"1780 points???" Topic

So I heard about a Flames of War tournament locally that has a limit of 1780 points.
It used to be 1500, then crept up to 1750.
All I can think of is that one of the organizers was 30 points over with his "Perfect list". (Remember "perfect plans" in Avalon Hill games?)
So, he added 30 points to the maximum so he could have that Easy 8, instead of a plain old crummy M4A3-76mm.
Or, he could not squeeze in that Jagdpanther that he "needed".

I have always thought that the "limits" in points in a tournament were absolute, not like a "debt ceiling", to be bumped up when inconvenient.
It's SUPPOSED to be a challenge, not a guarantee.

Agree with you wholeheartedly John. I have been to one too many tourneys like that. Currently we don't play higher than 1500 at our FLGS but some of the newer guys who are building can only do 1250 which gets really hard to build a list at times.

I highly doubt there is a player out there who would use the extra 30 points to buy a few stands of infantry. Where I play at it is usually to get priority air if someone is over, given the large amount of American and Brit players.

When I ran our series of three FoW tournaments in Nov-Dec I allowed players a 1% margin. So in 1500 pt games they could go to 1515 IF there were no upgrades that once dropped would put them within 1% the other way. In other words, if you were at 1515, but had 3 AA MG (5 pts ea)that was a no no, but if the only thing that would put you below 1500 was dropping an 80 pt tank or platoon (thus putting you down to 1435 then I'd allow the 1515 level.

I didn't know that. Guess I should of made the first tournament. ;-) On the late war list I could have really used the extra 15. Not that I can argue with the results we got.

Its his party, let him run it as he sees fit.
You don't have to play in his tournament …

Me?
I'd have no problem with it as long as I knew in advance and was able to change my army list appropriately.
I can always use an extra Easy 8…
Our tournaments points change all the time.
I have played in 1000 to 2000 pt tournaments. So its not really a big deal.

It's so you can run six Fearless Trained Konigstigers.

Actually, Battlefront changed the points levels for their late-war tournaments this summer, but nobody noticed it because they announced it the same day that they said that from henceforth only battlefront models would be allowed in battlefront run tournaments.

link

Just get rid of points altogether and play unequal battles, just like in history. It's supposed to be a historical game after all…

Battlefront changed the points levels for their late-war tournaments this summer

This forces people to constantly buy new miniatures. For example, once you have a "perfect" 1750 point army you wouldn't buy any more. By going to 1780 you have to change the army AND it's not as simple as buying one more thing. LIkely, you will drop two old unit and get two new ones or something like that.

Battlefront is somewhat constrained in that they can't do what GW does and also change the power and ability of the troops (BAR and TD changes not withstanding). I'm sure BF would LOVE to have an epiphany that Tigers should be Confident Trained in 4th edition and then OOPS we were wrong they will be Fearless Veteran in 5th.

I prefer "Reluctant Conscripts". Is there a 106th Division list somewhere?

Eric

Why must their every act be seen as evil or even commercial. I prefer to believe in the cock-up theory of history and that , for Late War, they just needed the extra points. Even in early war 1500 points can be quite constrained, especially when the scenario stipulates that only half the platoons can be on table. That is a huge bonus for tank platoons that have three or four more tanks in the HQ section.

I really doubt that changes are the result of some sordid greedy plot against you!
Roy

Points systems are stupid.

Why must their every act be seen as evil or even commercial. I prefer to believe in the cock-up theory of history and that , for Late War, they just needed the extra points. Even in early war 1500 points can be quite constrained, especially when the scenario stipulates that only half the platoons can be on table. That is a huge bonus for tank platoons that have three or four more tanks in the HQ section.

Which is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. A points system is not supposed to give you everything you want or "need". It forces you to make choices.
I do not impute an evil commercial reason for this. It is merely pandering to loud whiners who can't get everything they want.
If I have the force I want at that level, and am 30 points short, well I am 30 points short. Or add a bazooka!

Points systems are stupid.

Well that was pithy, and shows a profound respect for how others play with their toys. I am so glad your way is superior.

We set a limit but it is a "soft limit" with a 10-15 point cushion. So if it is 1,500 points, you can have forces which are up to 1,515 points, however, you should avoid going over if possible in most cases, if you go over 1,500 points, it becomes a "hard limit" so you can be at or under the limit at point values over 1,500 points.

I am looking to do a 3,000 point event in Late War to allow people to field larger armored formations and really expensive German and Soviet armor formations.

I can't really adequately model an Engineer-Sapper battalion until 2500 points…

But I am more interested in doing raiding forces, where I'm out-pointed 2:1, the opponent has scattered reserves, and I lose points for not escaping!

We set a limit but it is a "soft limit" with a 10-15 point cushion.

Baaaaah. Catering to whiners.
Make them take a morale test at the opponent's chosen time for every 5 points they go over.
A limit is a limit.

Did we not already have this discussion here on TMP?

LW US Nationals this year are 1780. MW 1675 (I think?), and EW 1625. So many local events have followed suit.

Next year National points could very well be less. Not much to get excited about or develop conspiracy theories from.

VonBurge, how were those seemingly random numbers arrived at?
WHY should the levels for LW, MW adn EW be different?
Why not 1750 for all periods? Why the variation?
SOMEWHERE, someone came up with his "perfect" list for his favorite army, and that is how they got set. You cannot convince me otherwise.

I cannot begin to explain the random factor here other than to me it seems "random." All I know is that to make the conspiracy theory case that some here are trying to make, one would have to show that every year, all periods always went up. That's not been the case.

It may also be worthwhile to note that BF USA staff who make the call on point levels for US Nationals each year, Joe Krone for the last few years, really never play in these or other FoW events themselves. So no need to imply that anybody "official" in the BF staff has any personal gaming reason to pick a given point threshold.

Bill Wilcox is the guy that pretty much wins these US Nationals. I'd note he wins year after year regardless of the point levels. Likewise the other normal suspects that tend to do well at these shindigs also do so regardless of a specific point threshold. So if this is just a master plan to help "someone, somewhere" then I'm not sure it's helping much.

Feel free to believe otherwise. Just want to add some more information that may better inform your conclusions.

Cheers, VB

While I find the "odd" point limits odd; there is probably a good reason, even if we don't know the logic behind it. I think the reason that Late War has a higher limit is because the Teams are generally more expensive and FoW/BF are trying to achieve a more or less constant levels of Teams on the Table for each period. At the end of the day, does it really matter what the limit is so long as everyone knows what it is in advance? Cheers!

To the person who said that points levels are stupid…remember, they're for tournament games, not club or private games. A wargames tournament is more gamey at the expense of the historical for the purposes of competition.