Bell of Lost Souls is putting on a gaming convention on Aug 21-23.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.bolscon.com/

It looks like they are going to do 7 games in 2 days. 4 games day #1 and 3 games day #2. I like that idea.

Here is why I am hesitant to sign up though...they have allotted 2 hours to each round. Two hours are fine if you are playing 1500 points or less, and a lot of trouble getting in a full game with some armies at 1750. The real problem is that BoLSCon is 2000 points! How do you finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours? I imagine that there will be more guard there than ever before as well as the other armies that are slow playing, so good look getting to turn #5 not to mention turn #6 and #7.

To compound the problem they have the "Dice Down" rule that makes it even harder to finish a full game. For those that do not know, that means that there is a hard time limit, and when time is up, your game stops right then, no matter where in the turn you are. That causes a lot of arguments of whether or not you can get another turn in at the end of the game depending on if you are winning or losing. I have seen a lot of people argue over getting in one more turn, and in the amount of time that they are arguing they could have done the last turn.

So, who is looking to go to this tournament, and what are your thoughts?

I don't have the time to travel, or the money to do so, so I had no thoughts of going. I do agree with you, 2 hours for a 2,000 pt game is too short. I bet that a lot of games end in Turn 5, with some only getting Turn 4 in.

I was all set to go until I read 2000 point games in 2 hours. I have yet to complete a competitive 1750 tournament game in less then 2 hours. At 1850 I'm usually done with 10-15 minutes to spair in the round but sometimes when I play against orks or guard I'll be rushing to get turn 5 done in 2 1/2 hours at 1850.

IMO the min time for 2000 point games should be 2 1/2 hours.

I don't want to spend all the money it will cost to fly to texas & get a hotel room to just end up playing in 7 3-4 turn games in which some of my units don't even get on the board.

The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

asugradinwa wrote:
The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

That's fine if you're running Nidzilla or Mech Marine, but what about hordes?

I can't imagine an implementation of such a rule that wouldn't be horribly unfair, and it being GW I can't imagine that the rule would be well written to begin with.

We hardly need more lousy rules mucking (or should I say meching) up the meta.

Here is something that a lot of people have not realized yet…5th edition takes longer to play than 4th edition.

There were a lot of changes to the rules that makes the game longer to play, and a lot of tournament organizers have not realized it yet. What they need to do is either lower the point limits, or increase the time, and we are not seeing that yet.

In tournaments we pay our money to play a full game, and also have a chance at winning. To be denied either because of bad points to time ratio is the tournament organizers fault. I wish I could remember all of the games that I could have won if we were able to finish the game (I play a lot of shooting armies that do not start to move out to capture objectives until turns 4&5). I have also been to tournaments where ork players never got past turn #4.

Why on earth did they make the point limit 2000 when they are trying to get 7 games in?

It looks like it could be fun but yeah... 2000 pts in 2hrs seems pretty tight.

Doctor Optimal wrote:

asugradinwa wrote:
The more I think about it I think 40k could use some sort of turn clock, like they use in timed chess.

That's fine if you're running Nidzilla or Mech Marine, but what about hordes?

I can't imagine an implementation of such a rule that wouldn't be horribly unfair, and it being GW I can't imagine that the rule would be well written to begin with.

We hardly need more lousy rules mucking (or should I say meching) up the meta.

You have a point. I was thinking more of competitive tournaments when talking about the clock. Ever since Hardboys last year where we had to quit after the top of turn 3 with my Tau vs Necrons I end up getting a little antsy in timed events when my turns only late up 1/4 to 1/5 of the overall time and we run out.

That kind of issue actually can lead to some pretty unfair list designs made to take advantage of the time limit. I cant make the trip due to the timing but I agree that 2k at 2 hours would keep me from going even if I could.

With the new Wound Allocation Rules and TLOS "discussions" the game has definitely slowed down from 4th. I prefer the new game, but it does take longer.

I was considering it until I saw the scoring and time constraints. One of the most frustrating aspects of the team tournament at Adepticon was playing 4 turn games (I would rather have 3 6 turn games than 4 4 turn games). In addition, I heard many mumblings about players stalling/rushing the turn/time constraints.....So, 2 hours for 2k doesn't seem near enough.

Second, I wasn't impressed with the scoring system (Painting 6%?). And under that 6%, almost 75% of the total is simply having 3 colors on your models. I would think that appearance would be at least equal to sportsmanship in %, if not above it. *Shrug*, seems pretty low.

I wouldn't go after what happened to me at Broadside and not getting in 5 turns in most of my games then means I wouldn't expect it at BoLScon. I don't mind the painting score being so low as I'm at a tourney to play and don't mind as long as the other guys army is painted but the time constraints would be impossible to run my 'nids or non-mech guard. So even though I have friends I could stay with and wouldn't mind taking a quick flight but it's just not worth it to me.

djphranq wrote:It looks like it could be fun but yeah... 2000 pts in 2hrs seems pretty tight.

Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

There is no reason to slow play at the touranment period.

If you guys have questions you can email me at Nickrosepaintball@gmail.com

Darkwynn wrote:
Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

Dude no offense but play quicker? That's insulting. I am actually a very fast player and can move a tyrannid horde around a table extremely quickly but that doesn't mean my opponent can. Or that they know all the rules. Or that they have a plan in mind for how to play their army. Or that they have been playing their army for long enough that they don't need to take time to think about what they are going to do.

The problem is that your playing with people with vastly different styles that you from all over the place which is going to lead to some slowing down. Can I finish a game against most of my friends in less than 1.5 hours at 2k? Yes, because we are both at the same level. I go to a tournament and it slows down dramatically. Playing outside of a gaming club can show you that too. Telling people to play faster at 2,000pts when most tournaments are barely finishing in 2.5 hours at the same point value is ridiculous. I've been to a lot of tournaments this year and the ones that adhere to the 2.5 hour mark have not been a problem to finish. The only games I finished turnwise at the 2 hour limit (Broadside Bash) was a game against a rock solid player that plays fast and ran a templar army in vehicles and against Blackmoor (i think we finished).

That reply from you guys actually made my descision for sure not to attend. I'll be headed to the Wildwest Shootout in arizona instead.

Hulksmash wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:
Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

Dude no offense but play quicker? That's insulting. I am actually a very fast player and can move a tyrannid horde around a table extremely quickly but that doesn't mean my opponent can. Or that they know all the rules. Or that they have a plan in mind for how to play their army. Or that they have been playing their army for long enough that they don't need to take time to think about what they are going to do.

The problem is that your playing with people with vastly different styles that you from all over the place which is going to lead to some slowing down. Can I finish a game against most of my friends in less than 1.5 hours at 2k? Yes, because we are both at the same level. I go to a tournament and it slows down dramatically. Playing outside of a gaming club can show you that too. Telling people to play faster at 2,000pts when most tournaments are barely finishing in 2.5 hours at the same point value is ridiculous. I've been to a lot of tournaments this year and the ones that adhere to the 2.5 hour mark have not been a problem to finish. The only games I finished turnwise at the 2 hour limit (Broadside Bash) was a game against a rock solid player that plays fast and ran a templar army in vehicles and against Blackmoor (i think we finished).

That reply from you guys actually made my descision for sure not to attend. I'll be headed to the Wildwest Shootout in arizona instead.

I am not trying to be insulting by any means Hulksmash but two hours has been the standard for a lot of tournaments for years now. Even Adepitcon games are two hours and you have Gladtior games at 2500 points at that level.


I don't know what to say but if you have questions about people slowing the game down or what not we will have judges around to help move games along. This is a touranment and people going to these events should know the rules or have a good foundation about them. I would hope most of those people who don't understand the rules clearly or would like to a be involved more of the hobby aspect check out the Narrative.

It hasn't been the standard at any GT, or Indy GT event i've attended in the last 4 years. Adepticon may well have a 2 hour time limit but the rest of the country isn't Adepticon (no offense to Adepticon, they have done great things for the hobby and the tournament scene in general).

Oh and the Gladiator event works because you can bring FW at that level. Meaning the general destructiveness goes way up fast and those extra 500 points are quite possibly only one extra model.

Also the 2k point limit is a relatively recent thing with games being 1850 or even the drop to 1750 last year. Granted I haven't checked out a few of the east coast Indy's in the last year so maybe most of them have switched to a 2 hour time limit w/2k armies but I haven't seen one midwest or westcoast Indy GT w/less than a 2.5 hour time limit.

Like was stated earlier in the thread if it was 1750 or even 1850 (though this is stretching it) at 2 hours it would be fine. But at 2k it's just not enough time.

The big problem I have is there is no cushion if your opponent doesn't play as fast as you do. They might not be slowing the game down intentionally but they just don't play as fast. And i'm not comfortable paying for a tourney and a plane ticket to not get full games in and this will happen. And i'm not the only one as the one major criticism has been the time allotted per game on this thread.

Most tournaments follow the GW standard which these days is 1750.

The Adepticon Gladiator, was 2 1/2 hours for a 2250 game. I looked at my batreps for the Gladiator and I finished all of my games. Of course I played a small elitie army like I do most of the time, and I played a lot of other small armies. Forgeworld does help make the game go a lot faster when you have a lot of points tied up in one model.

The Broadside bash was 2 hours and 2000 points and I finished 3 out of 5 games. 2 games did not go 6 turns is 2 too many.

If you are playing against IG or Orks, the time will be an issue. IG takes a long time to deploy, and the now that they have orders, it takes a lot longer now to play them.

You can finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours if you're used to playing at that pace and train yourself to play quickly. My experience is that most tourney players do not play at that pace.

Personally, being the victim of "stalling" players at tournies I see where Darkwyn is coming from. This stalling was so bad it made me quit playing horde Nids. I think in addition to the "stalling on purpose", I think people don't adjust their play style from a casual game setting to tourney settings. I.E. its a toruney you need to step up your game to try get a complete game in.

I don't have a problem with the format, I wish I could go actually.

I think more tournies should take up the same policy as the BOLS guys.


GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:You can finish a 2000 point game in 2 hours if you're used to playing at that pace and train yourself to play quickly. My experience is that most tourney players do not play at that pace.

QFT

GG

I understand the concern of players and dealing with time constraints; time is always one of the significant factors in a tournament. We are constructing scenarios with the time limits in mind, we are standardizing the list outputs to minimize the need for rules discussions beforehand, terrain will be set before the start of the game, and we will work aggressively to encourage games being played to completion.

I also agree that no matter how quick of a player you are, your opponent plays into the equation - I had a 3 hour turn with a newer player earlier this year due to the enormous volume of rules instruction required. It is possible that you will draw a player like this and be totally unable to finish your game, through no fault of your own. If it looks like that's what you have at the table, get a judge immediately. Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player. While we will not prevent new players from playing in our tournaments, we will work to make certain that simply drawing a new player in an early round will not keep an otherwise competitive player from advancing. That said, with a Swiss system you are unlikely to face an incompetent player in the second round, almost certain not to face one in the third round, and it is close to impossible that you will face one from the fourth round onwards.

As to overall scoring issues: We intend to focus the tabletop scoring on fighting battles and being an agreeable opponent. As such, we have removed the painting competition to it's own separate set of awards and prizes. Our scoring system allows us to enforce a reasonable quality level on the tabletop painting without giving extraordinary painters an effective massacre over merely competent ones in the tournament scoring. For those with extraordinary painting skill, our system lets you compete with your showpiece army in the painting system even if you might want to play with a different army in the tournament.

Best Regards,

Jon Wolf
Bell of Lost Souls Tournament Organizer

sounds good to me. 2 Hours is enough, and we'll call judges if the opponent is slow-playing.

jwolf wrote: Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player.

This has decided me. I will also not be attending. I detest the idea of judges being able just give out points to players based on what is, at best, an arbitrary set of conditions. I agree with most of the posters here: lower the amount of games, and increase the time limit to 2.5 hours. Having people able to 'win' SIMPLY because their opponent is a new (or newer, or newish) player and seems to be taking a long is inherently flawed, not to mention degrading and prejudiced to the new guy. I forsee abuse by players who would rather argue and call in a judge than try to actually beat that 'Nid swarm fairly, and a LOT of bad feelings towards the TO's regardless of who they rule against.

Victories should be determined by a SET IN STONE standard, I.E. the rules for the scenario. They should ONLY be decided by judges in the case of proven cheating, or a clear violation of the rules set forth for the tournament as a whole. Just handing out points to player A because player B can't maneuver his forces as easily as player A thinks he should... NOT a good idea. Not to mention the whine and argument fiesta that's possible just insinuating that the judges could be convinced to hand out a victory if you complain enough.....

Lordhat wrote:

jwolf wrote: Our judges cell phone numbers will be on your tournament packet, so you can send a text message to them without leaving your table, or you can simply raise both arms and a judge will head towards your table immediately (all of this will be on your tournament packet), and the chief judges can adjust the scoring for the round up to and including giving full points for the round to a player.

This has decided me. I will also not be attending. I detest the idea of judges being able just give out points to players based on what is, at best, an arbitrary set of conditions. I agree with most of the posters here: lower the amount of games, and increase the time limit to 2.5 hours. Having people able to 'win' SIMPLY because their opponent is a new (or newer, or newish) player and seems to be taking a long is inherently flawed, not to mention degrading and prejudiced to the new guy. I forsee abuse by players who would rather argue and call in a judge than try to actually beat that 'Nid swarm fairly, and a LOT of bad feelings towards the TO's regardless of who they rule against.

Victories should be determined by a SET IN STONE standard, I.E. the rules for the scenario. They should ONLY be decided by judges in the case of proven cheating, or a clear violation of the rules set forth for the tournament as a whole. Just handing out points to player A because player B can't maneuver his forces as easily as player A thinks he should... NOT a good idea. Not to mention the whine and argument fiesta that's possible just insinuating that the judges could be convinced to hand out a victory if you complain enough.....

Perhaps I was unclear. Points adjustment isn't some sort of willy-nilly handout system that rewards whining and threats, and any case of score adjustment goes through me. Whining won't weigh into the decision a positive fashion. What I want to avoid is have a new guy get stressed out by an old veteran who is trying desperately to get the turns played so that he can stay in the running. I think giving the veteran a pass on the round keeps the veteran from being crippled by an unlucky draw in an early round, the luck being unrelated to his tabletop play, and hopefully keeps the new player from giving up on the hobby due to a bad tournament experience.

Playing in a timely fashion is set out as a rule of the tournament, and playing exceedingly slowly is a violation of that rule. Neither Player A nor Player B will be have significant input in that decision based on anything other than playing the game. Player A's opinion of Player B's maneuvering is sufficient to get a judge to watch the game, but insufficient to generate any change to the scoring.

I realize that in a perfect world we would have sufficient time for any combination of two players to complete play in any scenario. The fact is that is not a realistic option. Two hours is sufficent time for skilled players of any two armies to complete 7 turns of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition and calculate all the objective points, if both players have practiced playing with a two hour limit in mind and the scenarios are designed with the timelimits in mind.
For reference, I have played somewhere over 300 games of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition (and most of those with infantry-heavy armies). The vast majority of those were completed in less than 90 minutes. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that most players who choose to attend a tournament will practice for the tournament and will be able to complete games.

I also find it possible that at least one person will try to use the judges against their opponent in order to gain an advantage - there always seems to be one in any tournament, no matter if it's 40K, tennis, or tiddlywinks. I hope that this person shows up in the beginning of round one; I've found that summary ejection is most effective if it occurs earlier rather than later.

I hope this clarifies this issue for you, and would be glad to host you in August.

Jon Wolf
Bell of Lost Souls Tournament Organizer

I have to tell you the reason a lot of people attend tournaments other than the sense of competition is because it is one of the few times they can get in multiple games. So that being said I do think it is a little unreasonable to expect people to play within a time limit that hasn't been a standard.

As for 300 games and most in 90 minutes how many of those games were against complete strangers in tournament environments. I could be wrong and maybe you really are an exception but I'm a fast player and while there have been a few times at 2k I've finished in 90 minutes at tournies it is by far not the norm. Heck you can ask Blackmoor, I ran a 'Nid horde at 115 models and we still finished in the two hours but that wasn't the norm for the weekend unfortunately.

I heard there will be a BoLS FAQ for 40k. If that's true it makes me cringe. I understand why Adepticon has a FAQ and it's been well done plus it's appropriate when you have that many players under one roof. That said I really don't want to see anymore independent FAQs. It feels like a burden and the last thing I want to see is a separate FAQ for every large event. I'm happy with the rules straight up.

I think you guys should really consider lowering the points if you are going to keep the games 2 hours long. It's just not possible to expect everyone to finish their games in 2 hours or less. I have had many local tournament games at 1850 points and 2.5 hours not get past the 4th turn and this includes mostly games versus power armor. The 5th edition game does take longer to play as pointed out by Blackmoor.

My mom is coming to visit me that weekend so there is no way I could make it regardless of the above issues.

G

The BoLSCon 40K FAQ

http://www.box.net/shared/576lhzj7as

I have not had a chance to look it over.

jwolf wrote:
I realize that in a perfect world we would have sufficient time for any combination of two players to complete play in any scenario. The fact is that is not a realistic option. Two hours is sufficent time for skilled players of any two armies to complete 7 turns of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition and calculate all the objective points, if both players have practiced playing with a two hour limit in mind and the scenarios are designed with the timelimits in mind.
For reference, I have played somewhere over 300 games of 40K at 2000 points in 5th edition (and most of those with infantry-heavy armies). The vast majority of those were completed in less than 90 minutes. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that most players who choose to attend a tournament will practice for the tournament and will be able to complete games.

JWolf,

I feel compelled to respond to this statement because I think it is representative of the thoughts of so many tournament organizers now-a-days and I think it is a really damaging attitude towards promoting tournament play to a wide variety of players and army types.

You are correct that more and more tournaments continue to push the points level of tournament game without increasing the length of time allotted to complete the game. But just because other tournaments have done this in no way makes it a positive situation.

IMHO, it is only reasonable to assume that people 'practice their speed of play for tournament games' if you are only looking to attract those players who are willing and/or able to practice to this level with the army they are going to bring to the tournament. For many gamers, tournaments are the only games they get to play during the year. For other players, they just do not get enough practice in with a new army before coming to the tournament, or they may be playing with an army that simply plays slower than other armies (hordes, for example).

By increasing the points value of the tournament game but not increasing the time limit, you are only promoting your tournament players who are able to get that practice time in to perfect their army's playing style. Conversely, you drive away players who might bring different types of armies (like hordes) but don't have the time to 'master' playing them super-quickly. Those 'un practiced' gamers that do end up attending your tournament are going to struggle to finish their games which is ultimately going to be a frustrating experience for both themselves and their tournament opponents. They won't be stalling, its just that they won't be able to finish their games in the allotted time.


I always wonder why people think that playing tournament games should be a frenzied experience that people have to 'practice' in order to accomplish? What good does this do for tournaments? Ultimately players should be able to have a FUN time without feeling the constant disappointment of not being able to finish their games if they haven't developed the 'skill' of gaming super-quickly or are playing with an army that takes longer to play with.

Is it such a horrible thing to have enough time for all players to finish their games? I know this would mean that those players who do play quickly (or have smaller armies) end up with a big chunk of time in between games, but is this really such a terrible thing? I know I've finished games quickly and I always enjoy walking around the tournament watching games that are still being played or going to get a little something more to eat/drink, etc.

By having too much time in between games your tournament can be a pleasurable, leisurely experience for everyone. Conversely, by setting the time limit so strict that the only people who can finish their games in the allotted time are those who have practiced ahead of time to do so creates a frustrating experience for any who are unable to finish their game and even those who do finish their games may not enjoy them as much because of the frenzied pace (i.e. if you're so focused on just rolling the dice and removing your men you may kind of miss the whole FUN part of the game).


Now I know that there is no way you can extend the amount of time in the day and to fit seven games in two days. So what I'm suggesting to you is:

Consider lowering the points cost of your tournament.


I know some players keep wanting more and more points in their tournament games and TOs, like yourself, keep obliging. But I think what everyone is forgetting is that this mentality makes it harder and harder for new players to start playing in tournaments. Please consider that not everyone plays like you and your gaming group and not everyone has the time or ability to get to that speedy level of play needed to complete such a large game in such a short amount of time.

Why not be part of a new solution to this problem and set your tournament at 1,500 points? It is the level that the designers say the game is best tweaked for for pick-up and tournament pay and it is the points level that they play at the GTs over in the UK, so why not over here considering you're trying to stuff 7 games into two days?


Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck, but I would love if you would take what I'm saying into consideration and start trail-blazing the path back towards tournament points-level sanity in the US.

If I was within 5000miles of where it is held I might

I agree with Yakface.

If I go (and I am on the fence right now) I will select an army that is very small for 2000 points. It might not be the army that I want to play, but because of the time at least I can maximize the chance that I will finish the game.


I hope JWolf you have thought about this...

Not only would 1500 points help out people finish games, but it has the side effect of having some people finish early so you can get started imputing the data for the round. You are only giving yourselves 30 minutes to:

Collect all of the result sheets

Entering in all of the results

Posting the match-ups for the next round

Have everyone get their results

Move their armies to their tables

Read the scenarios for the next game

Meet your opponents

Read your opponents list

Sorting out the objectives

Talk about how you are going to work terrain

Start the game.

There is just so much crap that goes into starting a game of 40k that you don't even think about it.

I think you are being way to optimistic with that time table. If you stick with 2000 points and 2 hours you will be getting a flood of result sheets 15 minutes after the round ended and then you will have the next matches start on time?

I think there is not doubt that they can stick to that schedule with the 'dice down' policy.

But what I'm trying to point out is: What kind of experience is that going to be for everyone involved?

At best I think only a small percentage of players will be able to finish their game in any kind of pleasant fashion.

Some may finish by madly rushing through their games and many (if not most) will not finish all of their games.


If that proves to be true, is sticking with 2,000 points worth it?

I obviously vote no.

I agree with Yak and Blackmoor. The tourney scene really need to get game size and length under control. That was probably the most refreshing thing about last year's GW GTs...reasonable points size (1750) + game length (2.5) + limited number of games (3, then 2) = equaled more fun for this gamer.

I just enjoy it more when I have time to interact with my opponent instead of just grunting as we furiously roll dice. When I'm "in shape" with my Tyranid horde, I can play them fast...but it's more enjoyable to be able to take a breath and know you'll still get your turns in.

As Yak said, the "dice down" policy will work, but I feel that impacts enjoyment too thanks to the "one more turn or not" angling you tend to see.

I'm not trying to slag the BoLS guys here...I hope this is received as constructive advice and not throwing stones. I think it's great they're doing the tourney and hope it's a great success.

I really wanted to go to this. But, as it turns out, I already have tickets to both a Bears pre-season game, and a concert that weekend, so it's just inconvenient timing and I'll have to hope for next year.

yakface wrote:
I think there is not doubt that they can stick to that schedule with the 'dice down' policy.

I do not agree with you there.

I think there will quite a bit of time that goes by before they get their results.

They are doing the Adepticon model of primary, secondary and tertiary objectives, so it will take a while to figure out who won. It is pretty obvious who won in an objective mission, but it takes a while if they are planning on having victory points as an objective, or even kill points.

At the end of a game it takes a while to chat about what just happened and to add up the results, then meander to the scoring table.

But it really depends on how many people they are expecting for the event.

Ive been to a number of events where getting in 5-6 full turns completed in the alloted time has been a stretch and i can play fast. I had considered going as well...however games at 2000 points in 2 hrs is unrealistic to expect to go smoothly for everyone. Im not going to spend the money to go to an event where games will be judged on time constraints. 2000 points isnt the norm.. 2hrs isnt the norm for tourny play. 7 games isnt really norm as well but ill over look that.

Its really eye opening to me that a rep for the tourny posted here and his explination was 2 hr games can be done (as long as its between 2 experianced players who know each other) and the way to deal with it is too play faster......sheesh i hope this guy isnt one of the cell phones i would have to call for a judgement. :(

I like the 1500pt tourney, so much so that Adepticon should make the Sunday 40k championships a 1500pt tourney. The game does play at a different level at 1500pts and units that aren't so good at 1850 are better at 1500pts.

While Yakface brings up some good points that we can all agree with, the previous posts from Darkwynn and Jwolf imply (to me, at least) that they have already made up their mind and they are going to run their tournament the way they want.

I just keep thinking:

1) 7 Games, are they serious? That's rediculous!
2) 2000pts in 2hrs? Maybe if this was 2nd edition, where 2000 points could be 5 models.
3) Dice down? Really? So sorry my opponent, but you just got screwed out of your all important "Bottom of the 6th" turn in an objective mission because you wisely decided to go second, and our CC phase went to long because I have 180 orks. Sorry, you lose, but I got to play my 6th turn at least! (Sarcasm.) I think dice down is a terrible way to play.
4) Calling the judges over seems to be their answer to everything. Will they have a million judges? It just sounds like controlled chaos with judges running to an fro smiting those that are "stalling". How do you really speed someone up anyway? Do you just tell them they are done and to move on to the next phase? Are the judges going to move models for the player? Will they roll dice too? Seriously. WTH?
5) Did you read their FAQ????? Turning off powerfists? WTH, and that's like the first thing!

This whole event just sounds like a disaster, TBH. And it's a shame, because I love everything that the BOLS does, and I wish I had a gaming club like theirs!

I appreciate the concerns you voice, Yakface, and I'm happy to address them. I'd like a little latitude to address the distinct elements you bring up individually.

Points Limits. Points limits are a hard issue. It is easy to see the argment that fewer points promotes faster play - after all, fewer points mean fewer units, which should logically play faster. My experience is that players will often play more cautiously with fewer units than with many, and that the actual time saved for most armies by having fewer units to move is generally absorbed by the extra concern players put into preserving their smaller number of units. Certain exceptions exist; another 500 points of Ork Boyz certainly takes longer to move than an extra unit of Assault Terminators in a Land Raider. I wrestled with the points issue quite a lot, but in the end I decided to go with the local standard, which is 2000 points, to preserve the regional flavor. Next year, when we go to a 3-day format, we will offer tournaments in several denominations, and I very much like the idea of having a relaxed track with longer time limits and fewer games available.

Time Limits. Time limits are a very devisive issue. I feel like part of the excitement and fun of tournaments is the time pressure; this does not mean that people who feel differently are wrong, it just means we like different aspects of the tournament experience. We could easily have stretched the days to make every game 2.5 hours and still allowed for 7 games in 2 days (7 games allows for a pure Swiss System for 128 players, which is the maximum we'll allow for 40K this year). We instead chose to end earlier to allow people to have unstructured play and social time in the evening on Friday and Saturday, and to catch afternoon flights out on Sunday.

We will be tracking completion and turns played through the tournament, and adjust things next year based on the results.

Number of Games. I've always wanted to have a tournament with a pure Swiss System. For those who don't know what this means and don't want to wiki it, a Swiss System is similar what you see in the playoffs for sporting events. You have a number of teams, and they fight down to the last winner, with a set of games for every factor of 2 (2,4,8,16,32,64,128, etc). Thus, with a maximum of 128 players, a Swiss System requires 7 rounds. This should allow us to do something no other tournament has ever done - establish a true winner with mathematical validity.

Casual Gamers and "Less-Casual" Players - I really get this problem. I'm very far to the "Less-Casual" end of the spectrum, but I was far at the other end for a good while, too. The problem is finding a way to accomodate both, and I don't think there is a very easy answer. I'm very interested in your ideas on how to give the guy who plays 15 games a year, all in tournaments, and the guy who plays 40 games a month a good gaming experience.

Again, thanks for the feedback, and I'll see you next year at Adepticon, if not before then.

Wow, a swiss system? Is it based on total battle points scored so far or just if you win you go to the next round?

Cause a true swiss system means that technically 64 of those people would only play one game. If half the people that sign up for the tournament are out of it after the first game then that's pretty bad. And the cost to enter should reflect this, i.e. it should cost significantly less than most GT's due to the fact that you don't have a chance at winning if you lose a single game.

If it's not a true single elimination event then it's just like every other tourney and calling it a swiss system and basing your scheduling off of it seems wrong

As for longer and less games the two aren't mutually exclusive. Like most people here said you could play 7 games at 2.5 hours and a lost of people would love this kind of ironman event.

As for casual and less casual again it's not mutually exclusive. Just because I hypothetically only get in 15 tournament games a year doesn't mean i'm less competative or able than someone who games 480 times a year. It just means that's all I get to play. You seem to gloss over that it's strangers playing each other. That by itself adds quite a bit of time to each game.

I've actually found that at 2k all most people are taking are more troops. Most people at 1750-1850 have a solid build and use the excess points to flush out troops so I don't see them being any more careful at lower point values except possibly with their troops (purely based on regional observations).

I truly think the biggest issue is that you've created an event that doesn't appeal to a group outside of your local area. Which isn't a problem for you guys at all it's just hard to bill it as a large event when almost all of your decisions are based completely on your local meta-game which doesn't mesh with the rest of the country.

This is from the Ard Boyz.. FAQ

Codex Imperial Guard 2009
• Imperial Guard may take Inquisitorial Allies as defined in Codex Daemonhunters or Codex Witchhunters.

Simple, concise IAW Game Workshops general rules for 40k.

This is from the BOLS FAQ...

Q: May I use Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters as allies in my Space Marine or Imperial Guard Army List?
A: Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters are not allowed as allies

And your 40k 2000pt Tournament Rules...

Allied Daemonhunters and Allied Witch Hunters are NOT ALLOWED in other armies.

This is from the BOLS FAQ as well...

Read the BRB for the rule in question. Then check your Codex. In the case of a conflict, your Codex is right. Then check the Games Workshop FAQ. In the case of a conflict, the FAQ is right. Lastly check our FAQ and House Rules. In the case of a conflict, our FAQ and House Rules are right. If you still have doubts, ask a judge.

We get the idea.

My bad. I thought this was a 40k event. Your event, your choice to ignore whatever 40k rules you want, my choice not to encourge such behavior.

Not attending....

Is it possible to hold it at another time during the year next year? Austin Texas in the summer is not a place I'd like to be.

Why would a tournament ban Inquisition units, which are generally characterful and not particularly strong? Why would they require Army Builder? Why have your own FAQs and own rules? This entire thing seems somewhat off to me.

What its only 105? Woosy!

It's not thrilling to learn that a player who has lost a game in one of the early rounds is unable to win the tournament. I can easily imagine some people will just quit after they lose a game. All too often we always see the same gamers at the top tables. I think a good tournament should incorporate a system that allows for people that have lost a game to be able to move back up in the rankings and still have a shot at first place.

G

Fetterkey wrote:Why would a tournament ban Inquisition units, which are generally characterful and not particularly strong? Why would they require Army Builder? Why have your own FAQs and own rules? This entire thing seems somewhat off to me.

Easy to figure out the ban. Bet there are a few Lash armies in the BOLS groups. Cuts down on those pesky Psychic Hoods being brought in by allied Inquisitors does it not?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Easy to figure out the ban. Bet there are a few Lash armies in the BOLS groups. Cuts down on those pesky Psychic Hoods being brought in by allied Inquisitors does it not?

There are Lash armies here in town, but most of the BoLS people, and Austin locals, will be volunteering at the event, not playing, so I don't think there are personal army match up motivations. Personally, I think because of the changes to the Guard and Marine books several times since the WH/DH rules were created just makes it easier not to open a whole can of worms working out the details of how the new books interact with the old, old books.

I've lived in BoLS Land (Austin) for two years now after playing pretty much exclusively non-tournament games for my previous decade or so of 40k life. It is a radical adjustment moving to a tournament town. Two years ago I would have agreed that you could never get 2000 points in repeatedly in 2 hours. But the last local store tournament I attended (twenty people or so), there was usually only about 1 game per round of the ten that went right up to the time limit. We started the tournament late, about 11:15 and I was done and in my car after three games (and an 45 minute or so lunch break) at 6:45.

Having seen both sides myself, it takes a lot of practice to get the point where you can play 2000 points confidently in 2 hours. The first year I was here I don't think I completed a single game in the 8 or 10 tournaments I played in. The second year, I think only one or two (out of 15) tournament games weren't finished in 2 hours. The main difference between me two years ago and now is that now I know my army better, know the rules a lot better, and have MUCH greater knowledge of my opponents' armies.

I certainly hope that the two hour time limit is a fun challenge for people instead of a dreaded fun-killer. If you are thinking of not attending because of this, or any other rule quick, then I hope you reconsider. Variety is what makes life spicy, yes? And there's plenty of spice and hospitality down here in Austin. As someone who recently moved to the area, I definitely recommend coming. Besides the tournaments (with what I think are cool prizes in the "loser" brackets), I myself am looking forward to the Pod Racing, Narrative Apocalypse games and seeing the painting contest. I'm going to be a full-time volunteer, but I hope to be able to sneak away to get a few races in with my under-construction Eldar Pod Racer. Besides all of the gaming, Austin has great food, awesome live music and the world's largest urban bat colony. Now if they could just do something about 100-blazing degree summertime heat. Thankfully I understand the Doubletree has a powerful AC system.

jwolf wrote:I appreciate the concerns you voice, Yakface, and I'm happy to address them. I'd like a little latitude to address the distinct elements you bring up individually.

Points Limits. Points limits are a hard issue. It is easy to see the argment that fewer points promotes faster play - after all, fewer points mean fewer units, which should logically play faster. My experience is that players will often play more cautiously with fewer units than with many, and that the actual time saved for most armies by having fewer units to move is generally absorbed by the extra concern players put into preserving their smaller number of units. Certain exceptions exist; another 500 points of Ork Boyz certainly takes longer to move than an extra unit of Assault Terminators in a Land Raider. I wrestled with the points issue quite a lot, but in the end I decided to go with the local standard, which is 2000 points, to preserve the regional flavor. Next year, when we go to a 3-day format, we will offer tournaments in several denominations, and I very much like the idea of having a relaxed track with longer time limits and fewer games available.

If you are trying to stick with a regional standard then that is somewhat understandable but I completely disagree with the notion that less points equal the same length of game. While this may happen in some instances with some players, I think you can safely assume that in general (which is what matters) games played at a lower point limit take less time as they tend to feature less models which means less time setting up and moving them and less dice being rolled in every phase of the game.

Most players who suffer from tactical paralysis are going to have the same issue whether they are playing at 1,500 or 2,000 points, the only difference being is that with the former they'll complete 4-5 turns and with the latter they'll likely only complete 3-4 turns.

While there are always exceptions (players who are incredibly fast and certain armies that play faster or slower regardless of how many models they have) in general the fundamental concept is sound: A higher points limit equals models on the table which equals a longer time needed to finish the game.

If you're really set on sticking to the 2,000 point limit then you need to adjust your allowed game times. Which brings me to your next point:

Time Limits. Time limits are a very devisive issue. I feel like part of the excitement and fun of tournaments is the time pressure; this does not mean that people who feel differently are wrong, it just means we like different aspects of the tournament experience. We could easily have stretched the days to make every game 2.5 hours and still allowed for 7 games in 2 days (7 games allows for a pure Swiss System for 128 players, which is the maximum we'll allow for 40K this year). We instead chose to end earlier to allow people to have unstructured play and social time in the evening on Friday and Saturday, and to catch afternoon flights out on Sunday.

We will be tracking completion and turns played through the tournament, and adjust things next year based on the results.

This, I find a bit mind-boggling, to be honest with you.

If you're committed to 2,000 points and seven games then you need to find a way to fit in extra time for the games. I know that Sunday needs to have a 'hard out' time to allow people to fly out, but if that means starting at 6am (or something crazy like that), then so be it!

I understand that you enjoy a bit of time pressure in your tournament games and I think it is understandable to expect people to have to play a bit faster than normal at tournaments, but what I'm saying is that you are going to end up with a LOT of games that aren't going to be finishing, every single round.

Honestly, what do you think is more fun for the whole of the tournament: having some people enjoy the frantic nature of trying to finish 2,000 point games in 2 hours while many people don't get to finish their games or having almost everyone finish their games with a few people (perhaps) a bit bored because they have to wait a bit of time for their next game to start?

IMHO, the choice is obvious. If you're trying to create a tournament that is fun for as many people as possible you err on the side of having too much time for your games as opposed to the opposite problem of having scores of people not finishing their games.

Number of Games. I've always wanted to have a tournament with a pure Swiss System. For those who don't know what this means and don't want to wiki it, a Swiss System is similar what you see in the playoffs for sporting events. You have a number of teams, and they fight down to the last winner, with a set of games for every factor of 2 (2,4,8,16,32,64,128, etc). Thus, with a maximum of 128 players, a Swiss System requires 7 rounds. This should allow us to do something no other tournament has ever done - establish a true winner with mathematical validity.

Casual Gamers and "Less-Casual" Players - I really get this problem. I'm very far to the "Less-Casual" end of the spectrum, but I was far at the other end for a good while, too. The problem is finding a way to accomodate both, and I don't think there is a very easy answer. I'm very interested in your ideas on how to give the guy who plays 15 games a year, all in tournaments, and the guy who plays 40 games a month a good gaming experience.

Again, thanks for the feedback, and I'll see you next year at Adepticon, if not before then.

I admire the idea of the pure swiss system and the concept of having an undisputed winner is a nice change of pace but I do have to agree with Green Blow Fly that you may start to have an alarming rate of drop-outs if people know that even a single loss knocks them completely out of contention. Standard tournaments have this issue even with their ambiguously scored points systems, so I can only imagine what it will be like with everyone knowing that a single loss means they're out of it. This may be especially true with the games set at 2 hours for 2,000 points. If players are unable to finish their previous games, well. . .I know I'd consider packing it up and calling it a day if I wasn't managing to finish my games.

Ultimately a tournament with a bunch of drop-outs can still function fine (all you need is one ringer and the ability to re-organize your draws quickly on the fly), but I would think that a high level of drop-outs followed by a hasty re-organization period is going to make the 2 hour time limits even harder to swallow. I just don't see this as being an overall positive experience for many attendees. In other words, while the pure swiss system sounds awesome on paper, the reality is that it will likely have a negative effect on the tournament as a whole, and as such may end up being a detriment.

I can't say I'd be attending no matter what (I can only justify flying around to play 40K so much), but I know that if I was 'on the fence' about going these tournament rules would definitely discourage me from attending. 2,000 points at 2 hours in length for seven games over 2 days just sounds like a whole bunch of really, really rushed 40K games, many of which will almost certainly not end up being finished. That doesn't sound like fun to me personally, and if I feel that way I'm sure there are many other potential attendees who do as well.

Regardless of how you proceed, I wish you the best of luck. I have the utmost respect for all those who take the time to organize tournaments, as having witnessed it a little bit with Adepticon, I know how much time and effort it takes and how much crap you have to take from people who don't seem to realize just how hard it is. So good luck!

DarthDiggler wrote:I like the 1500pt tourney, so much so that Adepticon should make the Sunday 40k championships a 1500pt tourney. The game does play at a different level at 1500pts and units that aren't so good at 1850 are better at 1500pts.

I agree! I tried to get them to lower that tournament to 1,500 points last year. I think I'll have to try even harder for next year! There was still at least one game that ended up being 1/2 hour short and I know I only ended up getting to turn 4 in that game. . .I think 1,500 point games are still very fun and they allow so much more breathing room for the inevitable tournament hiccups.

realgenius wrote:
Having seen both sides myself, it takes a lot of practice to get the point where you can play 2000 points confidently in 2 hours. The first year I was here I don't think I completed a single game in the 8 or 10 tournaments I played in. The second year, I think only one or two (out of 15) tournament games weren't finished in 2 hours. The main difference between me two years ago and now is that now I know my army better, know the rules a lot better, and have MUCH greater knowledge of my opponents' armies.

I dont have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

yakface wrote:

I can't say I'd be attending no matter what (I can only justify flying around to play 40K so much), but I know that if I was 'on the fence' about going these tournament rules would definitely discourage me from attending. 2,000 points at 2 hours in length for seven games over 2 days just sounds like a whole bunch of really, really rushed 40K games, many of which will almost certainly not end up being finished. That doesn't sound like fun to me personally, and if I feel that way I'm sure there are many other potential attendees who do as well.

amen yak.....

I want to point out something else.. Having experiance in running LAN tournaments for computer games I can tell you that running a tournament at a national scale but trying to crowbar in regional play style and scoring systems tends to lead to alot of unhappy players and can doom an event. Remain flexible and remember theres going to be alot of non regional players who have spent alot of time and money to get to your tourny and play in it.

I think the whole "If I lose the first game I quit" notion is a bit obtuse. People that pay the money for entrance fees, gas, travel, hotel, etc. aren't just going to go "I quit" when they lose the first game. Many people go to tournies for the chance to play a lot of games. It's possible of course, but I doubt it would be any different than the people that quit in any tourney. I.E. quitters are quitters wherever they go, and your not going to create more quitters just because of a tourney format, especially if you know what your getting into before you go to the tourney.

As far as the demonhunter thing. A lot of people think that the allies rules were fine under 3rd edition but under 5th are a bit broken (I'm not saying I'm one of them mind you), so I can understand why they have ruled the way they have. It's their right and to suggest they have some seedy alterior motive is just wrong.

I see the speeding up of play a good thing and if this starts a trend I would welcome it. Whenever someone tries something new or different you always get the naysayers that are afraid of change. In a few years we may be looking back and thanking the BOLS guys for helping to change the tourney dynamic for the good.

I'm not from Austin and I won't be able to make the tourney, but I have run tournies before and I hate to see people jump all over tourney organizers and weep and nash teeth, before even going to the event.

GG

edited for typos

@Generalgrog

The thing is that most people aren't weeping and nashing out teeth. We've simply pointed out that the time constraints and format leave a lot to be desired. This is coming from a bunch of tourney regulars as well as one of the guys who helps run the largest 40k event in the US right now (correct me if i'm wrong Yak).

Speeding up is a good thing. I agree. I love the idea of an Ironman event. I don't even mind a swiss style event. But it's the combining of these things which will hurt the format. If I lose a game because someone from Ohio plays slower than is needed to finish and we only get 3 turns in and it takes me out of the running for the tournament as a whole then I'm going to be mildly frustrated to say the least.

As for quiting I doubt I would quit but that is because i've already paid so much to be there. I can say without a doubt that I won't be attending based on the structure of the tournament and that's more what the issue is. The structure will keep people from attending when the goal of any major event is to bring in as many people as you possibly can.

Hulksmash wrote:If I lose a game because someone from Ohio plays slower than is needed to finish and we only get 3 turns in and it takes me out of the running for the tournament as a whole then I'm going to be mildly frustrated to say the least.

Sorry, but I don't remember playing you!

Personally, I like the Adepticon format. There's the Gladiator for those that want to climb to the top of that mountain. And then there is the RTT-style on Sunday for those who don't want to slugging it out with Titans and Flyers. I think that's the bigger problem with a tourney like this. It's going to attract a lot of hardcore tourney players, but also some less competitive ones. When everyone has the same expectation, the tourney runs smoothly and people leave happy. When people have different expectations, that's whne you tend to have people feeling unsatisfied - either because they only got in 3 Turns and didn't get a massacre in a round, or because they got stomped on by a powerbuid.

zedsdead wrote:

I don't have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

It only took me about 2 weeks (so two games) playing in the local scene to adapt to the quicker play. It's really not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, in my opinion. It keeps you focused on the game, it forces you to plan ahead and it occasionally causes you to make hurried decisions, but ultimately I think it makes you a better player.

Now when I play I can easily get a 2,000 point game in under 2 hours and that's a friendly game with distractions, opponents getting phone calls, people stopping by to say hi, etc. All sorts of distractions you don't have in a tournament. Of course this doesn't take into account rules disputes, etc. but judges will be there to solve those quickly. I just really think people should be open to trying something new before calling it hopelessly doomed to fail.

If the quicker tournament play isn't your thing there's always the big narrative games, which I'll be participating in. It's going to be tons of fun, and I hope some of you guys reconsider attending. As realgenius mentioned, there's tons of great food, live music, oh yeah, and the most beautiful women in the southwest!

Do you play horde or MEQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I didn't catch from the FAQ-do Valkyries count for objective disputing or objective taking purposes (with troops in them) or do they count they full height (aka NO).

Lol, my family lived in Austin (well, Round Rock) for 8 years and the only bad thing about it was the friggin heat in summer. 6th St is in my opinion better than mardi gras most every weekend of the year

@Cadaver

I have no doubt you could adjust to it quickly but 2 weeks is still more time than anyone attending from outside the local area will have. It's the fact that you'll be facing people who havn't played in that format previously and that will slow things down. Not to mention the 5 minutes it takes to get a judge over to your table and to make a decision mean that you've just eaten up some of that precious time.

@dietrich

hehe, random example

And to be fair they are having seperate games and events running as well as a "consolation bracket" for people who get smoked the first day to keep them interested in playing the second day

I know several people from the Houston area that are jazzed about attending the themed 3,000 events. Its unusual and sounds fun.

Hulksmash wrote:And to be fair they are having seperate games and events running as well as a "consolation bracket" for people who get smoked the first day to keep them interested in playing the second day

Not only that, but a Consolation bracket with prize support for Overall, Best General and Sportsmanship.

zedsdead wrote:I dont have 2 years to get to know my opponents or get used to a 2000 point game played in 2 hrs. I think you have pretty much summed up why some people will not attend this event.

I didn't say get to know my opponents, but get to know their armies. If you know enough about 40k (which I didn't) then you will have no problem playing 2000 points in 2 hours. If the 40k tournament isn't to your liking, I recommend the 40 Narrative games, I think they are going to be really awesome.

But by all means, don't attend. If you don't like the rules, no one is forcing you to come down. And if attendance is low, then maybe the format will change next year.

But it isn't going to change for this year.

People usually resist change, that's just human nature. I was just trying to point out, coming from thinking that 2000 points in two hours was impossible, that I was wrong. It doesn't take two years to figure it out, unless you are like me and really didn't know as much as you thought before-hand. (To be fair, this was also the transition from 4th to 5th edition and that slowed a lot of my games down as I got used to 5th.)

Frazzled wrote:Do you play horde or MEQ?

I either play foot or Mech Eldar, Black Templars with 50-90 models, or a 120 model Ork army. Haven't had trouble with any of them.

Regarding Valkyries, I have not checked the FAQ on this (since I'm volunteering not playing I haven't read all the stuff thoroughly), but locally it is measured like assaulting a skimmer: either the base or the hull for scoring. Otherwise Valks could never score/contest because of that dumb, high flight stand. And really, troops couldn't disembark either, since they'd have be be hanging in mid-air 2" away from the access points.

Thanks for the reasoned responses. A few of my own below.

Regarding the Swiss System - I'm afraid my expressing a desire to have a Swiss System caused some confusion. We are not doing a pure Swiss System, as that is too great of a departure from the accepted standard, and cuts out all scoring except wins and losses. The only element of a Swiss System we have going is enough games to allow for a "true winner", but, due to the multifacted scoring, the winner may not be an undefeated player. I apologize for the confusion.

Regarding Time Limits, Number of Games, and Point Limits - I'm considering all of these issues as one connected issue, as changing one affects the others. I appreciate the thoughtful responses given on these issues.

Valkyries and Objectives - Per our FAQ, all objectives have infinite height, so the height of the Valkyrie in no way impedes their passengers from contesting objectives.

@ Fetterkey - In fact, the opposite was true - we had too many strong Imperial armies and wanted to give the poor traitors and xenos a more level playing field. After spending some time working armies we determined that IG + Inquisition Armies would be the de facto best choice if allowed (Furious Charge on Grey Knight Terminators, Mystics + Demolisher Squadrons, Scouting Penitent Engines, the list goes on) and have too many locals who could field that sort of army. Our rules allow very strong Inquisitorial armies to be built, but limit the madness to some degree.

Thanks to those of you who gave feedback.

EDIT - INAT FAQ - I answered the question of "Why not use the INAT?" on our blog, but figured it's worth repeating at the home of the INAT's chief. We are using the INAT FAQ as a basis for judging decisions, and only included a small FAQ/House Rules bit to update based on the new IG book and a few other questions. Next year, when we have more time for players to prepare, I plan to use INAT and not have a separate FAQ. With the short time between our announcement and our tournament, I did not want to ask the players to learn the whole INAT. I personally use the INAT in just the way I would use any GW rules document (probably because I can't keep them separae in my old addled brain, but...)

Frazzled wrote:Do you play horde or MEQ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I didn't catch from the FAQ-do Valkyries count for objective disputing or objective taking purposes (with troops in them) or do they count they full height (aka NO).

I play Mechanized Death Guard and Daemons. So a little of both, but horde players here don't have a problem playing in two hours or less. It's also just a very competitive local scene and stuff dies quick in games, so by turn 3 or 4 there's not nearly as much you have to move around, or isn't locked in close combat.

Hulksmash wrote:Lol, my family lived in Austin (well, Round Rock) for 8 years and the only bad thing about it was the friggin heat in summer. 6th St is in my opinion better than mardi gras most every weekend of the year

@Cadaver

I have no doubt you could adjust to it quickly but 2 weeks is still more time than anyone attending from outside the local area will have. It's the fact that you'll be facing people who havn't played in that format previously and that will slow things down. Not to mention the 5 minutes it takes to get a judge over to your table and to make a decision mean that you've just eaten up some of that precious time.

Unfortunately, 6th street sucks now. It's mostly gone super ghetto, but there's still the high number of college kids there too. 5th street and 4th street is alot better now, in my opinion, but maybe it's just cause I'm getting older.

Anyway, I'm sure it's not going to please everyone and maybe it's not for some people. Hell, I'm not playing in it, but I'm not a huge tournament player and I'm just really more excited about some big, themed Apoc battles in the narrative gaming. I don't get to play that kind of game much so it's more interesting to me personally. That and I don't want to drive across town for 11a.m. game times. It may be a big Con right in my backyard, but it's still a weekend and I have drinking to do. Late nights out and early morning gaming don't make a happy Cadaver. But I think the BoLS crew has done a good job of having something for everyone and I think everyone should have a good time regardless of what they will participate in.

but I'm not a huge tournament player and I'm just really more excited about some big, themed Apoc battles in the narrative gaming. I don't get to play that kind of game much so it's more interesting to me personally.

Thats what my Houston player comrades are jazzed about.

Deep in the heart of Tejas!



Good replies JWolf. The Inq/Mystics unit is so damn gehy I would never play it. Good to hear that it now sounds like a more balanced approach to determining best overall.

Still plenty of time to drop the points a bit. Good luck with it.

G

jwolf wrote:@ Fetterkey - In fact, the opposite was true - we had too many strong Imperial armies and wanted to give the poor traitors and xenos a more level playing field. After spending some time working armies we determined that IG + Inquisition Armies would be the de facto best choice if allowed (Furious Charge on Grey Knight Terminators, Mystics + Demolisher Squadrons, Scouting Penitent Engines, the list goes on) and have too many locals who could field that sort of army. Our rules allow very strong Inquisitorial armies to be built, but limit the madness to some degree.

I don't trust your opinion on what's good, especially given your BoLS editorials on the subject.

I also don't think tournaments should start banning specific selections/options/units based on some vague perception that they're too good, especially before there are any results to confirm or deny that perception. Many of the "too good" lists of the past have turned out to be merely decent or else actually bad once people figured out how to fight them-- remember when Nob Bikerz or 4th edition Drop Pods were "too good?" Arbitrarily constraining army design like this lowers the level of play and prevents people from making proper conclusions about the metagame and current power level of different lists.

Fetterkey your fiction reviews leave a lot lacking I hate to say.

G

Look fetterkey obviously has an axe to grind here. The bottomline... if you don't like the format.... just don't go to it. Stop whining.


GG

generalgrog wrote:Look fetterkey obviously has an axe to grind here. The bottomline... if you don't like the format.... just don't go to it. Stop whining.


GG

Still doesn't change the fact that he's, you know, completely right. The format is bad.

Wise man once say

Play the game by all of the rules, don’t expect your house rules to become the standard.

He also say

There is no unbeatable list, no perfect build, and lists themselves don’t care at all if they win or lose. Any list can be fun or terrible to play against, so don’t roll your eyes at a list and groan, make the best of it and move on....If your local tournaments are being dominated by particular lists, build to beat those lists yourself.

Where he go? :}

Danny Internets wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Look fetterkey obviously has an axe to grind here. The bottomline... if you don't like the format.... just don't go to it. Stop whining.


GG

Still doesn't change the fact that he's, you know, completely right. The format is bad.

You forgot to add.... IN MY OPNINION.

Opinions are great aren't they?

GG

Well the fact that it's coming out of his mouth means it's his opinion, doesn't it?

I say we should get opinion tags to avoid further confusion!

This thread is deteriorating. Please keep it polite with the disagreements (and generalgrog said it best: if you don't like it, don't go).

Sidstyler wrote:Well the fact that it's coming out of his mouth means it's his opinion, doesn't it?

I say we should get opinion tags to avoid further confusion!

Well some people seem to think that their opinions are in indeed fact.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Well the fact that it's coming out of his mouth means it's his opinion, doesn't it?

I say we should get opinion tags to avoid further confusion!

Well some people seem to think that their opinions are in indeed fact.

GG

Heh. I've seen your posts in the OT forum...


I tend to agree with Yak's points but frankly the tournament isn't going to change now so the only thing to do is sit back and wait to see how it goes. Either jwolf is going to be right or Yak is going to be right and then one of them can gloat.

Ozymandias wrote:Either jwolf is going to be right or Yak is going to be right and then one of them can gloat.

I really hope for no gloating either way. But, hey, this is the Internet. Low expectations.

Yak doesn't strike me as the kinda guy that gloats. I mean he looks like Connery and as far as I know the gloating was always against him when he's strapped to a table with a DOOM laser aimed at his pride or something like that.

Ok apparently I need a smiley or something so that people know I'm joking about the gloating bit.

What I tried to do with this post is try to inform the organizers of the event of a huge potential problem.

I play almost exclusively in tournaments, and the bigger the better. I like the format and the competition.

What I do not like is being rushed. I play small armies and I play fast, but I still have trouble finishing games against the wrong player/armies. Greg (Inquisitor Malice) Sparks told me that I have to keep a timer on the table (normally a cell phone) to constantly be aware of the time (even) when it was projected on the wall. He also told me that I have to hurry my opponent along if they are taking to long by constantly reminding them of the time, and keep telling them that when the time is close to the end of the game tell them that we are getting to at least turn #5 no matter what.

That is one way of dealing with the time issue, but I do not want to constantly pressure my opponents with the time, and I do not want to be under the same pressure. I find it not enjoyable.

I travel far for tournaments. I drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento and from Jacksonville to Tampa (both 5+ hours). I also fly to Chitown for Adepticon and the Baltimore GT, so I am willing to pay some $$$ for a good time.

But before I play $250 to fly to Austin, $250 for the hotel room and $45 for the tournament I need to know at least in theory they are doing everything right.

Unfortunately I have concerns and I guess I am the problem because I should be able to finish a 2000 point game against Orks in 2 hours, but since I can’t I have to pass. It is too bad because they canceled the GTs, I have been Jonesing for a good tournament and I like the 7 game format and the pseudo -Swiss style.

Blackmoor wrote:Unfortunately I have concerns and I guess I am the problem because I should be able to finish a 2000 point game against Orks in 2 hours, but since I can’t I have to pass.

It is kinda funny because you and JWolf are probably exactly on the same page; if you want to talk being slow-played by Orks, then JWolf is the man to talk to. He'll talk your ear off.

In fact, that specific problem was the source of a long argument between he and I (and the rest of the locals) in our local tournament off-season. As a result of deliberate slow-playing in local tournaments, one game store has instituted a policy that if you don't finish at least one of your three games in the day you can be excluded from prizes. So if you slow-play your way to victory, you could get DQ'ed. I personally was against it (especially with my track record of not finishing games), but it turns out that it hasn't even come up this year (6 monthly tournaments into the season). I did notice that this type of penalty is not in place for BoLSCon, and I'm happy to see that.

It is my hope that reports from the event are good and you decide to join us next year. For competitive gaming, Austin really is one of the best places to be.

Blackmoor wrote:What I tried to do with this post is try to inform the organizers of the event of a huge potential problem.

I play almost exclusively in tournaments, and the bigger the better. I like the format and the competition.

What I do not like is being rushed. I play small armies and I play fast, but I still have trouble finishing games against the wrong player/armies. Greg (Inquisitor Malice) Sparks told me that I have to keep a timer on the table (normally a cell phone) to constantly be aware of the time (even) when it was projected on the wall. He also told me that I have to hurry my opponent along if they are taking to long by constantly reminding them of the time, and keep telling them that when the time is close to the end of the game tell them that we are getting to at least turn #5 no matter what.

That is one way of dealing with the time issue, but I do not want to constantly pressure my opponents with the time, and I do not want to be under the same pressure. I find it not enjoyable.

I travel far for tournaments. I drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento and from Jacksonville to Tampa (both 5+ hours). I also fly to Chitown for Adepticon and the Baltimore GT, so I am willing to pay some $$$ for a good time.

But before I play $250 to fly to Austin, $250 for the hotel room and $45 for the tournament I need to know at least in theory they are doing everything right.

Unfortunately I have concerns and I guess I am the problem because I should be able to finish a 2000 point game against Orks in 2 hours, but since I can’t I have to pass. It is too bad because they canceled the GTs, I have been Jonesing for a good tournament and I like the 7 game format and the pseudo -Swiss style.

Oh come on Allan. You need to come down here to play. I need to buy you at least three or four drinks

and maybe you too Steve

I looked over the BoLS FAQ and was pleasantly surprised. It's only 12 pages and I agree with most the rulings so kudos to the BoLS crew on a good job. Still I think you should strongly consider lowering the points a bit. If you cranked the time per round up to 2.5 hours the first day that is 2 extra hours and 1.5 hours the second day... That's a lot of extra time for sure and why I suggest thinking about lowering the points. However at the end of the day it's your tournament so you should run it as you wish. If it all goes off without a hitch you'll reap the praise. Again I wish you the best of luck wif it. I think this has lots of potential. Like I said earlier my mom is coming down for a visit that weekend so I can't play this year but if I hear a lot of good things I'll certainly consider playing next year 4 sho.

: )

G

2000 points in two hours? LOL! They're begging for a bunch of nidzilla/nob biker/deffwing w/ shrike armies aren't they?

I'm new to the Austin area. At a recent tourney with 2k/2hr turns I took a nid list that had roughly 80 models, 60+ of which were without-number gaunts. It was a list that was active in all three phases of the game. I played against 100% foot slogging marines, tau, and daemons, and I finished all three games within time, with only 1 game going up to the final minute. I had my reservations about the time limits too, but so long as you know your army it's not bad at all.

Also, speaking towards the no-allies rule: Maybe 1/2 the people in the community are running guard right now. If disallowing guard & marines the ability to take inquisitorial allies means we won't see an assassin with a potential assault 20 AP2 pistol, or that daemons other deep striking armies stay viable, then I'm all for it. People who play an inquisition force can still induct to keep those forces strong vs the newer lists.


SteveW

SteveW wrote:Also, speaking towards the no-allies rule: Maybe 1/2 the people in the community are running guard right now. If disallowing guard & marines the ability to take inquisitorial allies means we won't see an assassin with a potential assault 20 AP2 pistol, or that daemons other deep striking armies stay viable, then I'm all for it. People who play an inquisition force can still induct to keep those forces strong vs the newer lists.


SteveW

The Culexus Assassin animus spam, like the Psyker Battle Squad that is needed to use it effectively, is a gimmick, and not even a powerful gimmick like Nob Bikers. Regardless of whether Inquisition units are actually good, though, restricting them hurts the state of the metagame as a whole by making the results of this tournament uncharacteristic of how the game is normally played and preventing people from drawing accurate conclusions from its results.

Placing restrictions on any race or army that Game Workshops allows in 40k is pure cow poop put in place to allow certain deep striking and lash welding armies to operated unhindered in a way not forecast by Game Workshops. The "They are too Powerful" thread is borne out by how many 1st, 2nd, or third place finishes in how many tourneys ?

Lets ban those Valks next.

Then lets go after Caprice armor, those IG don't need any stinking 4 saves, 5 should be enough.


"People who play an inquisition force can still induct to keep those forces strong vs the newer lists. "

Thank you for telling me how to play my army. I can now enjoy getting lashed all over the board and watch Deep striking marines tear up my HQ with no fear of them getting shot out of the sky.

Least any one doubt my opinion of these cheesy and beady tactics devised to help certain armies advance at BOLS and then still call it a 40K Event, let me say this

BOLS 2009 should be bypassed by all players this year.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Placing restrictions on any race or army that Game Workshops allows in 40k is pure cow poop put in place to allow certain deep striking and lash welding armies to operated unhindered in a way not forecast by Game Workshops.

Thank you for telling me how to play my army. I can now enjoy getting lashed all over the board and watch Deep striking marines tear up my HQ with no fear of them getting shot out of the sky.

Least any one doubt my opinion of these cheesy and beady tactics devised to help certain armies advance at BOLS and then still call it a 40K Event, let me say this....

Fetterkey wrote:restricting them hurts the state of the metagame as a whole by making the results of this tournament uncharacteristic of how the game is normally played and preventing people from drawing accurate conclusions from its results.

Note- the quotes above are merely the most recent representative examples of individuals having disagreements with the tourney rules. The ideas expressed in the quotes above have been expressed multiple times throughout this thread by multiple individuals. My comments are not directed towards any specific person.


I'm not playing in the 40k tourney; I'm playing in the narrative events, so I have no personal stake in any of this. I'm just trying to point out the reasoning (as I understand it) behind some of the decisions especially after many posters have made completely unfounded accusations (such as a supposed desire to make lash armies unbeatable), and to give evidence that a 2k game in 2hrs isn't unreasonable.

Does it really matter if the results are applicable to the meta for every other tournament? Seriously, does it? Custom scenarios throw off the meta too, but I see very few complaints about having those. An argument could easily be made that being able to adjust tactics, army lists, and playstyles to different situations is the sign of a great general/player.

If you don't like the format, then don't play. Just consider this: every time you play in a tourney with a composition score you are allowing others to influence how you play your army and what is considered to be "fair". Why aren't the feral orks or squats, or lost and the damned lists legal? It's because someone decided they were no longer fair or balanced under the current rules. Anyone who has played in the adepticon gladiator has played under rules that are quite different from the normal 40k rules and allow models that arguably unbalance the game far more than disallowing allies, and yet the gladiator seems to be one of the most anticipated tournaments of the year.

As I said above, if you don't like the format, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play. But please at least be polite with your comments and quit the whining & bi***ing, and unfounded accusations about why the rules were set the way they are. I've only known the BOLS guys personally for a couple months, but they're good guys and I feel safe saying that they were only trying to do what they think is best for the game and the tournament. You may disagree with those decisions, and if so, then you have the right to run your own convention using the rules you think are best. I'm sure they would welcome your efforts.


SteveW

Personally my only beef is with the overall game time. As for restricting allies into space marines and guard from the WH/DH codexes i'm fine with that. I think a unit that everyone uses (2 mystics w/Inq.) is far to cheap for the current game. The codex is old and based around a time when you only got to deepstrike maybe 1 game in 3 at a tournament. They weren't designed with the idea of purely deepstriking armies (DoC). Though I will say they make a lot of sense in a DH list against DoC but should cost more.

And to be fair guys it's a little unreasonable to assume they are slanting the tournament in their favor by denying these units. I'll take it at face value that they are tired of gimmick ally rules and decided to say the heck with it.

I won't be attending simply because of the time limit. But if it was only a 6 hour drive or even if I was only in lubbock i'd head down for the weekend. It's the cost of the flight and not knowing if i'd get in my full games that keeps me from attending. I just don't want to pay good money to attend and not finish due to my opponents.

Attending or not I have to agree w/Steve. Don't assign motives that aren't there and are far more complicated than the probable reality.

LOL at the post below me

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

BOLS 2009 should be bypassed by all players this year.

You are certainly free to host your own gaming convention and set the rules as you think they should be set. I'm sure since you know how it should be organized you will have no problem setting one up yourself that is to your liking.

In the meantime, since GW isn't hosting GTs the rest of us will just have to make due will the Cons that others are kind enough to pour their time, money and energy into just so other gamers can have a great weekend. But I'm sure you are more than willing to show the rest of us here at Dakka the right way to do it.

So when will you be hosting a proper gaming Con in your city? I'll make sure to mark it on my calendar. Will you be able to get $4k+ in prize support for us, or can you top that as well?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:BOLS 2009 should be bypassed by all players this year.

Keep it to yourself.

I think it's rather absurd to try and complain that your 45 point mystic squad can't be used to completely screw over every army with a lot of deep striking.

Because, you know, there's nothing else you can do against deep striking units! Every Imperial codex has a crippling weakness against deep striking units, that can only be compensated for with that allied mystic squad.

SteveW wrote:I've only known the BOLS guys personally for a couple months, but they're good guys and I feel safe saying that they were only trying to do what they think is best for the game and the tournament.

I agree with you there-- that's why I'm offering my advice. If I thought that the BoLS guys were trying to hurt the game, I wouldn't make these suggestions. I think that they are in fact trying to to what's best for the game, but that some of their rules (specifically, the ban on Inquisition units and the Army Builder stuff) are in fact hurting the game, so I'm suggesting that they change those rules.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think it's rather absurd to try and complain that your 45 point mystic squad can't be used to completely screw over every army with a lot of deep striking.

I don't use Mystics.

That was more in response to Needle's insinuation that deepstriking space marines would overrun people's armies without the mystics to balance them out.

And banning Inquisition units throws off the game far less than special missions often do; take some of the 'Ard Boys kill point rewrites for example.

The problem is BOLS has excluded units Game Workshops allows for 40K in its current rules.

At what point does a 40k tourney cease to be a 40k tourney and something else.

How many rules have to be thrown out?

If we ban Inquisitional allies and everyone says that ok, not that many folks will care and we think its still official 40k, what next?

Lash are used to abuse, we talking about banning them? How about PBS's, nobody but Imperials like them, lets ban them, is it still an official 40k Tourney?

Everyone hates Horde armies when trying to run an event in a certain time frame.

BOLS could ban Horde armies, all those Orcs and Nids, would help a lot with the time problems everyone is talking about.

How does that sound, still official 40k tourney? Think Game Workshops would agree?

Banning a small thing in a regional 40k event will lead to other tourneys elsewhere.

For those who are OK with the banning of Mystics and Psychic Hoods for IG armies, suppose it was a ban of Deep Striking or Valkyries, some folks have problems with those, would you be OK with banning them and still call it 40k? Would Game Workshops?

Mark my words you will have folks show up at BOLS and pull out their Inquistional Allies.

When BOLS tells them those are not allowed and they should have read all of the BOLS non 40K rules their response will be.

Is this not a 40k Tourney using the official current Game Workshops rules ? And BOLS will respond yeah but...... we felt like.....

How many violations of the Game Workshops rules makes a tourney not a 40k tourney?

One?

Two?

Which website did I read the articlies on about

Play the game by all of the rules, don’t expect your house rules to become the standard.

and

There is no unbeatable list, no perfect build, and lists themselves don’t care at all if they win or lose. Any list can be fun or terrible to play against, so don’t roll your eyes at a list and groan, make the best of it and move on....If your local tournaments are being dominated by particular lists, build to beat those lists yourself.

OH YEAH, it was BOLS

Lol

Needle they aren't banning armies. They aren't banning units in armies that are in their own book. They are banning units being allied from a 3rd edition codex to 2 of the most modern codexes.

This is being done probably for several reasons one of which is it truly is a crutch and a gimmick that doesn't have a place in the game. I guarentee that those units won't be available once the re-write goes thru as 40k has moved to an everything in your codex kind of game. So think of it as getting you ready for the future

Your overreacting more than a little here. This event (the main tournament) is obviously geared towards more competative players and generally competative players read the rules before they show up. Hence how this thread got started when Blackmoor read the rules about the tourney before attending.

@fetterkey

I agree with you about the required use of army builder. A lot of hobbyists don't have it and don't want to spend the money and it is asking a little to much, in my opinion, to force everyone to use army builder. But as stated above I have no problem disallowing units not found in your own codex.

Over ruling the Game Workshops Books and their current FAQ's is a bad idea for a major tourney to take.

Really do not care what game stopping thing they are trying to stop. The more offensive the thing is the quicker Game Workshops will issue a updated FAQ to address it. Until then one lives with it.

Live within the rules or don't. There is no third choice.

The current BOLS tourney will not live within the Official rules for 40K as written by Game Workshops.

It is a precedent that should not be supported.

Wow.....

Every tournament has comp rules and sportsmanship scores. All of them are different for the most part too. Show me where in their FAQ's, codexes, and rule book. These things have far more impact on the winner of a tourney than the disallowing of a single unit. GW allows you to run your tournament however you'd like. They managed to get a ton of prize support, some of it from GW I'd assume, which means that obviously GW doesn't have a problem with it.

Why are you dictating other peoples hobby to them? I might not agree with some of the things they are doing but at least their supporting the hobby as a whole.

Mountain out of molehill syndrome in full effect now...

Tournaments have a time limit, that is not part of Games Workshop's rules.

Tournaments usually have missions that are not part of Games Workshop's rules.

As said, tournaments usually have scores for painting, or sportsmanship, or army composition, and none of those things are part of Games Workshop's rules.

Games Workshop doesn't care, they have never had a problem with their rules being changed by other gaming groups.

sticking this out there for consideration..

I was part of a RTT over last weekend at Origins Game Fair in Columbus. There were 4 of us as staff/judges.

We had 16 players, and started at 10am. 1750 points, 2 hour game time, plus 30 minutes down time between sessions.

During MOST of the game sessions, all players finished the games to conclusions. There were 2 or so per session that were called by time, and those were 6 or 7 turn games. Some games were less than an hour.

We decided, in the "after RTT" talk, that 1750 was a really good points value for the time. No one was rushed, and we had no problems with players wandering off during the null time. (at Origins, almost everyone wanted to run thru the Exhibitor Hall or do something interesting).

We had no spoiled players, and everyone seemed to have a ball.

I do NOT think it would have gone as well if we had gone the 2k in 2 hour route..

-Porkuslime

Please, Allies mixed with IG is very potent. They were a powerful combo even before the new IG codex. I have played with and against the combos.

As for time constraints: I know how to play fast but I am not sure my opponent does. I would love to go but I am a victim of the bad economy.

thehod wrote:Please, Allies mixed with IG is very potent. They were a powerful combo even before the new IG codex. I have played with and against the combos.

As for time constraints: I know how to play fast but I am not sure my opponent does. I would love to go but I am a victim of the bad economy.

You should have brought that up with Goatboy when you were on the phone with him.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote: The more offensive the thing is the quicker Game Workshops will issue a updated FAQ to address it.

I almost spit out my drink when I read this, becasue it is so laughably untrue.

Needle....some advice. You're really starting to sound like one of those internet conspiracy theorists now, trying to support an unsupportable position.

Your point has been duly noted.

We get it......... you don't like the BOLSCON format. Now move on.


GG

Blackmoor wrote:

thehod wrote:Please, Allies mixed with IG is very potent. They were a powerful combo even before the new IG codex. I have played with and against the combos.

As for time constraints: I know how to play fast but I am not sure my opponent does. I would love to go but I am a victim of the bad economy.

You should have brought that up with Goatboy when you were on the phone with him.

I had like 8-9 different things to say but got cut off due to time constraints. Never really did call in before on 40k radio.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/07/40k-editorial-playing-fast-is-key-to.html

I've often thought "man, I wish this guy was playing faster," especially during the tedium of long deployment phases, yet have never thought "man, I wish this guy was playing slower." Fast play can definitely improve the "fun level" of a game, and if, like the editorial seems to claim, it can yield tactical benefits as well, I'm all for it!

Just a couple of comments and opinions:

BOLS has stepped up and they are running a tournament. GW has canceled theirs for at least this year. BOLS should be commended and supported for this.

It's cool to give thoughts/opinions in a constructive manner. However, at the end of the day - the BOLS guys are the ones setting up the tourney, they are posting the rules in advance, and things are up front and understandable.

Individually, we get to decide if we like the format and want to play or not. Personally, it sounds like fun - but unfortunately way to close to the Ms. birthday for me to go. Maybe next year.

Thanks and best of luck with the tourney to the BOLS guys. For those of us that love the hobby - it's a good thing.

I agree with Al. I wished I had the money this year to go but I would go especially the brutality of 7 games definitely separates the pack.

I have been thinking about going to BoLSCon after what JWolf has said. I have been checking Airline prices and I have also been thinking about taking a week of vacation and driving over there. Now I am very glad that I have not spent any money yet.

After the ‘Ard Boyz now I know that I should be not attending BoLSCon. In the local ‘Ardboyz I won my first 2 games and I was in the running to win it all. In the 3rd game I was matched up against an 80 model SoB army. We made it all the way to turn #4 before the game ended. I ended up with a major loss. If the game went one more turn I would have gotten the massacre. There is nothing more frustrating than knowing that you would have won if the game went another turn.

If you have people who do not play full games in your tournament there is no way to have a legitimate winner.

We made it a point to record our game times for 'Ard Boys in Austin. There was only a single game that went until time was called. My longest game took an hour and a half. I really don't understand why it is so difficult for players to finish games quickly.

bushidoredpanda wrote:I really don't understand why it is so difficult for players to finish games quickly.

As many, many others have already said, it usually has to do with horde armies and/or not knowing the rules.

"Hey! Hey! Hey! Hurry up moving your stuff, there's someone else who needs to win a game here!"

BrookM wrote:http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/07/40k-editorial-playing-fast-is-key-to.html

Yeah, the timing of this editorial was rather good, wasn't it?

I was all Jazzed about going to BOLSCON, Im pretty local in Dallas, and the drive isnt all that bad. Paid for my hotel and registration.

I just got done playing Ard Boyz yesterday, I am not all that jazzed up to play in the con now...

Granted 2500 pts in 2 hours is a bit more then 2000 pts. My 1st 2 battles only got to turn 3, and the last one did turn 5..

I REALLY dont look foward to 7 rushed games. Especially with this Dice Down rule, talk about a game killer with that rule.

I am not a 40k expert, Ive played for 10 years, but its more like 1-2 games a month, I have a family, job and other responsibilities that keep me tied up. Do I know my rules, sure... but that doesnt mean my opponent does, and lets face it there are alot of obscure rules out there..

Is it possible to switch from the 40k tourney to the narrative? I am going to have fun, not be stressed by the clock and getting the last shot in...

Thanks,
Nick

In my first ‘Ard Boyz tournament I played a somewhat small Space Wolf army. It was Mech and I had about 45 models. I played against 3 MEQ armies and finished early in all 3 games.

In my second ‘Ard Boyz I played an all foot Eldar army with around 100 models. I played against a large Dark Eldar army and finished on time, then I played against a small Black Templar army and finished on time, and then I played against a giant SoB army and we got to turn #4.

So yes, if you play a small army and play against other small armies you can finish on time. But if you play a large army and play against another large army you are going to be in trouble. It has to do with the size of the army, the dice being rolled, the models being moved, etc.

I would imagine that the BoLS guys play what the local meta game that leans toward Mech armies, small expensive seer councils, etc.

BrookM wrote:http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/07/40k-editorial-playing-fast-is-key-to.html

And if you look at the comments, there are a lot of people who are not all the interested in playing really fast.

Chapterhouse wrote:
Granted 2500 pts in 2 hours is a bit more then 2000 pts. My 1st 2 battles only got to turn 3, and the last one did turn 5..

Thanks,
Nick

Each round of the 'Ard Boyz should have been 2.5 hours so I hope that is what you were given. But the set up and the initial stages are what take the longest so the 'Ard 'Boyz actually will seem like more time than 2000 points in 2 hours.

I've always wanted a 1750 speed tournament where your score is not only what you destroy etc.. but what your end time is at the end of the match.

You could just use chess clocks.


That would be a fething awesome tournament.

If you're in a rush, if you're too busy to play at a leisurely pace, if you somehow need to speed things up, play 40k in 40 minutes.

You are right, it was 2.5 hours, between set up and rule reading and army list reading, it ends up being 2 hours.

I was playing this list:
1 LR Redeemer
2 Preds
1 Whirlwind
3 10 man tactical squads, 1 Razorback, 1 Droppod
5 Terminators
10 Assault Marines - Droppod
2 Dreadnoughts with Droppods
2 HQ Characters

That is alot to mess with, also consider all the Droppodding and I outflanked anything I wanted... add your tournament thinking and trying to truly win and it makes a big issue on time. BOLSCON will be just as hard with only 2 hours total - setup, playtime, etc.

Darkwynn wrote:

djphranq wrote:It looks like it could be fun but yeah... 2000 pts in 2hrs seems pretty tight.

Darkwynn here from the Bols crew.

A lot of us finish our games way under the two hour mark. I know Jwolf and I playing 2000 point games can finish under a hour 90% of the time and that is him playing guard and me playing Black Templar hoard. I know we are not the norm but if you want to play competitive then join the 40k touranment otherwise you might want to check out the narrative which focus more on the hobby aspects.

If you guys can't finish a game in two hours at 2000 points I don't know what to say but play quicker? Also, As Blackmoor knows me too we will have no tolerance for Slow playing period if it is brought up we will give a warning by basis and if need be I will put a judge there to watch it.

I would just like to add that I played the ‘Ard Boyz tournament in Phoenix. I have not played much 40k in the local area, so this was one of my first tournaments here.

It came as a surprise at how many rules disputes that we had during my games. So we had to look up the rules and have a judge come over all of the time, and this prolonged our games a great deal.

To give you an example, I was being hit by a template from a land raider redeemer and he was counting models whose bases were not under the template but whose swords and guns were under it. After looking it up in the rule book, we called a judge over and he ruled in favor of my opponent.

When you are playing with friends you play by the same house rules, and conventions. When you play with different people all over the country they all play by different house rules and that is one of the many reasons why it takes longer to play strangers than friends.

You got screwed with that ruling Blackmoor. Man I want to take a vacation to the Valley of the sun so bad!

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Over ruling the Game Workshops Books and their current FAQ's is a bad idea for a major tourney to take.

Really do not care what game stopping thing they are trying to stop. The more offensive the thing is the quicker Game Workshops will issue a updated FAQ to address it. Until then one lives with it.

Live within the rules or don't. There is no third choice.

The current BOLS tourney will not live within the Official rules for 40K as written by Game Workshops.

It is a precedent that should not be supported.

its obvious when you take certain DH/WH units that the current IG codex was not written to accomodate them. For example, if you take IG with allied marines and take terminators you cannot fit 12 into a valk, but gk terminators can.

In all honesty although its not as fun there are multiple things in the DH/WH codex that were obviously not thought of and meant to be happeninig in coordination with the current 5th edition codex, rather than ban specific units its easier to just make the blanket statement.

and honestly to whomever said without mystics DSing lash/marine armies are unstoppables!!!one111!!eleven!! im pretty sure a DSing lash/marine army doesnt instantly win against non imperial armies that cannot take mystics and have no allied codex rules.