I think we all agree that when contentious topics come up, what you really need is someone to discuss it with a balanced, non-confrontational way of handling difficult subjects. Here at dash28 we have loads of people who write for the website who are just like that. But I shoved past them and decided that I was going to handle the points debate, because why be balanced when you can delight in causing trouble instead? Let’s get into it!
So perennially, the following topic comes up on the various kings of war discussion places (ok, just on the steaming cesspool of hot-take shitposting, Facebook’s Kings of War Fanatics): “What is the correct amount of points to play Kings of War?”
Hoo boy. Let’s get into it.
(Although before I do, here’s the TL;DR version: there’s no such thing, and anyone telling you there is is so full of crap you can smell them hours before they enter the room).
Balance
So the core of this debate (let’s be generous and call it a debate, eh), is what is balance? We love in the KoW community to crow about how our game is the most balanced wargame out there. We have a rules committee made up of elite (I mean, sure) players, it’s super balanced!
Balanced in this context I’m taking to mean where the outcome of the game comes down to two things:
1) player skill and experience
2) luck with dice
With the idea of a balanced game, the list you take is important but secondary, or at the very least, a mitigating influence for a lack of factor 1), or factor 2). To be fair, we’ll include it as a variable, with a mythical scale for a “good list” down to a “bad list” (which of course, is a gross misnomer, because list-writing is multi-factorial, and I’ve not even started on matchups, terrain and scenario. But hey, we’re glossing over that because I’m not Brinton Williams and don’t have a large enough computer-brain to cope with that level of detail.)
So that gives us three factors. A skilled player might have a bad list, and good dice, and beat a less experienced player who has a better list, and average dice, so on and so forth, with any mixture in between. Hold that thought.
Points values
Back in version 2, the debate around points values was largely one of 2,000 points vs 2,250, and was very much a “uk/rest of world vs. the US” kind of debate. But with the advent of version three, and the inclusion of more US players into playtesting and rules committees groups, 50 points mysteriously was added to the “accepted” USA points value for playing, and other areas of the world started to take on 2,300 points as a concept. We’ve also seen variants of anything from 1,495 up to 3,000+ in the few tournaments we’ve had since version 3 came about. So what’s with the discrepancy?
There’s a bunch of ways to look at this, so I’m going to go with the approach that looks at what people argue about the most, because that’s the most fun.
Hey, it’s what the game’s been balanced with
An argument for 2,000 points is that the game was balanced by the rules committee to be played at 2,000 points. And while this was true for version 2, it’s definitely not the case now. Given the large (and let’s face it, more vocal) playerbase in the US that’s traditionally played higher points values it would be dumb for the RC to balance the game for just 2,000 points, so we can assume quite accurately that the game is balanced for both.
You just like taking all the toys
This is one I’ve often used, so forgive me if I treat it with a little more sympathy. It’s a fact that lists at 2,300 points and higher feel more “complete”, because more points means you can take more stuff. At 2,000 points and below (and I’ll come on to 1,995 in a minute) you have to make harder list choices, which it can be argued makes the game more challenging.
The problem is, it doesn’t make the game more challenging for every list, which is where the argument about higher point balance comes from. Some armies have easier unlocks than others, so at 2,000 points it can feel unfair if you struggle for unlocks in your army.
What this really means, and specifically why 2,300 feels more “complete” is that certain synergies in army lists are simply unavailable at 2,000 because you can’t quite get the number of units on the table. But you’d be grossly wrong if you take this as evidence that it’s the superior points level, because while this level of points (and higher!) opens up a level of list synergy, it also weakens the strength of other list synergies that are available already at 2,000.
So let’s say double soul reaver infantry feels strong at 2,000 points, you could argue that that’s intrinsically weakened against an increased spam build or MSU list at 2,300. This might be a good thing to you, or a bad thing to you. Whatever, soul reaver infantry are for losers anyway.
Triplicate means you get spammed
The reason 1,995 is often favoured is because of the game’s unlock system, where 2,000 points is the starting limit for where 3 of any one war engine or hero can be taken. So your triple wingit, bangit, rock lobber lists are simply infeasible at 1,995. This is irrelevant for the 2k vs 2300 argument, but it’s fair to say, if you really hate spam, this is the points level for you.
Spam spam spam …. Skew?
So spam is a thing. Higher points values means more opportunity to spam. But it also means you have more opportunity to counter the spam. This isn’t really the issue, the issue is skew, which is something beautifully explained in a recent fanatics thread by Paul Forbes, so I’m just going to quote him here and pretend I came up with it:
the points value is secondary to the skew possible. Higher points enables more skew – just plain math.
It’s more the restrictions that matter to me, and no allying to game the system so you can get more skew.
Any game that becomes mostly about what you brought to the table – which is the case with any sort of skew – creates an environment where everyone else is dragged down to skewing or be at a disadvantage, and are constantly needing to spend money and hobby effort to ‘chase the meta’.
Ok, so you get the idea. Skew as a concept is really nice. It’s an obvious fact that there are powerful units in the game. But each powerful unit has limitations placed upon it, to prevent overuse. These are things like unlock limitations, or (more usually) points limitations. The more points you get, the more easily these limitations are overcome, and the more powerful units you can bring.
Similarly, where there is a power in synergy (e.g. volume of attacks, or number of flyers), increased points = increased power. Simple. This is what I mean by skew. This skew becomes overwhelming when the level of power brought means the skill of the opposing player doesn’t matter. Because the list’s power overwhelms the skill of the other player, and sometimes even the luck of the dice.
But does that really happen?
So this is all in theoryland right now. Have we seen this happen in the real world? I’m going to argue that yes we have… kind of.
So thanks to the balance of the game, I think my tripartite (luck, skill, list) argument bears fruit here. Because if 2,300 was a level of points where balance went out of the window, you’d see skew lists repeatedly dominating the top 10 at larger US tournaments. Which doesn’t really happen. Instead, what you see repeatedly is the most skilled players at the top.
HOWEVER, what you do see, is skew lists repeatedly dominating at smaller events (just look at the terror inflicted by massive artillery lists and ye olde elven bow nightmare in version 2), and this is where my equation comes into play. I’d argue that the reason skew lists dominate at some smaller tournaments, but don’t dominate at huge tournaments, is that the skill and experience to deal with the level of overwhelming skew you can get at higher points values is in short supply.
Players like Jeremy Duvall (sorry Jeremy for using you as an example) take balanced lists to national tournaments and repeatedly finish top 10. Why? Because he has the skills and experience to deal with skew. Increase the number of players, you’re more likely to get a Jeremy playing. Decrease the number of players, you’re less likely. So a skew list at lower participant or regional tournaments is going to do better.
So what does this mean?
What it means is that different point values are good for different things. There is no real standard, but what you need to be ready to expect is a different game, depending on the points values you take.
The game is nominally balanced enough at any points level to have fun. I’m gonna push the barrel out and not even bother to discuss the suggestion that under 1,500 points it’s a very different game, and balance is not a thing. You can still have fun, but some lists are going to get curb stomped by other ones.
If you want a game that feels “safest” in terms of balance, you’re going to want to head to 1,995. Because the game is literally designed to balance at this points level with its restrictions on triplicate units. It’s a level of points where spam and skew are hard to field, but you’re going to find yourself limited from certain list styles just due to points.
When it comes to 2,000 and 2,300 – they are both going to share issues, but the chance of facing a skew list increases as the points go up. Like Paul said, this is simple maths. So what should matter to you is, who am I playing against?
Friendly games with your mates – do you want challenge in your list building, or do you want loads of toys on the battlefield? Also (and quite importantly), how much of a dick is your friend, and are they going to gleefully take a skew list and not care if you hate it?
We all want a good game, and we all want a good challenge. If you play at tournaments you’re going to face a skew list at some point, and you’re going to have to deal with that. Matchups and scenario are a thing, and the game has a built in level of balance (at time of writing!) that means no-one is going to win with just a list.
The higher points you play at, the more likely you are to meet a player that’s found a magic formula that creates a list that feels “undefeatable”. What that really means is you’ve not learned to deal with it yet, but for sure that doesn’t make it any more fun to face. And when you get a really good player who gleefully takes a “broken” list for shits and giggles (I’m looking at you, Tom Robinson), then the result is carnage.
It’s also worth noting that the more games you play at a tournament, the more chance the skew list will meet a natural counterpoint. One-day tournament, lower players? Higher performance. Two-day tournament, more players? Less chance of success.
I’d argue that in the grand scheme of things what really matters from the three principles are in order:
- Your luck
- Your skill and experience
- Your list
Skill beats list every time. And luck can trump skill. What happens when luck, skill and list are all high is what you see at the top of tournaments. All the higher points values mean is you’ve got a higher chance of running into something skewed, and that can affect your fun, if you don’t like that sort of thing.
So to finish off, here’s my summary of what the points level mean:
500-1000 – You’re introducing a new player, or you only have an hour to spare.
1000-1500 – You fancy a quick game with a friend
1500-1995 – You want a game where you’re generally guaranteed no spam/skew
2000 – The game is balanced for this level, you’re going to get limited skew lists, but some armies will not have every toy on the table
2300-2500 – The game is also balanced for this level, but you’re going to get more skew lists.
2500+ – You don’t really care about balance, you just want to play with lots and lots of toys
5000+ – What are you, insane?
Ok thanks bye!
(Many thanks to Brinton Williams for proof reading this article. And disagreeing with most of it)
