening format.

The extra points allowed room for more "colour" in our armies, some of those rarely seen options that are otherwise just too expensive to be justified. Allies now look to be viable and can reach the 40% required for a two command army. As to the table size, no problem, we felt there was plenty of space.

My only concern would be the time available to complete games. Our game ended after 1.5 hours when my general rolled a "captured and command routed" result (Doh!), but I suspect 2 hours would have been tight to get a formal result otherwise. I'm sure there will be more drawn games, but I don't see that as a serious problem, as the scoring system still separates draws.

Overall I'm in favour. We could always try Chess clocks if slow play is a problem.

I my thinking it depends on how many figures you have to game with and how much time you want to spend with your opponent for a game.

I admit, there is a great appeal to have a larger army on the table, but at the same time the additional costs may limit newer gamers. Also, how much longer would a 400pt game be over a 300pt game?

if the 400pt became a team battle with four players, then maybe, it would eliminate the cost aspect and split up the time better.

I'm not convinced that 400 points with three commands would last longer than 350 points with one command to be honest

Jim Webster wrote:I'm not convinced that 400 points with three commands would last longer than 350 points with one command to be honest

I agree. The 3/350 player games end up around the same length. No reason to assume that the 400 would be that much longer.