Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In recent years, the trend in 40K tournaments in the US (I can't speak for any other game systems or countries) is to constantly push the points values used up, up, up. What started at 1,500 points nearly a decade ago is now usually 2,000 points, and with some tournaments even going up to 2,500 points. This has been in response to player demand...I know I've been in a store for many a post-tournament gatherings where the players are asking, nay begging, to have the next tournament allow higher point armies. Naturally, Tournament Organizers (TOs) wanting to please their participants have complied by pushing the points limits of tournaments up.

The problem is, while point limits can be increased arbitrarily, the time allowed in a day to complete said games generally cannot be changed. Stores holding the tournaments have to open and close at a certain time and people need to get home and get some sleep, walk the dog, etc. What that means is that although the average points limit for tournament games has increased over the years, the allotted time for said games has generally not been increased to match.

However, for many this hasn't been a problem at all, because quite a few of those who play regularly in tournaments are veterans of the game. They've been able to practice playing at a very quick pace, choose smaller armies that make it easier to complete a quicker game or if they do choose a larger army, they master playing it an extremely fast pace to compensate.

Unfortunately, not all tournament players are wily veterans who are able to put hours into practicing their speed. As with all facets of the hobby, tournaments will always draw players of a variety of skill levels. However, because of the loud desires of those who like to play with larger point values, I believe that the tournament scene as a whole has become fairly unwelcoming to new players in some regards.

The game of 40K has 15 (or so) different factions available for players to choose and it is designed with a points system to allow players to not only pick their faction but also completely customize what type of force they want to play with. In other words, players are free to take all infantry armies or on the opposite extreme pack as many vehicles into their force as possible.

Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where the prevailing notion amongst players is that if someone wants to take a 'horde' style army (as its known when the army is made up primarily of low point costed infantry models) then that player needs to be able to play at a faster speed then someone playing an army with less models, just so they can finish their tournament games in the allotted time.

I know a lot of people reading this are saying: 'so what? Of course people playing horde armies have to play faster, they chose to use that army!'

But take a second and think about what's actually being said here: Players are consciously or subconsciously being told that they essentially shouldn't be taking certain armies unless they are skilled enough to be able to play them more quickly than the average player. In other words, horde armies are for 'advanced players' only.

Is this a good mentality for the tournament scene and if so how? Should players new to the tournament scene feel like they can't play with a certain army type or if they do, risk ending up ruining someone else's game when time is called before the game is concluded? Doesn't that help to funnel more tournament armies into specific styles of (low model count) armies?

While you're still thinking about that, let me put forth the real hypothesis of this post: That an unacceptable percentage of tournament 40K games end based on 'time' being called for the tournament round as opposed to finishing at their natural conclusion.

I'm not trying to say that most tournament games don't naturally conclude or even 1/3 of them. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the number is as high as 15%. I tend to use more of the 'horde' style armies in tournaments and although no one would ever mistake me for the fastest player out there, I'm also definitely not the slowest either. Yet, in every tournament there is at least one game (sometimes more) where I end up playing someone who is a bit of a slow player and/or also has a horde army and we end up having time called on us before our game ends. As I go to lunches at tournaments and listen to players tell stories about their experience it seems like nearly everybody has one game they talk about that 'only got to turn 4', or 'if only we were able to play the last turn like we should have.'

Honestly, playing a game that ends due to time constraints is NOT FUN. Sure you can have some fun moments during the game, but is there anything more frustrating then packing up your miniatures knowing that if you had gotten to play the game to its natural conclusion you totally would have pulled off a glorious victory instead of a tie or loss?

The problem is, tournament organizers are not tracking this statistic and I don't know why. This is my plea to tournament organizers. I am not saying you should change anything (at least immediately) about your events except to add one question onto your game results sheet:

DID YOUR GAME FINISH PREMATURELY DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS? IF SO, PLEASE LIST THE LAST GAME TURN BOTH YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT FINISHED.


And that's it! Adding that one line to your scoring sheets can make a world of difference towards making your event more fun and fair to all your participants.

How you ask? Well first you have to decide what percentage of games ending due to time constraints is a problem to you. IMHO, even 10% would be unacceptable. A tournament is supposed to be about ALL of your participants having a good time and playing games and if 10% of those games aren't actually being finished, then people aren't having as much fun as they should be.

Once you've decided upon the percentage that is unacceptable to you and now you've added this question to your scoring sheets you can now finally SEE if your event is meeting that goal. If you aren't meeting that goal, then you now have the knowledge to allow you try to fix the problem and see what effect the change has.

So if one of your tournaments is run at 2,000 points with 2 hour rounds and 15% of the games aren't being fully finished, the next time around you can perhaps try adding an extra 10 minutes to the round or dropping the points down to 1,750. And again, the beauty is with this question on your scoring forms you'll be able to see what effect the change has.

The other great thing this would allow you to do, is since you have the army lists for the players you can actually see what types of armies are involved in games that aren't finishing. Say you have a variety of players who all aren't finishing several games and they all use 'horde' style armies, then perhaps you can identify that while your tournament rounds are long enough for 'small' armies, they're punishing 'big' armies too heavily. Or if one guy comes to a bunch of your tournaments using different armies each time but he's constantly involved in games that don't finish, you can probably identify that he's just a slow player. Once you've identified a habitual slow player you can take the time to talk to them after the event about the issue, perhaps giving them pointers on how to play faster, etc.

But the point is: Until you start collecting the data, you can't know if there is a problem, and if there is a problem, what effect (if any) solutions you try to implement actually have.

My final plea would be to consider that although the majority of the people who play your tournaments may clamber for more, MORE points for their games, these are the people already attending your tournaments. The people you aren't hearing are those who aren't attending your tournaments. The reason they may not be attending your tournaments is because they don't like certain aspects of the tournament. Or perhaps they don't even have a big enough army yet to play a 2,000 point game (for example), but could totally do 1,000 or 1,500 points?

If you're *always* running 2,000 point tournaments every month, then any player who doesn't care to play that big a game is someone who isn't ever going to attend. While you should definitely continue to run 2,000 point tournaments (because most of your players enjoy that level), perhaps consider throwing in a 1,500 point event every 3rd or 4th month? IMHO, variety is the spice of both life and gaming!


In conclusion, while there are certainly some very slow players out there who will never finish a tournament game no matter how long the rounds are, I do believe that we've gotten to the point where the clock is set so that *only* players with smaller armies have the luxury of playing at a normal pace. This shoehorns 'horde' armies only into the hands of veteran gamers, which leads to less army variety then we would see otherwise. And even then, far too many games than are acceptable are ending due to time being called instead of their natural conclusion.

Until every tournament starts keeping track of how many of their games are ending prematurely, whether or not this is actually an issue cannot be identified and potentially remedied.

I believe Adepticon this year will be including that question on their score sheets, I hope that every other tournament organizer will follow suit...and if not, why not?

I think this is a great Idea.

One other thing you might see happen is that a player who is known to play slow might speed up as he/she knows that you are tracking this.

Fantastic post. For my tuppence...

I've played in five tournaments in 2010, and all but one of them was under 1250pts. I seriously believe that low points values are MUCH better for a tournament.

Not only did the vast majority of our 1000/1250pt games play out the full amount of turns, but we were able to fit more games in a day. And the more games you ft in the day, the better you can judge who is the winner. In fact, you can play LESS complicated missions, because you don't need the 'spread' of scores as much as a three-game tournament.

The smaller army size also means that people have more flexibility in their army choices compared to the amount of models they own. This means that more of the newer players can take part, and these newer players can actually make army list decisions rather than taking their entire collection.

I realise that low points values can limit some armies more than others, but I think the progress of 5ed codexes is addressing that. Also, I don't think that this is any more of a problem than the issues you list above with 2k tournaments.

To me, running a tournament of four 2000pt games over a weekend seems crazy when you could run a tournament with seven 1250pt games, and get more 'complete' games, a better spread of results, and a wider selection of armies and players.

I strongly agree with this idea. Our FLGS runs weeknight tournaments for 3 games, 1500 pts & $10. One hour games each made for a great midweek night out. They bumped up the points by 250 and everything sloooooowed down. Many games did not finish. The tactics to playing full games vs not full changes things just ever so significantly.

As well as being quicker, the thought processes for choosing a 1,000 - 1,500 point army are more challenging as you have to accept a certain amount of compromise.

Last time I played a 2,000k points game it went on for nearly 3 hours and we ended after turn 5 without rolling to see if we got another turn!

I understand this thread was created based on at least one of my responses in the other one about supposed slow-playing. Thus I will try to keep the confrontational element a bit down in order to present the contrary point of view.

yakface wrote:The problem is, while point limits can be increased arbitrarily, the time allowed in a day to complete said games generally cannot be changed. Stores holding the tournaments have to open and close at a certain time and people need to get home and get some sleep, walk the dog, etc. What that means is that although the average points limit for tournament games has increased over the years, the allotted time for said games has generally not been increased to match.

Unfortunately, not all tournament players are wily veterans who are able to put hours into practicing their speed. As with all facets of the hobby, tournaments will always draw players of a variety of skill levels. However, because of the loud desires of those who like to play with larger point values, I believe that the tournament scene as a whole has become fairly unwelcoming to new players in some regards.

Hmmm... I have not seen that. The majority of events I know of and have attended in the past few years have capped at about 1850 pts which *should* be small enough for even relatively inexperienced horde players to complete on time (except perhaps for Aard Boyz). What I do know is that after three two hours games in one day, sometimes four, I am exhausted. All I really want to do at that point is head to the bar for a beer and then relax. Adding another 30 min per game means another hour and a half to two hours added to the actual gaming day. For myself that does not appeal to me. Though I love to game, the days of me playing whatever for 20+ hours straight are long gone .

Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where the prevailing notion amongst players is that if someone wants to take a 'horde' style army (as its known when the army is made up primarily of low point costed infantry models) then that player needs to be able to play at a faster speed then someone playing an army with less models, just so they can finish their tournament games in the allotted time.

I know a lot of people reading this are saying: 'so what? Of course people playing horde armies have to play faster, they chose to use that army!'

Indeed. Other players have to make hard choices about what to bring to the event. Why should one group of players be exempt from that restriction? I'm not trying to be mean, but that's just the nature of the beast as I see it.

Is this a good mentality for the tournament scene and if so how? Should players new to the tournament scene feel like they can't play with a certain army type or if they do, risk ending up ruining someone else's game when time is called before the game is concluded? Doesn't that help to funnel more tournament armies into specific styles of (low model count) armies?

I don't think so. I believe that constraints are there because in a lot of cases they need to be. Players, all players, need to accept that when it comes time for such an event that there will possibly be limitations. In years past such things as composition have been introduced to wedge players away from certain builds in order to facilitate (hopefully) better games for everyone involved. Some events still use it, some do not. While I am not saying horde armies should be banned, but in some cases they are a build type that is not necessarily compatible with the requirements of a tournament. Is that bad? I don't think so. To me it's just another hard choice I as a player have to make, no different than should I bring the land raider or the vindicator, the assassin or the grey knights, etc. IMO that's part of what makes tournaments what they are.

While you're still thinking about that, let me put forth the real hypothesis of this post: That an unacceptable percentage of tournament 40K games end based on 'time' being called for the tournament round as opposed to finishing at their natural conclusion.

In the past several years I can recall only a couple times where I finished all my games. Every other instance I can think of I had at least one game where time had to be called and it was *always* against someone who brought what I considered an obscene number of models to the game. I'm not bashing infantry armies at all since those are what I generally play. However, there is IMO a happy medium between an all infantry army that is still competitive and one that is just inappropriate for the venue. That is where my own bias comes from since as you said, no one likes to have their games called, especially when there is a good chance the results would have been vastly different had the game been played out.

Honestly, playing a game that ends due to time constraints is NOT FUN. Sure you can have some fun moments during the game, but is there anything more frustrating then packing up your miniatures knowing that if you had gotten to play the game to its natural conclusion you totally would have pulled off a glorious victory instead of a tie or loss?

This more than anything is the source of my discontent with *some* horde army players out there. While I have known many who are great guys and fun to game against, when I face one nowadays across the table I just groan inwardly. It is the odd (and pleasant) exception when the game goes quickly enough to finish in a timely manner.

The problem is, tournament organizers are not tracking this statistic and I don't know why. This is my plea to tournament organizers. I am not saying you should change anything (at least immediately) about your events except to add one question onto your game results sheet:

DID YOUR GAME FINISH PREMATURELY DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS? IF SO, PLEASE LIST THE LAST GAME TURN BOTH YOU AND YOUR OPPONENT FINISHED.

While I support the idea in principle, given the time constraints of the events plus things like setup/tear down, etc., I think the only real option would be to decrease points since time (real time) is a non-expandable resource in most cases. Maybe you have the venue for only so long or maybe your staff has to leave by a certain time due to real life concerns, etc. So for those players who want the larger games that you mention, does not decreasing point levels in some ways take away from the kind of event they want to play in? I'm not saying it does or does not, but the issue here is that in order to meet the needs of the 'horde' army players we are talking about, someone else has to give up something. The question the TOs will have to ask themselves is, how will this affect all my players? How do you tell a majority of your target audience that you cannot provide the type of event they want because you have to make sure the minority can also participate fairly? I know that's not an easy question to answer, but it is a fair one since as I said, someone is ultimately not going to get what they want.

If you're *always* running 2,000 point tournaments every month, then any player who doesn't care to play that big a game is someone who isn't ever going to attend. While you should definitely continue to run 2,000 point tournaments (because most of your players enjoy that level), perhaps consider throwing in a 1,500 point event every 3rd or 4th month? IMHO, variety is the spice of both life and gaming!

I am always in favor of different types of events. Much more interesting over the long run.

In conclusion, while there are certainly some very slow players out there who will never finish a tournament game no matter how long the rounds are, I do believe that we've gotten to the point where the clock is set so that *only* players with smaller armies have the luxury of playing at a normal pace. This shoehorns 'horde' armies only into the hands of veteran gamers, which leads to less army variety then we would see otherwise.

Tournaments by their very nature inhibit variety due to the requirements of the event. I don't see that many more 'horde' armies showing up if more time were added or point limits decreased. Granted, perhaps that's pessimistic, but that's my take on it. If that were not the case you'd not see so many leafblower guard or space wolves or whatever the flavor of the month army is.

Until every tournament starts keeping track of how many of their games are ending prematurely, whether or not this is actually an issue cannot be identified and potentially remedied.

Again, while I agree in principle about the data, I'm not sure there's much point other than to validate what we already know. I do not really see there being anything as a true solution that meets the needs of both the players who want more points and those who want to bring large armies. At best you have to accept that you will disappoint one group in order to please the other. In that there is no really good answer.

ArbitorIan wrote:To me, running a tournament of four 2000pt games over a weekend seems crazy when you could run a tournament with seven 1250pt games, and get more 'complete' games, a better spread of results, and a wider selection of armies and players.

That depends on your player base and the desires of the organizer. Not everyone enjoys smaller games. There is a reason players are clamboring to play with larger point values. It's because that's what *they* like.

JMO...

Cheers, Gary

silashand wrote:
I don't think so. I believe that constraints are there because in a lot of cases they need to be. Players, all players, need to accept that when it comes time for such an event that there will possibly be limitations. In years past such things as composition have been introduced to wedge players away from certain builds in order to facilitate (hopefully) better games for everyone involved. Some events still use it, some do not. While I am not saying horde armies should be banned, but in some cases they are a build type that is not necessarily compatible with the requirements of a tournament. Is that bad? I don't think so. To me it's just another hard choice I as a player have to make, no different than should I bring the land raider or the vindicator, the assassin or the grey knights, etc. IMO that's part of what makes tournaments what they are.

In the past several years I can recall only a couple times where I finished all my games. Every other instance I can think of I had at least one game where time had to be called and it was *always* against someone who brought what I considered an obscene number of models to the game. I'm not bashing infantry armies at all since those are what I generally play. However, there is IMO a happy medium between an all infantry army that is still competitive and one that is just inappropriate for the venue. That is where my own bias comes from since as you said, no one likes to have their games called, especially when there is a good chance the results would have been vastly different had the game been played out.

First off, I just wanted to let you know that your post had no bearing on me creating this thread. It is something I've been wanting to do for a while and quite a few of the posts in that last thread (including the original poster in that thread) spurned me to write this. Yours just happened to be the last of many that share the same viewpoint.

Above you state that a player choosing to take a horde army is facing a tough choice just like deciding what units to play with. This isn't comparable because in one case you're talking about choices that decide your army performs within the confines of a game. If a tournament doesn't have enough time for its rounds compared to its point limit then the 'hard choice' of brining a horde army can end up biting either player. As you also point out, being someone who plays against a horde player YOU can be unfairly penalized by the game finishing early. So the horde player's 'tough choice' has bitten you in this particular case.

And this is the core problem. When a tournament doesn't give enough time for a horde player to comfortably play their game at a natural rate, while the 'penalty' of not finishing games is more likely to apply to a horde player (who is may not finish more than one of their games), but it also penalizes the players who are unlucky enough to get paired against them.

Therefore, having the proper points limit vs. round times is beneficial to ALL players, but especially to those bringing the horde armies.

While I support the idea in principle, given the time constraints of the events plus things like setup/tear down, etc., I think the only real option would be to decrease points since time (real time) is a non-expandable resource in most cases. Maybe you have the venue for only so long or maybe your staff has to leave by a certain time due to real life concerns, etc. So for those players who want the larger games that you mention, does not decreasing point levels in some ways take away from the kind of event they want to play in? I'm not saying it does or does not, but the issue here is that in order to meet the needs of the 'horde' army players we are talking about, someone else has to give up something. The question the TOs will have to ask themselves is, how will this affect all my players? How do you tell a majority of your target audience that you cannot provide the type of event they want because you have to make sure the minority can also participate fairly? I know that's not an easy question to answer, but it is a fair one since as I said, someone is ultimately not going to get what they want.

A few things:


1) It really depends on the constraints on the venue. I do think in some cases round times can possibly be extended if the need is great enough...including perhaps spreading the games out to an additional day if possible. But yes, in general I would propose that if a tournament gets the data back and too many games are not being finished then points levels should be adjusted.


2) As I stated in my OP, I think variety is the spice of life. If tournament regularly provide a variety of point levels, then there is nothing wrong with a tournament running a really high points level vs. round time, *especially* if they market themselves that way (like saying 'be prepared to play fast or be left behind at this tourney!' in the rules packet).

But they key would be to take the data and KNOW what you're putting your players through by what point value vs. time limit you're setting. I think too many TOs arbitrarily set the time limit vs. the point limit without taking into consideration the negative impact that not finishing games has on its players and those who bring horde armies in particular. If that data was available to them, then it might provide a counterpoint to those players yelling for 'MORE POINTS PLEASE!'

So in short, I would hope not to 'punish' those who like events with more points, but rather convince *some* events to perhaps adjust their points levels given the constraints they have on their time.


3) Finally, you mentioned 'comp' earlier as a tool TO's used to curb what kind of armies people bring to tournaments. What I would say to that is (at least in all the US tournaments I've been to recently), comp is a quickly dying concept. And even if comp is being used, the reality is, horde armies are a major part of the game of 40K, and tournament point limits vs. time limits need to take this into consideration.

If a tournament sets its point limits properly so that the average horde player playing at an average speed can finish his games, who loses out? The smaller army players get a bunch of extra time off between rounds, true, but is that really so bad? You know when the next round starts so you can go out, relax, take a nap, etc. Is that 'penalty' really equal to the annoying situation of losing a game you should have won because you didn't get the last turn in?

The only other penalty for timing games this way is it means that larger point tournaments have to be done in situations where the start/end times can be extended, done with multi-day events or clearly billed as 'speed tournaments' so that all players (including newbies) know what they're getting themselves into.

And this is the core problem. When a tournament doesn't give enough time for a horde player to comfortably play their game at a natural rate, while the 'penalty' of not finishing games is more likely to apply to a horde player (who is may not finish more than one of their games), but it also penalizes the players who are unlucky enough to get paired against them.

This happened me at warpcon. Essentially my oppoenent didn't show up until 45 minutes after the start (not deployment time) then began to deploy a goblin army... I got to the start of my turn 2 (I went first) and half way through the movement time was called. But nothing they could do (my left skink testicle!) It was a bit gutting to be honest. I often feel that the winner of many tournaments is the person who gets luckiest with the organisation rather than tabletop lucky or army skill/tactics/list/comp

Phototoxin wrote:
This happened me at warpcon. Essentially my oppoenent didn't show up until 45 minutes after the start (not deployment time) then began to deploy a goblin army... I got to the start of my turn 2 (I went first) and half way through the movement time was called. But nothing they could do (my left skink testicle!) It was a bit gutting to be honest. I often feel that the winner of many tournaments is the person who gets luckiest with the organisation rather than tabletop lucky or army skill/tactics/list/comp

That's not really the same issue I'm describing at all. In fact I'm surprised that any player who shows up 45 minutes late to a round isn't given an automatic loss...that's what should have happened in your case. But again, that's not really the same as someone who shows up on time and plays at an average speed with a horde army and doesn't finish his game because there isn't enough time allotted for each round.

We've already included on our draft packet for this year a similar question. Not sure if we'll ask "did your game end prematurely," though ... both because it makes the statistics harder to parse than if we can simply measure how many games went less than 5 turns, and b/c in a record of 1,024 games it gets tricky when disgruntled people start saying "yes' even if it didn't "really."

It's an important thing, but one that bears thought on the back end for the metrics used. We had a game or three end too soon at the NOVA last year, at 2:15 for 2,000 + 30 minutes grace at the back end, but same as is implied here in the OP, you can't really "know" anything without the facts, jack. One could easily argue that someone who can't get a 2,000 point game done in 2:45 (max) isn't going to get a 1500 point done in 2:00, but ... metrics, metrics.


One phenomenon that's important is, many players take less time if they have less time. On our 2nd day for the finals, we gave more time for each round ... and each round still went basically until the "buzzer." That won't be the case this year - everyone plays on Day 2, all 256. The top table games will still finish in time, they'll just still use all of it. But it's not really the "best of the best" that need to be protected by appropriate round times.

MVBrandt wrote:We've already included on our draft packet for this year a similar question. Not sure if we'll ask "did your game end prematurely," though ... both because it makes the statistics harder to parse than if we can simply measure how many games went less than 5 turns, and b/c in a record of 1,024 games it gets tricky when disgruntled people start saying "yes' even if it didn't "really."

Great to hear, Mike!

The only problem with asking the general turn the game ended on is that you can't account for games that ended due to time restrictions on turn 5 or 6 even when the game would have naturally gone on longer had time not run out.

If the answer is included on the scoresheet wouldn't it be exactly the same as with any other 'score'...both players hand their slips to the judge and then he looks them over for inconsistencies between the two and then asks the players if he sees one?

It's an important thing, but one that bears thought on the back end for the metrics used. We had a game or three end too soon at the NOVA last year, at 2:15 for 2,000 + 30 minutes grace at the back end, but same as is implied here in the OP, you can't really "know" anything without the facts, jack. One could easily argue that someone who can't get a 2,000 point game done in 2:45 (max) isn't going to get a 1500 point done in 2:00, but ... metrics, metrics.

One phenomenon that's important is, many players take less time if they have less time. On our 2nd day for the finals, we gave more time for each round ... and each round still went basically until the "buzzer." That won't be the case this year - everyone plays on Day 2, all 256. The top table games will still finish in time, they'll just still use all of it. But it's not really the "best of the best" that need to be protected by appropriate round times.

That's definitely true too...when you know you have extra time then you feel like you can 'relax' a bit more even when you shouldn't. And the data may show that to be the case: that adding extra time or removing points from the game doesn't really change anything. And if that *is* the case then I'll be the first to eat some crow.

But the data needs to be collected for any of that to be discovered and most events still aren't collecting this data (hence the plea).

And especially monthly RTTs. They could get all kinds of data fairly quickly which they could then use to make important determinations about how their tournaments are run...and yet I haven't seen anything like this at any RTT!

Bingo, and that's valuable, plus the formats used, yatta yatta.

The problematic thing for an Adepticon or NOVA is a big change in points / etc. has far reaching impacts on ... well, a lot ... and when you have to run numerous years of "testing" you feel like you're guinea pigging your attendees more than helping. More statistical collection in local and smaller events would certainly help.

I have found that time limits seem shorter in RTT 1-day formats than multi-day Grand tourney formats. The multi-day formats, people are not trying to leave, store owners not closing at 7pm, it isn't a big deal as there are more games tomorrow. When gaming can go later due to the venue, it doesn't seem like as bad as an issue.

Here are the 'options' as I see it for games ending prematurely:

1.TOs increase gametime so all valid builds can finish reasonably.
2.TOs Decrease point values so all valid builds can finish reasonably.
3.TOs implement army comp to limit specific builds that may have problems finishing in the pointside/time he has set. Maybe model-count limits, number of unit limits or number of actions per turn.
4.TOs implement some sort of chess timer system that cuts turns short so actions are lost.

I would prefer 1 or 2 in some way. I think they keep the integrity of the game intact and are equally fair to everyone. I would Prefer 3 over 4, because I have yet to see a 'time' system that would work in 40k due to the interactive nature of each round. MY turn involves my opponent way to much for me to lose actions due to his reaction to my actions. I shouldn't be penalized time because he is slow in rolling cover saves or can't figure out if he gets FnP to this attack. He is burning my daylight and that is the fundamental problem with turn timers. Besides the fact it isn't part of the rules which means it has no place modifying the metagame in a competitive tourney.

Increase time or reduce point numbers. 2 hour games for 2500 points is an absurd standard for many RTTs why try 4 games in 1 day.

2500 is an absurd points value in general, IMO ... but that's for another discussion. 1500-2000, as the rulebook practically states, if you please (86brb).

One thing we're planning on implementing at the NOVA to help with game times is a more proactive judging staff, and a mini-clock/turn counter at every table. Still in its nascent stages, but the plan is to give suggested turn times in the rules packet, and have judges keep an eye on the correspondence of table turn counters with the time on the clock.

You can't cut short game turns, obviously, and comp is awful (not that I think you were suggesting that) ... the game turn thing is more b/c of the nature of the game ... cutting a turn short means cutting combat short, which has major relevance for both sides in each player turn ... you can imagine guard players dragging out shooting and move phases so that a bunch of thunderstorm terminators can't resolve combat with a squad of guardsmen, tying them up forever by gaming the system.

I think suggestions are an important key here ... I had a friend, an Ork player (26 vehicle ork), who swore to us up and down he was not the slow guy in his games that would repeatedly go 3-4 hours ... so we started recording exactly how long each turn took him and how long each turn took his opponent with a stopwatch. His game time cut in half thereafter, as he finally "realized" he was the problem. Slow players are fairly obvious, and/or are easier to catch, if the NON intentional portion of the field is "reminded" enough to keep on their toes.

None of this forgoes the value of collecting metrics, mind you, but proactive and innovative resolution of the problem can be an easier way toward keeping everyone happy (i.e. instead of dropping a points value that may have a positive impact on the draw of your event, or whatever).

Jon, well done. Very well done. One of those moments when something obvious but unthought of springs into 40k so that everyone can say, "What a great idea!"

Agree 100%. I constantly struggle to find any low-pts value tournaments. Considering that all I really want is a full, fun, friendly game; high-pts value tournaments never really seem to deliver. A unfinished game is really unsatisfying... I also find that 40k gets more competetive as pts values increase; low-pts games are generally friendlier. The solution is pretty simple: decrease the size, or extend the time limit.

I fully support your cause.

A few tournaments locally already do this - you record the turn the game finished, and whether this was early. The standard in the UK seems to also be joint slips - you both have ONE slip, you both hand it in together, which makes reconciling very quick. ALthough the number that still dont put table number / names / w/l/d on them....!

Resist comp at all turns, however. Its a caustic, horrible thing that just divides and never fixes the problem it is perceived to be needed for.

Again, this a great thread. Very interesting points. Just to reply to one...

silashand wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:To me, running a tournament of four 2000pt games over a weekend seems crazy when you could run a tournament with seven 1250pt games, and get more 'complete' games, a better spread of results, and a wider selection of armies and players.

That depends on your player base and the desires of the organizer. Not everyone enjoys smaller games. There is a reason players are clamboring to play with larger point values. It's because that's what *they* like.

I agree. You're always going to be playing to preference, but whichever number you choose is going to have fans and detractors.

My point was rather that, leaving aside personal preference, low points games seem to fulfill the aims of a tournament better than high points ones. You play more games against more different opponents and armies, and include more people, therefore determining a 'winner' more accurately.

I agree with the OP that we would like a tournament system where everyone gets to finish their games, which means either reducing points or increasing time. Increasing time in a weekend tournament is not often practical, so the only option is to decrease points. I wanted to point out that there are lots of other advantages in decreasing points.

After having two out of four games not finish at the last major event I went to (majorly effecting the outcome of one) I have to say that time limits are the number one thing ruining tournies for me. It's hard to not feel cheated, especially in retrospect. I fully agree with the OP, fairness is a fundamental part of competition and having your game cut short just doesn't feel fair...

Agree with the OP 100%

One of the virtues of 5th, IMO, is that games finishing early is less common. Faster deployment and random game length both help here, as well as some generally simplified mechanics. I run up against time limits less often than in previous editions, but it still occasionally happens when the TO has set a 1750+ point limit and only allowed two hours for rounds.

As far as three-game single-day local tournaments go, one area impacting time allowed, where I think people expect/accept too little, is start and end times. IMO way too many local stores content themselves with a 10am or later start time; I sometimes seem 11am even, pushing closer to 11:30 or even later because of late players. There's really no good reason you can't get the first game on the road by 9:00 or 9:30am. If you start by 9:30, you can have 2.5hr rounds with an hour lunch break and still be done before 6:30. If you want a change of pace, you can even run 1500 and 2hr rounds and fit four games in a single day.

Mannahnin wrote:IMO way too many local stores content themselves with a 10am or later start time; I sometimes seem 11am even, pushing closer to 11:30 or even later because of late players. There's really no good reason you can't get the first game on the road by 9:00 or 9:30am. If you start by 9:30, you can have 2.5hr rounds with an hour lunch break and still be done before 6:30.

Note that at most venues where you are not paying, e.g. stores, them allowing you to open at 8:00am or earlier to setup so you can start playing at 9:00am is contingent solely on their good graces. All the arguments in the world about how it's "good for the store to support the event" don't mean squat when someone has to give up part of their personal time in order to allow the group to host their event. If you have one that will, great. I have seen many stores that will make allowances as best they can, but asking them for even more is IMO pushing it. JMO though.

Oh, and as to the larger game sizes being requested by lots of players, the last several events I have been to have all been 1850pt affairs which is what the "standard" tourney size has been for some time. In the latest event there was one Ork player who managed to fit 208 models in an 1850 pt list. No offense, but that's not a 'horde' army because the player simply wanted an infantry list. It was a 'horde' army with the explicit intent to see how many models he could fit into it which is what irritated me. We're not talking about the 2000+ point games mentioned by the OP which I can see possibly pushing the limits of an event. This was a smallish game size and we still could only complete four turns? At what point is it really the fault of the time limits and when is it actually the fault of the player? IMO there were plenty of ways he could have designed an all infantry 'horde' army and still kept the model count reasonable. Heck, 150 models would still be considered a decent sized 'horde' at that point value and been considerably more playable and less abusive. That he did not was my issue and I cannot say that is the only time I have faced such an opponent. Unfortunately it's far too common in my experience.

ArbitorIan wrote:Again, this a great thread. Very interesting points. Just to reply to one...

I wanted to point out that there are lots of other advantages in decreasing points.

Indeed there are. However, there are also advantages in the higher points as well in that players get to use combinations they might not otherwise be able.

A note on the OP's statement about all army types being supported. Given the different point values this is actually a red herring since an 1850 pt horde army is not the same army type as a 2000 pt list of any type. The point values allow those different combinations that you won't see in the smaller games. Thus the idea that you are somehow 'punishing' horde armies by playing large games is a lie. Regardless what size game you play you are punishing someone because they won't be able to play the army they like. I think the bias toward allowing horde armies to dictate how games are played and at what point value is misleading because it considers only the point of view of those players who field the hordes. What about those who do not? Should they be punished by not allowing all the possible options they might want to field in order to accommodate the hordes? It's a two way street and from what I have seen so far in this thread only one side's needs are being considered here. It seems accepted that it's okay to handicap other armies in order to allow people to play the larger model count armies. From my standpoint I think that's wrong. I think events should focus on what the majority of players who are going to attend want. Otherwise what's the point in holding it in the first place? I think there is a place for different styles of events with different point values, but there is most definitely no one-size-fits-all model that everyone must adopt. Unfortunately, that seems to be what the OP is suggesting. If I am incorrect, my apologies. But that's how I read the plea for TOs to change their events, i.e. that somehow the smaller sized games are always preferable to the larger ones. I personally don't agree with that. I think there is a place for all types and it is up to the players to decide which ones they want to attend and once they decide, to make whatever adjustments to their armies that are necessary to support the goals of the event. JMO...

Cheers, Gary

I completely agree that the points limit has gotten out of hand. For me its more of a tactical thing than that of a time constraint thing. (I am one of the veteran players you speak of though.) I believe the game level was made to be 1500 points. While you most certainly can play at any points limit I think the bread and butter is at 1500ish. My reasoning for liking 1500 better is units in your army actually seem to matter. I like looking through my OLD white dwarfs and seeing armies that are 3 tac squads some termies a pred and a dred a land speeder and that's a legit army. Now it seems a lot of people are going towards more spam lists and then the points limit constantly going up means we just see more spam or leafblower lists. At 1500 points you can't fill every slot on the force org chart. I stated out an army list for IG the other night for a tournament that had been 1850 for the last 6 years and they had bumped it up to 2k. I could fill almost every single slot and with optimum stuff or streamlined tourny units. at 2k+ its easy to wipe whole units at a time and its not as big a deal to loose a whole unit. At 1.5k or lower it becomes harder to wipe a whole unit a turn. Also movement gets more strategic and less cluttered when you don't have 35 damn vehicles on the board. I've been pushing for lower points locally for a while because I personally think it makes the GAME FUNNER! I like the point you raise about time constraints too. It has happened to me a couple times. 1 more turn would have turned my draw into a win. Great write up Yak face and I hope TO's take something from it.

silashand wrote:
Oh, and as to the larger game sizes being requested by lots of players, the last several events I have been to have all been 1850pt affairs which is what the "standard" tourney size has been for some time. In the latest event there was one Ork player who managed to fit 208 models in an 1850 pt list. No offense, but that's not a 'horde' army because the player simply wanted an infantry list. It was a 'horde' army with the explicit intent to see how many models he could fit into it which is what irritated me. We're not talking about the 2000+ point games mentioned by the OP which I can see possibly pushing the limits of an event. This was a smallish game size and we still could only complete four turns? At what point is it really the fault of the time limits and when is it actually the fault of the player? IMO there were plenty of ways he could have designed an all infantry 'horde' army and still kept the model count reasonable. Heck, 150 models would still be considered a decent sized 'horde' at that point value and been considerably more playable and less abusive. That he did not was my issue and I cannot say that is the only time I have faced such an opponent. Unfortunately it's far too common in my experience.

Whoa re you to tell someone how he should play his legal list? Other armies min/max like crazy... Max pieplates, max longfangs, max thunderwolves... Minimizing specific units so opponents expensive weapons are wasted. But yet when an ork player does it it is abusive?

Why should he have to keep the model count 'reasonable' to some opponents arbitrary standards? That is called ARMY COMP. 2 hours is too short for a 1850 game. If he had swapped out 60 models for some more expensive single models like dreds or kopters, then he would have given his opponent a way to remove larger chunks of points from the board faster by giving him expensive models to shoot at. The whole point is to starve your opponent of targets so his 40pt lascannon has to destroy a single 6pt boy with a 4+ cover save. If my opponent is going to max out on pieplates and long fangs with missile launchers, 10 multimeltas or 4 rounepriests then he should have no problem when I max out on warm green bodies to choke his rivers with my dead. Every army does this... 1 Dred is lascannon food. 9 kans and 2 dreds means you saturate your opponent with targets so your models survive. Marines do it with rhino rushes. I guard does it with loading up on armored company. Everyone does it all the time. Only you dislike horde, I see massive double standards here.

1850 is not 'smallish', if anything it is on the lower edge of 'large' games. 2 hours is not long enough for 1850. Arbitrary army comp by making people take less effective army lists to please people with preconcieved notions on how the game 'should' be played is still arbitrary comp.

Hordes just make the issue worse. For what it is worth, in all of the tourneys I played last year the only (and I mean the ONLY) game that I didn;'t get to finish was against a horde ork player at the invitational and that was with Bike Marines, foot marines and daemons.

edit: which isn't to say either player was doing anything wrong. The problem comes in when a player gets to dominate 65% of the playing time and then the non horde player feel rushed.

Yak's idea of collecting data is a good one - I will see if Kevin Nash wants to add that to the data he is collecting.

I understand whats being said here and have even encountered these things, I normally play 1,500-2,000 pt games in an hour time limit as I practice with my son 2-3 times a week. I have seen these slow players, as most of them are new to the game or as in my experiance just running the clock. So I have expected that a normal game starts and ends takes about 1-3 hours on a normal time span. In tourneyments I have seen the clock runners and they do not do very well, it is the guys that are fast players that tend to gain objectives and score points that win more often.

nkelsch wrote:Whoa re you to tell someone how he should play his legal list? Other armies min/max like crazy... Max pieplates, max longfangs, max thunderwolves... Minimizing specific units so opponents expensive weapons are wasted. But yet when an ork player does it it is abusive?

Do any of those players cause the game to not be completed? In an 1850 pt tournament a 2 hour time limit is entirely reasonable. If *any* player intentionally takes an army he/she knows cannot complete the games on time then no offense, I am entitled to say they are not meeting the requirements of the event. As I said, a tournament is about making hard choices about what to field. Do you take more troops choices to capture / hold objectives or do you take more elites to score kill points? IMO choosing models that will allow you to play the game in the required timeframe is ABSOLUTELY no different. Just because you want to be able to field what you like does not mean you will or even should always be able to do so. When that choice means you will impact every other player you face in the event then gee, I am exactly the person who will call you out on it and I have every right to do so.

A long time ago a friend of mine told me that "a game is a contract between two players whereby they mutually agree to help each other have fun." If you are intentionally making choices that you KNOW will make your opponents' games potentially unenjoyable then IMO you are not living up to your end of that contract. I know I would never want to face someone with that attitude across the table. Events are supposed to be about people getting together and having a good time. What part of not caring if your opponent enjoys the game do you really think is okay?

Why should he have to keep the model count 'reasonable' to some opponents arbitrary standards? That is called ARMY COMP.

No, it's called playing by the rules of the event which you seem to consistently want to ignore.

2 hours is too short for a 1850 game.

Absolute nonsense. As I said, if we are talking about the 2000+ point games mentioned by the OP then I might give you some slack. If you cannot play an 1850 pt game in 2 hours then something is wrong IMO.

Only you dislike horde, I see massive double standards here.

Like/dislike has nothing to do with it. I have 7 current 40K armies, two of which could be considered horde armies (infantry IG and lately my 2nd bug army). There is absolutely no double standard with asking players to be able to finish their games within the alloted time. If you cannot grasp that then I am fortunate I will probably never have you in any of my events because I spell out EXPLICITLY how long the games are to last and that the expectation is that if you sign up you need to be able to complete the games in time. Failure to do that is a violation of the event rules period.

1850 is not 'smallish', if anything it is on the lower edge of 'large' games. 2 hours is not long enough for 1850.

What planet are you living on? Events have been 1750-1850 for *years* and have been extremely successful at that point level with the VAST majority being played in 2 hours. In 15 years of playing in tournaments on two continents, two hours is ABSOLUTELY enough time for a 1850 pt game. If you don't like it, that's not the fault of the organizers.

Somnicide wrote:The problem comes in when a player gets to dominate 65% of the playing time and then the non horde player feel rushed.

Absolutely!

Cheers, Gary

Gary, your rhetoric about army point sizes is needlessly hostile and also doesn't take into account other parts of the country or world. As one example, 1500 has remained standard at the UK GT events for the last ten years.

Some armies can easily play 1750-2000 in 2hrs, but horde armies usually aren't among them. And that's not the really the fault of the horde player. 2.25-2.5 is a more reasonable length for a 1750-2000pt game.

I agree that players are responsible to play the game within the time limit, but it is also the organizer's responsibility to give them sufficient time. While really experienced and practiced players like you or me may have little difficulty with a 2hr limit in a 1750 game, it's not really reasonable or realistic to expect all players to match our pace.

Mannahnin wrote:Gary, your rhetoric about army point sizes is needlessly hostile and also doesn't take into account other parts of the country or world. As one example, 1500 has remained standard at the UK GT events for the last ten years.

My apologies for the hostility. I will rein it in somewhat. I do not, however, like it when a specific individual in this thread (and the other) keeps calling me biased when all I am saying is that if you sign up for an event and you know how long the games will be then you have an overt responsibility to make choices that will allow you to complete them. Anything else is sportsmanship of the poorest kind because you are saying you don't really care about how it affects the other guy. THAT is a personal pet peeve of mine and one that gets under my skin. However, I will drop the point.

FWIW, *ALL* of the GW UK Conflict tournaments I attended when I was in the UK from 1993-2005 were at 1850. Only the GTs were 1500. If that has changed since I left then I am unaware of that.

Cheers, Gary

Fair enough. I just think there's a danger of excluding horde players, especially newer ones. It's reasonable to coach them and advise them about playing faster, but I think we need to be careful about calling them bad sports or cheaters.

Like I said in the other thread. I've found hordes to be the province of old hands. Not so much newer players. I can count the number of times I've played someone who it was their 1st or second tournament running a horde (130+ models) on a single thumb. That's in 10 years of attending events.

Veterans should be able to play in a reasonable amount of time with a horde. I can do it and so should everyone else. That being said the person playing against a horde needs to speed up his game and accept that the horde player is going to take up a larger portion of the overall time. If it's important to you to finish then maybe you need to play faster as well. I know when I see a horde put down in front of me I know I'm going to be moving at a faster pace and tell my opponent so.

This does 3 things. Informs them that I'm serious about finishing the game. Shows that I'm willing to move faster to make sure that happens. And helps put them in the right frame of mind for moving quickly. With this mentality I've never not finished a game against a horde player. Though I have had some games against some people w/less than 60 models not finish...