A Space Marine and a Dark Angle are playing against two Eldar players.

Space Marines game end on 5

Dark Angels ends on turn 6.

Space Marine didin't get a chance to catch up, though he would have definitely done so in turn six.

Dark Angel was losing in turn 5 but turned it around and beat 'em on turn 6.

So basically the space Marine lost on a fluky dice in a situation he could have won and the Dark Eldar won because of the fluky die.

And my question is, should we really be using the "ends on 5" roll for tournies of skill? Rushing objectives turn 5 would happen in turn 6 if there were six, andin 7 if there were seven. But that rush is the defining characteristic of most games now. A soldier might never do something so bold as to put himself out in the open when a battle is in itas waning hours to be shot at! But we are compelled by the idea we ight roll a 1 or 2...

Armies that rely on late game heroices to compete cant sometimes, while someone on atable right next to them got to do it. So do we know which of the two really deserved to move on?

Thats the conundrum when you tell fully 1/3 of your attendees that their game is over but everyone else can play on.

In casual; game its okay. No standings are on the line really and you're affecting no one elses standing. But in tournies you are. Had a heated debate over this. Thoughts?

The base questioon is, do you see any problrem with setting 6 rounds asthe tourney standard for a tournament No rolling. No 7th Round.?

C'est la Guerre I reckon.

It would certainly change the nature of the game so the variable turn length is a real major component of the game.

You argue that in a game of skill a dice roll to end the game shouldn't be used because it can be "fluky"?

Doesn't that mean that all dice rolling in the game should also be removed because a squad of Striking Scorpions could be beaten in an assault by Ratlings when we know it shouldn't happen? (Believe me to my dismay it can happen).

Therefore, if you want to remove one random element then remove them all. The skill in this game comes from being able to cope with all the variables that can befall an army.

Handing an army a gteed win on turn 5 , when playing objectives, makes the game even less balanced. You have to play assuming tye game will end turn 5, and plan accordingly.

Late game is turn 5, so if youre not playing it by then you have issues.

GW understood the need for random game length, and included it for a damn good reason. Tournamentz that remove this, as well as making all objective games ,are pooree as they are comping through bad mission design

Jancoran wrote: A soldier might never do something so bold as to put himself out in the open when a battle is in itas waning hours to be shot at! But we are compelled by the idea we ight roll a 1 or 2...

Battles don't generally have a set time limit. That soldier might very well 'put himself in the open' if the requirement is to capture the objective as quickly as possible.

Armies that rely on late game heroices to compete cant sometimes, while someone on atable right next to them got to do it. So do we know which of the two really deserved to move on?

It's not a matter of who deserved another turn, though. It's a matter of who planned around the fact that they can't predict exactly when the game would end.

The base questioon is, do you see any problrem with setting 6 rounds asthe tourney standard for a tournament No rolling. No 7th Round.?

Yes. And it's exactly the problem that random game length was designed to solve: it removes any risk for the player going second. He knows exactly when the game will end, so can leave his units where they are safe and just rush out unopposed on the last turn to grab objectives.

Random game length forces players to play more aggressively if they want to ensure that they have objectives at the end of the game. They have to move on the objectives earlier, and then they potentially have to hold them, rather than just rushing out at the end and saying 'I win'... and so it results in a more dynamic game.

No random game length means if you go last, on turn 5 you can guaranteed tank shock or move onto objectives knowing you won't ever have to hold that objective. This is a huge advantage for some armies with fast scoring vehicles. Its a huge disadvantage for foot armies.

Any change in the game dynamics can be interesting but be aware they are not fixing anything. They are actually drastically unbalancing certain aspects of the game.

I remember playing Squad Leader many years ago. That game had set length games and it made for some absolutely stupid goings on on the last turn.

It just doesn't work on a IGOUGO game system.

That sort of rubbish was one of the pros when I was looking at the 40k setup, a lot more variability in the game means you need to be a lot more careful with your planning.

Random game length is important.


It forces players to play as if the game ends on turn 5, but it has the chance for a complete upset as the game continues.

The random element shows who is the better general as it forces them to adapt to a changing battlefield situation.

As others have said, random game length is incredibly important to keeping 40k balanced.

Also, this isn't really YMDC. Alerting a mod now.

Jancoran wrote:So basically the space Marine lost on a fluky dice in a situation he could have won and the Dark Eldar won because of the fluky die.

You're saying that the result of a game of 40k can come down to the results of just a small number of die rolls?

I'm shocked, sir, shocked!



In all seriousness, 40k is a game of dice. The random element to the game is huge, and eventually becomes the only determining factor the more that other variables become controlled. If you want to play a game in a tournament setting where a single role of the dice can't potentially determine the winner, then you really shouldn't play 40k (or any other game based on dice).

No.

Serious competitive gaming requires consistency. You can put all that crap in the 'dex all you like, competition requires consistency. The rules should be bent if it allows for a more competitive environment, even if it's settled as one type of game mode at a national tournament.

That is to say, if you're expecting to accommodate even the smallest degree of a competitive atmosphere.

No, random gamelength has no place in serious tournies.
Then again 40K isn't, and never was, intended to be played in a serious tournament.

No amount of strange made-up "facts" are going to change that simple truth; 40k is not a game suitable for serious tournaments. Accept that and enjoy the game as it was intended.

It makes things fairer for foot-slogger armies. Jet bike armies would dominate in objectives if the rule was not included.

TedNugent, I have to say, you appear to be in the minority. Lol. By a lot.

The issue to me was fairness when I asked this question. Going second has a serious disadvantage: your strength is reduced before your opponents is. In return, you have a chance to counter whatever they just did, in the end.

Here's kind of an example:

No one is complaining about the first player blasting my Dark Eldar Wyche cult forces out of every transport they have in round 1 with 9 Broadsides + whatever. But everyone feels that the same Tau army should not be "disadvantaged" by the opponents ability to move what little he has left to the objectvie at the end (if indeed he has anything left). Youre also reliably guaranteeing the Tau yet another round to kill those forces who might try!

And the guy next to you, playing the same exact matchup gets another turn and you dont...

Those are the things i think about in relation to this. I'm laying the case out more than advocating the point. i think its worth discussing. As a Tournament organizer, the question is, is it fair?

Does the unfairness outweigh the benefit of having random game lengths? Dunno. that's why I'm asking. It seems there is a potent argument for both sides, but ultimately my decision will be driven by what people find more fun.

So if you all think it more fun to HAVE random game length, then thats probably what will happen. I just want to hear a volume of opinions and I want to hear answers to those specific concerns.

I like the random game length and think it should stay. To answer Jancoran's most recent post: Because I think it's fun is my only reason why.

"Do I camp on an objective during turn 5 and hope it ends or move out to double tap his approaching orks with rapid fire bolters and then move back on turn 6?"

"Do I rush forward with my landspeeder and contest his objective, thinking the game will end on turn 6? Or will he just crush it in close combat if he gets turn 7?"

I like having to make these calls. I like the gamble. But I understand that not everyone does.

As for if it's fair that the table next to you got 6 turns when you only had 5, I'm not sure what to say. It's still fair in the sense that both tables had a 4 in 6 chance of getting turn 6 and a 50/50 chance of getting turn 7.

Fair enough. the number of people who feel its better to have it than not have it seems to be heavily weighted. So it's probably better not to make a change there. This is the same response in various forms i have gotten elsewhere.

trouble with asking these questions is, you rarely get an answer. Instead you get insults towards anyone "who would" do it. I think you have to explore everything when you're trying to build a better mousetrap. Sometimes that exploration ends you where you started, as in this case. hehehe.

I like random game length, but it's a total bummer to lose a game when you could have won if the game had gone another turn/ended.

Yeah and a bummer when you look over and see the other guy DID and therefore won the game you could have won had you been one table over. That's the inequity that I wish there was a good answer too. i get that it adds a level to the game in one sense but it does so at a cost also. All things being imperfect, I suppose this isn't the largest evil facing our hobby though.

That evil would be price...hehehe.

Jancoran wrote:Yeah and a bummer when you look over and see the other guy DID and therefore won the game you could have won had you been one table over. That's the inequity that I wish there was a good answer too. i get that it adds a level to the game in one sense but it does so at a cost also. All things being imperfect, I suppose this isn't the largest evil facing our hobby though.

That evil would be price...hehehe.

Yeah, but you can say that for practically anything though. "If only I played against that Deathwing guy on table 2 instead of Horde Orks on this table, I would have won the game..."

I think that RGL is the lesser of evils. It means that there is uncertainty and that makes objective dashes more fun and dangerous.

So say we all. Lol.

If it wasn't random game length, going second would be even more powerful.There is a huge balancing effect provider by the fact that you have to chance the game ending on turn 5 or turn 7. If you always knew that it'd end on turn six then the player going second would almost always be able to contest objectives.

I've had this happen.

One of my recent battles was my Orks vs BA.

End of turn 5 i held 3 objectives, and he had one. I would have won if the game stopped there.

It didn't


End of turn 6 i held 3 objectives, and he had two. I would have won if the game stopped there.

Nope

End of turn 7 we both held 2 objectives, ending in a draw.

We both had a really great game though, and that element of uncertainty, of taking the risk to zoom a unit to contest an objective, only to have it blown away as the game continued, really upped my enjoyment of the game, even though i lost a sure win and barely scraped a draw.

I'd leave the random game length as is, though i've played in set-turn games and not had any issue with them either. The element of taking a risk with your objective grab move makes the game cooler for me than 'and i zoom all these transports to these objectives, and the game ends at the end of my turn..'

What do you propose instead of random game length that would resolve this solution? I'm guessing you never played 4th edition, as if you did you would most likely understand why a fixed 6 turn game does not work (against fast armies like Eldar you will almost always lose to a last turn tank shock off the objective). Likewise, the argument for your opponent int his situation would become "If the game hadn't gone until turn 6 i would have won" or "If there was a 7th turn I would have won". The game needs to end eventually and a random length eliminates most of the problems. If you needed an extra turn to turn it around then it means your opponent outplayed you, tough.

Grey Templar wrote:The random element shows who is the better general as it forces them to adapt to a changing battlefield situation.

I know this is wildly off-topic, but this is the same as the random charge lengths in WHFB. Some of the more serious tournament players decry the system because it is 'untactical' when in actual fact it is more tactical as it forces generals to plan for the eventuality of a failed charge.

Jancoran wrote:TedNugent, I have to say, you appear to be in the minority. Lol. By a lot.

The issue to me was fairness when I asked this question. Going second has a serious disadvantage: your strength is reduced before your opponents is. In return, you have a chance to counter whatever they just did, in the end.

Serious, competitive gamers are generally the minority, which is why gak like Call of Duty reigns supreme over Warsow.

That doesn't mean that minorities shouldn't be able to build their own little enclaves where they enjoy things in their own way. In a manner of speaking, you are in a vanishingly small minority, a minority that enjoys spending hundreds of dollars collecting and painting tabletop miniatures so you can devise tactics specified by rulesbooks. If we put your hobby up to a democratic vote as to what everyone was going to do this weekend I would suspect you wouldn't be playing 40k.

I didn't say "everyone should be subjected to tournament rules" or "no one should play for fun" or "there should be no way to play with random game lengths," I said that a truly competitive environment requires limiting random factors like random game lengths to a reasonable minimum so that the skill of the players comes forth.

TEXT WALL!

This isn't really about self interest, chaos0xomega.

In 3rd and 4th edition 6 rounds never really registered...ever...as being a problem. I shrugged my shoulders about random game length too and it took me a long time to really even care much because it just seemed like I was treating 5 turns like I used to treat turn 6. I don't really see less drama in either scenario.

After a while though you start realizing that there are so many stories where one guy getsa shot at redemption and you really didn't. When you look at it objectively it was just fate. One more round you win. One less round you lose. It had nothing to do with whether the army COULD win given the round that the other guy got. The fact that the game has to end sometimes is true for BOTH Generals vying for first place. The difference is, it wasn't the same chance for both. Kinda like the debate over NFL sudden death overtime, right?

Back then in 3E/4E the big thing was that you alternated deploying and the aforementioned tank shocking Mechdar also had to survive a 6th turn to even do what you suggest was possible; and the enemy knew it was coming, allowing them to target prioritize in a way they really cant now in 5E because they might have to UNecessarily sacrifice shooting if it goes to a 6th.

Going second was rarely seen as a good thing. I can't speak to every army, but i can say that 5 round games are A O K with my particular Tau now! I'll go second every time if you let me.

I would not have said that in 3rd or 4th Edition, against most opponents (outlyers notwithstanding).

Thus i thought I'd float it and see what the prevailing opinion is. So far it's been to leave it as is.

Jancoran wrote: That's the inequity that I wish there was a good answer too.

There is a good answer to it.

Play better.

If you're hanging your balls in a vice and just hoping the enemy won't get time to crush them, well... thats not a very good plan.

Thats the whole point of random game length. You need to plan that there might be another turn. If you get beaten because the game went on, it's not the games fault. You got out-played, pure and simple.

TedNugent wrote:a truly competitive environment requires limiting random factors like random game lengths to a reasonable minimum so that the skill of the players comes forth.

False. If you remove or limit random factors then, in turn, you remove or limit the need of the player to react to unexpected or unlikely scenarios, and so a large part of player skill will go untested.

TedNugent wrote:I said that a truly competitive environment requires limiting random factors like random game lengths to a reasonable minimum so that the skill of the players comes forth.

Which overlooks the fact that a part of the skill of playing 40K well lies in being able to plan around those random factors.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jancoran wrote:Going second was rarely seen as a good thing.

That's because most people played with far too little terrain on the board, and most armies didn't have access to voluntary reserves. So going second just meant first turn target practice for your opponent.

On a better laid out table, going second was a huge advantage in objective missions.

TedNugent wrote:

I didn't say "everyone should be subjected to tournament rules" or "no one should play for fun" or "there should be no way to play with random game lengths," I said that a truly competitive environment requires limiting random factors like random game lengths to a reasonable minimum so that the skill of the players comes forth.

How much skill is there in going "I KNOW it will finish turn 5, so I hide everything and last turn tank shock, as I am gong second - automatic win"? Answer: none. Precisely zero. It's a great way to ensure a dull, dull game, and to almost entirely reduce the game to the single dice roll for first or second.

Random game length is more important in a tournament than almost anywhere, as it means you have to have multiple plans to deal with a turn 5, 6 and 7 game. If you cannot see how that increases the tactical depth required to consistently win, then you have some odd ideas about 40k and games in general

The random game length forces players to set up contingency plans.


I know the game might end on turn 5, 6, or 7.

Therefore, I will play to have all the objectives by turn 5. But I will also set myself up to be able to keep those objectives if the game goes on to turns 6 and 7.

The players that can do this are the better players overall.


With a fixed game length armies with extremely fast transport vehicles can simply try and go second(75% chance of them being able to do it. 50/50 of winning roll off and 50/50 of the opponent deciding to go first)

These armies will play the game extremely defensivly and will focus on holding a single objective, then on the last turn of the game they will turbo-boost to contest each of the other objectives.


They can do this solely because of a fixed game length. if the game length is random they cannot do this because it would leave his vehicles exposed to his opponents counter attack.



Overall, it gets rid of shenanagins like this while adding a tactical depth. This is a Wargame, war by its nature is unpredictable. If you want a game with no randomness or uncertainty, go play checkers.

Jancoran wrote:TEXT WALL

Back then in 3E/4E the big thing was that you alternated deploying and the aforementioned tank shocking Mechdar also had to survive a 6th turn to even do what you suggest was possible; and the enemy knew it was coming, allowing them to target prioritize in a way they really cant now in 5E because they might have to UNecessarily sacrifice shooting if it goes to a 6th.

Mechdar in 4E were ridiculous, the invincible skimmerspam armies were labelled thus for a reason. Mechdar had no problems surviving to turn 6, all they needed to do was survive turn 1 if going 2nd, and with so much more terrain blocking LoS completely even if only half an inch thick, it was much easier to survive that 1 turn. Between the ridiculous SMF rules, wave serpent energy fields, vectored engines, and holofields for prisms/falcons, Eldar skimmers very rarely had to deal with being shot down. For many armies, they'd have an easier time taking down a Baneblade than an Eldar skimmer under 4E rules

With that, the Eldar player basically had free reign to nab everything on the last turn without much consequence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

I didn't say "everyone should be subjected to tournament rules" or "no one should play for fun" or "there should be no way to play with random game lengths," I said that a truly competitive environment requires limiting random factors like random game lengths to a reasonable minimum so that the skill of the players comes forth.

How much skill is there in going "I KNOW it will finish turn 5, so I hide everything and last turn tank shock, as I am gong second - automatic win"? Answer: none. Precisely zero. It's a great way to ensure a dull, dull game, and to almost entirely reduce the game to the single dice roll for first or second.

Random game length is more important in a tournament than almost anywhere, as it means you have to have multiple plans to deal with a turn 5, 6 and 7 game. If you cannot see how that increases the tactical depth required to consistently win, then you have some odd ideas about 40k and games in general

Both teams know that the game is going to finish by X turn, therefore the winners are those that play the best. It's not a matter of the magnitude of skill that's required, it's a matter of isolating and expanding the margins between player gaps.

The whole point of tournament play is not to facilitate the most interesting game, but to isolate the most effective player and the most effective tactics.

Plus, there's no reason the game needs to end on turn 5. That sounds far too short for my tastes anyway, to be honest. That's part of my problem with the random system, not that it makes the games longer than they might have been, but that it makes the game end at an arbitrarily short demarcation. It could just as easily end on turn 10 or until the opposition has been annihilated. The fun thing about making a tournament is that you can make the rules. These things aren't set in stone.

TedNugent wrote:Both teams know that the game is going to finish by X turn, therefore the winners are those that play the best. It's not a matter of the magnitude of skill that's required, it's a matter of isolating and expanding the margins between player gaps.

But you're missing their point. Having determined game length gives big advantages to certain ARMIES. It is a matter of codex balance, not player skill. You wouldn't be testing one person's player skill against the other's, you'd be testing one person's ability to pick the army that best suits the meta better than the other. This fact is already ridiculous enough as it is without exacerbating it. Army choice shouldn't trump player skill, and when it does, the game actually requires LESS skill, not more.

Kaldor wrote:I know this is wildly off-topic, but this is the same as the random charge lengths in WHFB. Some of the more serious tournament players decry the system because it is 'untactical' when in actual fact it is more tactical as it forces generals to plan for the eventuality of a failed charge.

well...

So, the entirety of player skill in 40k can really be boiled down to figuring out how to play the odds. Random game length gives just another odd to play, which, in a sense, does mean that random game length requires more player skill.

I think the problem here is the particular manifestation of this skill. With other odds that you play, you get to play them several times over the course of the game, whereas with things like determining first player and deciding when the game ends, you just roll that one, single, magic die to determine everything. In the world of small numbers, you "feel" the impact of luck a lot more. Players who want to believe that they should win or lose games based purely on their personal skill will be insulted when a game is determined by a single die roll.

Of course, these people also miss the fact that 40k is a game of dice, and that EVERYTHING is determined by luck, whether you "feel" it acutely or not. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me. If you want to completely earn victory rather than have it be based on luck, then you're going to want to minimize the random element as much as you can. As I noted earlier, though, this is vain - if you don't want things to be determined by the result of die rolls, you should stop playing 40k.

Ailaros wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Both teams know that the game is going to finish by X turn, therefore the winners are those that play the best. It's not a matter of the magnitude of skill that's required, it's a matter of isolating and expanding the margins between player gaps.

But you're missing their point. Having determined game length gives big advantages to certain ARMIES. It is a matter of codex balance, not player skill. You wouldn't be testing one person's player skill against the other's, you'd be testing one person's ability to pick the army that best suits the meta better than the other. This fact is already ridiculous enough as it is without exacerbating it. Army choice shouldn't trump player skill, and when it does, the game actually requires LESS skill, not more.

You're right! I did miss the point. Stumbled right over it. In fact, after inspecting it, I still don't see your point.

I still fail to see how a predetermined game length gives a big advantage to certain armies. What is the suggestion, that your armies shouldn't be thrust against eachother until they expire? Why? Because the armies are imbalanced? Then why not balance the armies against each other in the same fashion? How does having a random number of turns affect game balance? That doesn't make any sense. If it's random, then it could end in the favor of the side that favors shorter games, whether that's because the footslogging horde hasn't reached you yet or whatever, or it could favor the army that favors longer games, if you are a plodding mass of durable facemelters. That puts it at the mercy of the dice rolls rather than making it a matter of player skill, and as a matter of fact the inequality still exists, it's just a matter of probability who gets to exploit the outcome.

Now, if you want to argue that planning for random contingencies is a matter of player skill, I would say that you might be better suited to playing craps. Running a bunch of probabilities doesn't make you cool. What's important is maneuver, placement of resources, and list building. Those are the critical skills. Dealing with some unforeseen contingency like a monkey dropping on your head at half time is just purely academic.

Ailaros wrote:
So, the entirety of player skill in 40k can really be boiled down to figuring out how to play the odds. Random game length gives just another odd to play, which, in a sense, does mean that random game length requires more player skill.

By "skill," you mean "luck."

Ailaros wrote:
Of course, these people also miss the fact that 40k is a game of dice, and that EVERYTHING is determined by luck, whether you "feel" it acutely or not. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me. If you want to completely earn victory rather than have it be based on luck, then you're going to want to minimize the random element as much as you can.

No kidding. Almost like what I argued. You want to have as many controls as possible in a tournament environment so the best man wins. It's not up to probability or random contingencies, it's up to just plain tactics and application of resources.

Like a science experiment. You would control for all the things that might affect the outcome so that you can isolate causal factors. Probability is just a matter of averages. The point of a tournament is not to discover how probabilities affect outcome, the point of a tournament is to discover who is the better player all other things held constant.

Ailaros wrote:
As I noted earlier, though, this is vain - if you don't want things to be determined by the result of die rolls, you should stop playing 40k.

Now that is a sensible point. Yes, it is in vain. No question. The entire idea of competition and tournament play for 40k is pretty academic, but some people find it fun, warts and all. If asked, should 40k dislodge itself from random dice rolls, my answer would be no. It would be more sensible for the person who isn't interested in dice rolls to find something better to do. But it's also a reasonable point to say, if you are going to have such a thing as a tournament circuit, it makes sense to make a very basic control and say that there is a fixed number of game turns.

TedNugent wrote: What is the suggestion, that your armies shouldn't be thrust against eachother until they expire? Why? Because the armies are imbalanced? Then why not balance the armies against each other in the same fashion? How does having a random number of turns affect game balance? That doesn't make any sense.

The point people have been trying to make is that not all armies can exploit fixed-length games equally. Specifically, they give an advantage to faster armies over slower armies. The only way to handle this would be to make it so that all armies were roughly equally mobile, which would greatly reduce the diversity of different codex and play styles. If that's what you want, then that's fine, but most people don't WANT a guard army and a dark eldar army to be equally mobile.

Having a fixed length to games allows the person who goes second to know that they have a time coming up where they can act with absolutely no fear of reprocussions whatsoever, allowing them to do things that would be suicidal otherwise. Armies that give you the ability to be frenetically suicidal (unlike, say, a guard army but including any all-skimmer army) would be able to exploit this advantage more than armies that don't.

If you don't want all armies to be able to exploit a free turn equally, that's fine, but then you need to rebalance the codecies to take this into consideration. Currently, the only thing that keeps shunting dreadnights in check is that if they mis-time their shunt, the unit might be killed before it does what it's supposed to do. Taking that risk out means that you should have to pay a premium for not having that risk anymore, which current codices don't account for.

If they redesigned the rules and codices to properly balance things for a fixed-length game, that would be fine. Otherwise, though it wouldn't increase skill (if anything, it would decrease it as you now have less you've got to think about when chancing things), but rather just re-shuffle what armies are competitive based on the peculiarities of their codex, not player skill.

Why not just set the fixed game length so that it falls in the middle of whichever army on the dock?

There's gotta be a happy medium in there somewhere.

I'd imagine that a middle ground would be something with a fixed length, but with some sort of option to continue. For example, let's say that a game is only 5 turns, but a player can expend something to bump the number of turns by 1 at some sort of risk or cost.

That way, you would have a fixed length most of the time, but players could make a strategic move to sacrifice something in order to keep the game going, whether it's because victory is just out of reach, or because opponents are trying last-game shenannigans.

Adding in a choice adds back in strategy, while also diffusing problems of set-length games.

Well if you're attaching a cost to extending the game then you're still favoring armies that do better in shorter games.

Well, but it would be in such a way where if a person who has a long-game army chooses not to lengthen the game they get some other advantage, so they get to choose which would be better for them. Alternatively, you can make the game of medium length by default, and you have to pay to either make it longer OR shorter.

That or, instead of making it a cost, you could make it a risk instead.

... of course, how would you set up the risk? How about by placing your hopes on the roll of the die...

... like, perhaps, a random game length...

I favor a medium length with having to pay to make it longer or shorter. Otherwise you're favoring whoever gets the baseline outcome.

On a related note, isn't there already a little something like this? Isn't there a space marine special character or something that basically allows you to pay points in order to guarantee the game goes on for an extra turn?

TedNugent wrote: I still fail to see how a predetermined game length gives a big advantage to certain armies...

Running a bunch of probabilities doesn't make you cool. What's important is maneuver, placement of resources, and list building. Those are the critical skills. Dealing with some unforeseen contingency like a monkey dropping on your head at half time is just purely academic...

it makes sense to make a very basic control and say that there is a fixed number of game turns.

Random game length requires a player to grab the objectives on turn five, AND be able to hold those objectives through turns six and seven.

Being able to take the objectives, and hold them for the rest of the game requires careful maneuvering, placement of resources, and an appropriately built list.

It is, in fact, a more accurate test of a players abilities to do these things.

Exactly what Kaldor said. As one of my most common opponents is playing Eldar, turn five ending with suicidal falcons, serpents and fireprisms jumping on all of the objectives is something I see about every second game, often resulting in the eldar player winning by holding one objective and contesting all other when the turn ends right then. He does this at the risk of Ghazghkull Thrakka or a unit of nobz, boyz or whatever tearing open his tanks on turn six. If there was no variable game length, he could just hide his vehicles all game and get a guaranteed win against any opponent with less troops than objectives in the last turn.

I would be less apt to speak in superlatives which most every post here does. Superlatives get us in trouble much of the time.

It is an objective fact that in the same round of the same tourney on the same mission, players are not getting the same amount of time to play. That is an objective truth no one can dispute.

So what we are really disputing is how we feel about that. Your feelings are NOT an objective fact, they are the definition of subjective.

Some of you are acting hard nosed and not answering the essential.question: do you want it to be equal among players.

I just came up with an answer, for tournies after pondering all these responses. Not sure how it would work logistically so thats another issue entirely but...

CONSIDER THIS:
What if the TO rolls for random game length and if it goes on for another turn, it goes on for everyone. Then it is both random AND fair to everyone.

Jancoran wrote:

Some of you are acting hard nosed and not answering the essential.question: do you want it to be equal among players.

It is. All players, or rather all games, have an equal chance of going for either five, six or seven turns.

I'd personally change it in three ways:

1. As mentioned, there should be a way for all players in a tournament to have the same random game length rolls. But I have no idea how to achieve this, given that people play at different paces, and that players can't know in advance. Call this one aspirational, rather than practical.

As an aside, it also irks me when a random number of objectives mission is rolled once per table and the mission battle point table doesn't change. Any table that rolls 3 objectives will always score less battle points than one that rolls 5. Either remove the randomness, or roll once for everyone.

2. The roll for random game length should take place a turn in advance. So rather than "I rolled a 1, game over" it's "I rolled a 1, next turn is the last turn".
3. Lastly, having 6 turns should be more likely than 5 or 7 (perhaps 2/3 chance of 6 turns, 1/6 each for 5 or 7).

Kaldor wrote:

False. If you remove or limit random factors then, in turn, you remove or limit the need of the player to react to unexpected or unlikely scenarios, and so a large part of player skill will go untested.

Oh yes, you haven't tested all their skills yet. While we're at it, let's throw a chicken at them while they're playing. Maybe they can draw up a contingency plan, plus it'll test their reflexes. Will they dodge or parry? Wear a rubber suit? Very important skills.

Perhaps we should start making the finish line random in Olympic sprinting contests, y'know, to keep the sprinters on their toes.

Nonsense.

TedNugent wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

False. If you remove or limit random factors then, in turn, you remove or limit the need of the player to react to unexpected or unlikely scenarios, and so a large part of player skill will go untested.

Oh yes, you haven't tested all their skills yet. While we're at it, let's throw a chicken at them while they're playing. Maybe they can draw up a contingency plan, plus it'll test their reflexes. Will they dodge or parry? Wear a rubber suit? Very important skills.

Perhaps we should start making the finish line random in Olympic sprinting contests, y'know, to keep the sprinters on their toes.

Whatever blows your hair back buddy.

Me, I'd settle for testing their ability to maneuver, place resources and build effective lists.

All of which are, quite obviously, better tested by the current random game length mechanic (and also the random charge distance mechanic in WHFB) than by a set turn number.

Feel free to disagree. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

It's just that some of them are wrong.

Jancoran wrote:
CONSIDER THIS:
What if the TO rolls for random game length and if it goes on for another turn, it goes on for everyone. Then it is both random AND fair to everyone.

This would result in the TO being lynched by half the players and canonized by the rest. It also runs into practical problems. If the TO waits for everyone to get to the end of turn 5, a huge amount of time will be wasted as a result of that one player who plays slower than everyone else. Alternately the TO could not wait, but then for anyone who hasn't reached that turn the game is, in effect, fixed length, and we wil still see last turn objective grabs with falcons and such. So, I don't think this will work.

An interesting question. But possibly the wrong solution.

If you want the game to be more competitive the real question isn't should there be random game length or set length.

Te real question should be why do objectives not matter until the game is over.

TedNugent wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

False. If you remove or limit random factors then, in turn, you remove or limit the need of the player to react to unexpected or unlikely scenarios, and so a large part of player skill will go untested.

Oh yes, you haven't tested all their skills yet. While we're at it, let's throw a chicken at them while they're playing. Maybe they can draw up a contingency plan, plus it'll test their reflexes. Will they dodge or parry? Wear a rubber suit? Very important skills.

Perhaps we should start making the finish line random in Olympic sprinting contests, y'know, to keep the sprinters on their toes.

Nonsense.

Apparently you just dont get the game then.

If I know the game will definitely end this turn, and I'm going second with fast tank skimmers, I can g'tee I win. Every time.
"nonsense" is thinking fixed game lengths has anything to do with increasing skill - it definitively reduces it.

TedNugent wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

False. If you remove or limit random factors then, in turn, you remove or limit the need of the player to react to unexpected or unlikely scenarios, and so a large part of player skill will go untested.

Oh yes, you haven't tested all their skills yet. While we're at it, let's throw a chicken at them while they're playing. Maybe they can draw up a contingency plan, plus it'll test their reflexes. Will they dodge or parry? Wear a rubber suit? Very important skills.

Perhaps we should start making the finish line random in Olympic sprinting contests, y'know, to keep the sprinters on their toes.

Nonsense.

Some of your responses are hilarious TedNugent. Really and genuinely funny (and I can't say i disagree with the way you think either). Seriously. That is twice now that I have just been laughing out loud (in a good way).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jancoran wrote:
CONSIDER THIS:
What if the TO rolls for random game length and if it goes on for another turn, it goes on for everyone. Then it is both random AND fair to everyone.

This would result in the TO being lynched by half the players and canonized by the rest. It also runs into practical problems. If .

Not clear on why the players would care who rolled actually. As long as no one is jipped, It's pretty immaterial. I know there would be logistical challenges but...if it could be done? it seems a very good solution.

Tournaments are already a clusterfeth of time constraints, forcing everybody to sit there waiting, staring angrily at the ork guy on table 4 because he has 150 models to move every turn and hasn't gotten to the bottom of 5th yet, before they can even know if they sat there waiting for a reason or if the game ended anyway and they could have been packing up and getting ready for their next matches or getting something to eat/drink or whatever like normal/current, is a bad idea.

Random game length is totally fair. If you and your twin brother fighting another pair of twins get different results do to random game length you were probably playing it wrong. If your entire strategy revolves around absolutely needing the game to go a turn over or under what it did you need to take a long hard look at your list and tactics and think about how you got in that situation, not shake your fist at the heavens blaming the bad dice. For every time someone has lost because of variable length, the other guy has won. It's absolutely the same as demanding if the guy on table 2 hit with his lascannon, your lascannon should have hit too.

Ironic. We have a pair of twins who play at our store. Lol.

You're worrying about logistics. But what I am saying is, if it can be done, it would be fair. so now the only question is, how to do it so that it works for everyone. There's the trick.

On an only slightly related note, 4 of us played a 4000 point battle last night in 3 hours. when youre having fun and no one is freaking out about things, the game goes pretty fast!

To me it is an important part of your game to play for variable game length.

It adds a layer of strategic uncertainty to what is otherwise a fairly mechanistic game.

The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

You mean like in our Super Eclipse mission?

http://www.40kambassadors.com/missions.php#mission1

It creates variables that a good commander will be prepared for.

yes, I think random game length is a good idea.

GCMandrake wrote:As an aside, it also irks me when a random number of objectives mission is rolled once per table and the mission battle point table doesn't change. Any table that rolls 3 objectives will always score less battle points than one that rolls 5. Either remove the randomness, or roll once for everyone.

The tournies I've been playing in lately have scored based on whether or not you control more objectives than your opponent, rather than scoring points per objective.

Jancoran wrote:[

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jancoran wrote:
CONSIDER THIS:
What if the TO rolls for random game length and if it goes on for another turn, it goes on for everyone. Then it is both random AND fair to everyone.

This would result in the TO being lynched by half the players and canonized by the rest. It also runs into practical problems. If .

Not clear on why the players would care who rolled actually. As long as no one is jipped [sic], It's pretty immaterial. I know there would be logistical challenges but...if it could be done? it seems a very good solution.

The TO would be lynched by players who don't like losing because someone not involved in their game rolled a number that didn't favour them.

I see. Well those sorts of players aren't the target for us. Lol.

Actinium wrote:Tournaments are already a clusterfeth of time constraints, forcing everybody to sit there waiting, staring angrily at the ork guy on table 4 because he has 150 models to move every turn and hasn't gotten to the bottom of 5th yet, before they can even know if they sat there waiting for a reason or if the game ended anyway and they could have been packing up and getting ready for their next matches or getting something to eat/drink or whatever like normal/current, is a bad idea.

Random game length is totally fair. If you and your twin brother fighting another pair of twins get different results do to random game length you were probably playing it wrong. If your entire strategy revolves around absolutely needing the game to go a turn over or under what it did you need to take a long hard look at your list and tactics and think about how you got in that situation, not shake your fist at the heavens blaming the bad dice. For every time someone has lost because of variable length, the other guy has won. It's absolutely the same as demanding if the guy on table 2 hit with his lascannon, your lascannon should have hit too.

This. Last-turn guaranteed objective grabs in 3rd and 4th edition were dumb. Random game length was a simple change which made a big improvement.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

So, how many factions can just sit on three to five objectives for up to three turns?

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

Hm, I rather liked how it worked in the leaked dex. Points per turn, but having it at the end granted a few more points. Not to mention you had to contest things outside the vehicle. (Though you could contest it with any infantry, also meant you couldn't just sit in A Land Raider Achilles and stay invulnerable, hehehe.)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

Hm, I rather liked how it worked in the leaked dex. Points per turn, but having it at the end granted a few more points. Not to mention you had to contest things outside the vehicle. (Though you could contest it with any infantry, also meant you couldn't just sit in A Land Raider Achilles and stay invulnerable, hehehe.)

My friends and I actually played a few games of the "6th edition" leak and hated the cumulative points system. It devolved into who could camp on an objective the longest, so by the time we got to the second game we realised that it was always in your best interests to place objectives as close to your deployment zone as possible. Then just sit back and plink away at enemy Troops as much as possible. Even with double points for the last turn, it was still so one-sided towards defensive armies that the points advantage you gained in the first few turns would be enough to win the game against an offensive army.

Now, if they retained random game length, but started accumulating points from the bottom of turn 5 onwards, then you have something interesting. The first few turns would be spent jockeying for position, before the sides try to consolidate whatever objectives they had.

As to the original question, I think that Random Game Length is almost essential. You have to plan to be able to capture more objectives than your opponent by turn 5, while remaining flexible enough to change plans if the game goes for longer. IMHO, it's a much better measure of skill and army strength than 3rd/4th edition's last-turn-grabfest that relied almost solely on who had the fastest units available to their armies.

that it was always in your best interests to place objectives as close to your deployment zone as possible. Then just sit back and plink away at enemy Troops as much as possible. E

You don't do this now? Everyone puts their objectives as close as possible (within terrain) and everyone tries to kill troops off.

Doesn't sound like you were contesting either.

It depends actually - if you plah an aggressive assaulting army you often dont place your objecive (C&C) in your own half, as it means you have to have something baby sitting it, too far from the rest of your lines.

I think it's important for determining who wins, and can stop people from winning on a technicality.

How to win in a fixed length game with DA (As thats what I play):

2x land raiders with Terminator with SS/TH. Sit them right on top of one/two objectives. Lascannon and multimelta to the face for anything that gets close. Little short of exterminatus or Vanish Land Raider remover is going to shift them.

As many RW bikes & Land Speeders as you can afford.

Always go second if you can.

Rush the Land Raiders forward to capture prefrably one, but two if you need to, objectives. Sit, wait, shoot at anything that comes in to range.

Turbo boost the bikes up and down as far away from the enamy as you can.

Last turn, turbo boost forward and contest all objectives held by the enamy.

Win.

Give praise to Mr Land and his discoveries.

Actually, my friend and I solved the problem. Since we hardly ever played past the 5th turn, we made up a new game type thing. If you've ever played WoW, specfically, Arathi Basin PvP, it works a bit like that. For every game turn that you hold an objective, you gain 100 points per objective held. A contested objective means no one gets points for that objective.

This way, you can't lose in the last player turn when your opponent moves everything flat out and contests all of the objective/moves out from behind cover to claim them. You ahve to actually hold the objectives, rather than simply be in the vicinity of them by the end of the game.

You mean kind of like in our Super Eclipse mission?

http://www.40kambassadors.com/missions.php#mission1

Accumulating points has been in several of our local tournies as a way to score that also, in other missions

There's no need to quote yourself.

You're still penalizing armies like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids with those missions. They can't sit Troop squads on objectives turn after turn.

A Tervigon with Regeneration, FNP and a cover save can camp on an objective pretty well.

It's a lot of points to immobilize, though.

Most motorized units can last three turns on an objective, which is a majority of 1/3 the games and half 2/3 of the games! One turn while in the transport, one while out and then if the enemy can't kill them outright, 1 more. Of course if you get yourself killed, its academic anyways. Getting killed is getting killed.

Which has nothing to do with anything whatsoever related to the subject at hand. Lol.

Onward!

Except that some armies are actually required to use their troops for fighting. If an ork leaves his boyz sitting on an objective, he is going to have a hard time killing stuff.

DarknessEternal wrote:There's no need to quote yourself.

You're still penalizing armies like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids with those missions. They can't sit Troop squads on objectives turn after turn.

Eldar can squat down with fortune and dire avengers.

Dark Eldar have Wracks

Orks have grots that can go to ground.

Tyranids have Tervigon + termagaunt troops.

grots are good for it, yeah. Also just guys in trucks. with KFF. And Orks have other slots they can kill with. elites for example...

Regardless, nothing to do with random game length.

You mean grots, as in "die automatically when charged by anything, including other gretchin"? How are they going to hold objectives for the entire game?

And I'll simply ignore the suggestion of spending 250+ points and a HQ slot on an open topped AV10 vehicle which is supposed to hold an objective all game.

I'd also like to see an ork army which kills everything with their elite slots. I really do.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Eldar can squat down with fortune and dire avengers.

So every Troops squad comes with its own HQ character? And how does this mysterious and apparently free Farseer make that unit not disappear immediately in assault?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Dark Eldar have Wracks

Who aren't Troops. Hope that works out for them.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Orks have grots that can go to ground.

I was mistaken, these will disappear faster than Guardians.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Tyranids have Tervigon + termagaunt troops.

Yes, because 250 points is a good investment on 2 units doing nothing for an entire game since their range off effectiveness is 12".

So every Troops squad comes with its own HQ character? And how does this mysterious and apparently free Farseer make that unit not disappear immediately in assault?

Apparently by not being pants and actually supporting its troops with other things. If the enemy is bunkering down you should be putting those flying tanks of yours to good use.

Who aren't Troops. Hope that works out for them.

I have yet to see a dark eldar not take a haemonculus, ever.

I was mistaken, these will disappear faster than Guardians.

I've used them plenty for objectives holding in the past, pretty cheap, and going to ground makes them effectively hard to displace without assault, and if the enemy is assaulting you as an ork..You've failed something hard.

Yes, because 250 points is a good investment on 2 units doing nothing for an entire game since their range off effectiveness is 12".

Technically you have an 18" weapon as well, but if you feel you need some actual ranged effectiveness go with warriors than, I hear the venom cannon is effective.


Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

Not either way. The existing rule of random game length already solves the issue of last turn contesting.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

Not either way. The existing rule of random game length already solves the issue of last turn contesting.

Which I was supporting, I support having the random length variable mechanic. I was saying if they "Wanted" an end turn that wasn't a variable, that it should be based around the points/holding troops etc.

Jidmah wrote:You mean grots, as in "die automatically when charged by anything, including other gretchin"? How are they going to hold objectives for the entire game?

And I'll simply ignore the suggestion of spending 250+ points and a HQ slot on an open topped AV10 vehicle which is supposed to hold an objective all game.

I'd also like to see an ork army which kills everything with their elite slots. I really do.

Three things: first, you need to be more tactically imaginative. The orks need not start on the board if their job is to hold objectives, do they?

Second: Gretchin don't either.

Third: orc number of attacks alone insures that they can compete in any melee they are charging in. And as usual, when they are not, hey... They get owned by a lot of thinigs. An thats just the nature of the army.

Also having nothing to do with the thread topic. but...

1. We are still talking about lasting three turns on an objective. Thus placing your troops in reserve doesn't do gak.
2. Placing a support HQ into reserve to have it help capture objectives while it could improve your entire army is almost definitely contra-productive.
3. Gretchin are not orks. They lose combat against almost anything even if they charge. You also can't charge a unit that has deep-struck right next to you if you have gone to ground.
4. If you are posting nonsense, you have to defend it. Claiming the sky is purple and then telling everyone who argues the sky is blue to stay on topic won't make the sky purple.

Like I said. You just have to be more imaginative than those over generalizations you just espoused.

As for whether this matters in regards to random game length, what it SOUNDS like you are saying is that you dont want to change how you play. That's not an argument either.

The reality is that ALL armies have to be ready to play 7 turns if need be. And you have to do things tactically to make sure you can, because CURRENTLY you have no idea when the game will end.

ALL of that is fine and dandy in normal games. No money on the line and no "fairness issue" with other people next to you playing the same game. You and your OPPONENT were treated fairly and equally by the same die and knew the risks.

But when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him won BECAUSE there was another round... I mean are we not trying to find, in tournaments, given all other things being equal, who can win the most games? We are. But did we really test that if, within the confines of the tournament itself, there is no equity in their opportunity to do so?

That is why I am suggesting that the TO could make ONE roll for everyone. It maintains the random game length element while being fair to every participant.

The question then is: how to pull it off. Now of you do it 30 minutes before the end of the round, they will know there is a 6th...but stll must wonder about the 7th. At 15 minutes to go you can roll for the 7th. And everyone knows there is no 8th. So the 7th would be treated just as if there never WAS random game length by the players. It's just one idea.

Nope nope nope.

Random is fair. Someone wins and someone loses. Swap around one of the table sides and your example is:

'... when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him loses BECAUSE there was another round...'

What side of the table you're on or who you're next to is subjective, no one guy or side consistently benefits from random length. I'm not saying 1 more or less turn can't effect the outcome of a game but no more than a lascannon shot hitting or missing can and it's absurd to demand that everyone who's making a game changing lascannon shot stop playing and wait for the TO to make a roll to get the same result across all tables because you don't want to see anyone else win that way if you didn't. Try not to get in the situation where 1 random roll, be it a to hit roll or a moral check or roll to see if the game continues into turn 6, determines if you win or lose. But if you do, you pray to the dice gods like everyone else and you don't harp about your opponent or the guy next to you having hotter dice. Being the better player is about having a well rounded game plan that deals with cold dice, that plans ahead for the game going long or stopping short the same way it plans around if its lascannon misses.

Its fair to the two players. No one said otherwise.

i said it wasn't fair between pairs of players.

Jancoran wrote:No money on the line and no "fairness issue" with other people next to you playing the same game. You and your OPPONENT were treated fairly and equally by the same die and knew the risks.

But when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him won BECAUSE there was another round... I mean are we not trying to find, in tournaments, given all other things being equal, who can win the most games? We are. But did we really test that if, within the confines of the tournament itself, there is no equity in their opportunity to do so?

That is why I am suggesting that the TO could make ONE roll for everyone. It maintains the random game length element while being fair to every participant.

The question then is: how to pull it off. Now of you do it 30 minutes before the end of the round, they will know there is a 6th...but stll must wonder about the 7th. At 15 minutes to go you can roll for the 7th. And everyone knows there is no 8th. So the 7th would be treated just as if there never WAS random game length by the players. It's just one idea.

PLaying a game in which the codex are not at all balanced, I think reserves is about the last reason that would cause you to loose.

jgehunter wrote:
I think reserves is about the last reason that would cause you to loose.

And yet it isn't. My army makes extensive use of reserves to succeed. "not coming on" is pretty much a good thing for my Tau force http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436851.page.

So what I have established here is that Random game length is popular and should be kept. I am fine with that conclusion. Lots of input = no reason to change the fact that it happens.

I am now beyond that question and onto how we can add equity witout getting rid of random game length. The overwhelming response is to keep the mechanic but i am interested in how we can simply make that mechanic fair for all.

Given that different armies play at different speeds, the real problem is when to roll. Typically in a 2 hour match, you can pretty well see the end coming 20-30 minutes from the end time. But some people can finish a whole 6 turn game in 90 minutes! Uncommon but it happens. Making people wait to see the roll doesn't really create any problems but doing it too soon does.

In this particular case, there will be a judge for each two tables. So perhaps the judges can indicate when their players are done with their movement at the bottom of turn 5. At that point, we can roll. Any logistical challenges with that solution that anyone can see? Personal preferences aside, what can go wrong with that logistically that would be terrible enough not to do it?

I think we should, b/c there is no such thing as a "serious" tournament that involves grown men playing with plastic dolls :p

I'm really hoping 6th comes with the rules from the playtest leak for reserves, game length, and objectives. After doing quite a bit of playtesting with them, our group found they worked nice and made for a more enjoyable game with more tactical options. The only thing I'd change is I'd leave the ability to contest in place, as it encourages more aggressive play.

I don't understand the need to know prior to the end of the turn. Eldar can star engine in the shooting phase, jetpacks can move 6" in the assault phase. Rare pocket cases sure but what do you gain from knowing the roll beforehand, why do you want to roll before the bottom of 5 like normal?

And if you don't know till the end, if the TO makes the roll secretly and writes it down for any games at the bottom of 5 to go look at and everyone is in cubicles or rooms or something so they can't see their neighbor's game ending or continuing, why? Why bother with the extra manpower or logistics or the seclusion? If a game is close enough to be determined by the game ending or continuing how is it any fairer that they all have the same result? One guy loses, one guy wins. There isn't an inherent advantage for any one army or player, the objectivity of the tournament isn't compromised by variable turns between tables.

Jancoran wrote:
I am now beyond that question and onto how we can add equity witout getting rid of random game length. The overwhelming response is to keep the mechanic but i am interested in how we can simply make that mechanic fair for all.

It already is. You're trying to fix something based on the faulty assumption that a game which goes 6 turns isn't as fair as a game that goes 5 turns.

In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

As someone who has faced annoying "Full reserve skimmer flight lists"

I love random turns, you want to park right in front of me? Eat my melta!

I enjoy the randomness of when the game might end, you know it's close but you just cannot be sure...

Dayvuni wrote:In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

In one-on-one games, who cares? it's totally fair to both of you. But when numerous peoples tourney standings are being affected, not just a single games decision, it is totally different in impact.

If the TO gave everyone the same amount of time, you'd feel no guilt at all about winning right? Everyone else got the same deal.

Jancoran wrote:
That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

They did get the same chance: one game.

Everyone played one game.

Oversimplification is not a defense.

But you're still assuming a game that ended sooner or later than your game is somehow less or more fair, but it isn't. It is the exact same fair, no matter how it 'feels'. Assuming the number of turns even has an impact on who wins or loses the result will still be one guy winning and one guy losing. It might seem unfair if you lost but it would seem equally unfair to the other guy if the roll went the other way and you won. Everyone getting the same number of turns is irrelevant to rolling individually because no army or player is favored by the game length, the 5 turn game on table 1 is equally fair to the 7 turn game on table 2.

By definition 5 is not 7. So no.

By your stated logic right here, it would be okay for me to rule that you are allowed an added 100 points to fight with in your game? The terms of the engagement are not equal here.

So. Keeping it random is what we ALREADY agreed to do. So continuing to argue FOR it makes no sense. We already agree.

So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

If you roll for everyone then it is either effectively not random or is a logistical nightmare.

If you announce the roll in advance of the players reaching that turn, then the point of rolling is defeated in that the players know exactly when the game will end and can take what would normally be massive risks on the last turn if they are going second knowing they aren't in any danger.

If you don't announce it in advance then you must watch every single game and notify each table they have reached the end without notifying any of the surrounding tables. You can't just notify the whole tournament at once after a given period of time because certain games are going to have turns that take longer than others, so while your announcement may be at the perfect time for some tables it will be too early for others dropping them into the first situation.

None other than logistical ones but it's not any fairer than individual rolls. You can't equate a random game length to an extra 100 points then say you think it's fair in the same post.
If the random game length is fair the variable length between tables is also fair because there is no change in fairness between a short and long game.

Which player does a randomly determined 5 turn game favor?
Which player does a randomly determined 7 turn game favor?
If the answer to both is neither, and it should be, then variable length between tables is fair.

So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

You've never played skimmer heavy armies at all have you?

Jancoran wrote:Like I said. You just have to be more imaginative than those over generalizations you just espoused.

As for whether this matters in regards to random game length, what it SOUNDS like you are saying is that you dont want to change how you play. That's not an argument either.

Still trying to talk down the argument, are you?

Why not simply admit that you were wrong and the game is not balanced to hold objectives over multiple turns?
Yeah, it's much easier to discredit the opposite, than actually answer to valid arguments.

However, maybe you simply have a look at the battlemissions? There is a mission which is called "Scorched Earth" or similar, for CSM. It's exactly the scenario which you have proposed, infantry models near one of the (3+d3) objectives collect points, with bonus points for last turn.
From playing this scenario multiple times, I have found it to be very broken in the current context. An army with units that can just sit on an objective while being effective (Space Marines, IG, Space Wolves, Eldar) have a great time and ramp up points so fast, that they pretty much are unbeatable by turn 5, except by getting tabled. Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

And even that mission has a random game length.

Jancoran wrote: if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

As an example, at my last tournament I ran a Terminator heavy Grey Knights army. Due to keeping units in reserve and a very low model count, I finished my games sometimes an hour or more before other players.

What am I supposed to do? Just pause the game for an hour until everyone is ready for the single roll? What if I want to get lunch, or spend some time checking out other armies, or see how my buddies game is going? It seems like a lot of inconvenience for no tangible benefit.

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

What.

Orks: Standard orks with T4, or grots going to ground

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

Dark Eldar: Wracks, even standard warriors.

Blood angels: Tac squads, assault squads

Grey knights: Terminators, strike squads, purifiers.

Be prepared.

Jancoran wrote:
So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

A logistical nightmare, mainly. Plus a GREAT deal of frustration amongst players, even MORE pressure on people to bring smaller faster to play armies, this comping against hordes yet again, so they avoid the pressure of everyone waiting on them and only them to finish turn 5 so they can finish their game that started earlier.

Or, you can try the insane approach, whereby you segregate every single table so they cannot see or hear if others are still playing. You then need to go to every table, when theyre ready for a turn 6, to tell them if they get one. All without letting any other table outside of the one youre addressing know any of this, to avoid making it effectively fixed length.

All for zero tangible benefit.

So, a "serious" tournament would not try this, as quite frankly you would look incredibly stupid no matter what you did.

Or, you keep the status quo - both players know it is random game length, both know they roll the dice, and it exactly as fair for them as it is for another player.

In other words - given your entire premise is flawed (that random game length between tables is unfair) trying to build a workable strategy from a flawed proposition is doomed to failure.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

What.

Orks: Standard orks with T4, or grots going to ground

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

Dark Eldar: Wracks, even standard warriors.

Blood angels: Tac squads, assault squads

Grey knights: Terminators, strike squads, purifiers.

So you can leave those units out of the fight and still win? You must be an amazingly good player.

You have one of those units, true. The armies I mentioned before can easily leave three or more of those units sitting in the backfield with their thumbs up their backside without losing anything. If a GK leaves a squad of terminators and a squad of purifiers in his deployment zone and does nothing but shoot with them, he is not going to kill anything. Same for orks fielding three units of gretchin (maybe doable in a BW list, impossible in all others). As far as I know BA don't use tac squads and assault squads and outside of razorspam, assault squads are required elsewhere.

Kaldor wrote:
What am I supposed to do? Just pause the game for an hour until everyone is ready for the single roll? What if I want to get lunch, or spend some time checking out other armies, or see how my buddies game is going? It seems like a lot of inconvenience for no tangible benefit.

Saying no tangible benefit is disingenuous. The benefit has been explained and it is a tangible benefit.

But you make a good point. You are right. I play reserve HEAVY so I experience the same thing and that's legit. It would inconvenience a select few players more than some others.

There is no tangible benefit, it hasn't been explained at all. Individual rolls are the same as TO rolls except it's a logistic nightmare getting the TO to do it.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

I wasn't aware 18" (at best) was "across the board". Warriors can get a single 36" range gun - but that hardly matches C:SM or many of the other gunline type armies that can just sit on one objective and blow me off the others.

Jancoran wrote:

Dayvuni wrote:In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

In one-on-one games, who cares? it's totally fair to both of you. But when numerous peoples tourney standings are being affected, not just a single games decision, it is totally different in impact.

If the TO gave everyone the same amount of time, you'd feel no guilt at all about winning right? Everyone else got the same deal.

And they also should use the same codex as they aren't all equally balanced if complete fairness is what you are striving for.

Actinium wrote:There is no tangible benefit, it hasn't been explained at all. Individual rolls are the same as TO rolls except it's a logistic nightmare getting the TO to do it.

While you are...intintionally...ignoring the benefit, I am willing to concede (and already SAID) that it could be a logistical problem. Here again, you're focusing on all the problems instead of being a solutions guy. That's not helping.

Maybe it's just my attitude in general, but I feel like you need to look towards how TO do things and how TO make things work instead of focusing all your energy on the negative. People who say you can't win with a Swooping Hawks army makes me want to go out and win with one (so i did). Not because it's easy nor the "best" way. Just because I tire of the absolutism so many gamers seem to fall prey to. I get real bored of listening to superlatives all the time.

I am personally interested because, while I will not be doing it for our current tournament (and may never institute any of this), I am interested in ways to make players feel like their wins really mean something.
While those who lose semi-consistently will take their wins any way they can, fair or not, those who win consistently have another goal: legitimizing themselves as elite. The one camp just wants to win once in a while so they can make sense oftheir investment. The other camp doesn't concern itself with winning anymore. They've already proven they can do that. Instead they concern themselves with the level of the competition. The harder the better. Neither one is wrong, actually. They are just in different places, with different goals.

Some here have said that they have moved on in a tournament when they feel a better person probably should have (in essence). I have heard people espouse support for fixed length (though in the minority) in this very thread and others. So what I hear is that the opinion isn't unanimous as you think it is.

So then.

What say you to 6 rounds + Random game length?

It is part of the game, you are playing that game, it should stay. Skill is dealing with variables not removing them.

Drew14 wrote:It is part of the game, you are playing that game, it should stay. Skill is dealing with variables not removing them.

QFT. It affects the way you play the game.

rigeld2 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

I wasn't aware 18" (at best) was "across the board". Warriors can get a single 36" range gun - but that hardly matches C:SM or many of the other gunline type armies that can just sit on one objective and blow me off the others.

Than be aggressive in taking the objectives, I know which mission you spoke of before, the Chaos Pillage mission now that I looked it up from my editions. Be aggressive, by the rules you still collect points even in combat so long as you have something touching it. Pull them off, assault them and force them off while keeping a token task force on your own.

You have one of those units, true. The armies I mentioned before can easily leave three or more of those units sitting in the backfield with their thumbs up their backside without losing anything. If a GK leaves a squad of terminators and a squad of purifiers in his deployment zone and does nothing but shoot with them, he is not going to kill anything. Same for orks fielding three units of gretchin (maybe doable in a BW list, impossible in all others). As far as I know BA don't use tac squads and assault squads and outside of razorspam, assault squads are required elsewhere.

Than get up and be aggressive, the battle mission Pillage allows you to take points even if you are in combat and next to it with your own.

Jancoran wrote:
What say you to 6 rounds + Random game length?

How is that different from 5-7 rounds random? It's the same, but with one more round guaranteed.

Jancoran wrote:While you are...intintionally...ignoring the benefit

I'm not trying to, maybe I just missed it? I really don't see where a randomly determined short game is somehow more or less fair to both players than a randomly determined long game.

Jancoran wrote:What say you to 6 rounds + Random game length?

I'm certainly open to trying it but long games tend to work out for me, a lot of people prefer a 5-7 turn clock instead of a 6-7 or 6-8 clock because it becomes less of an objectives game and more of a table your opponent game the longer it goes on.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

I wasn't aware 18" (at best) was "across the board". Warriors can get a single 36" range gun - but that hardly matches C:SM or many of the other gunline type armies that can just sit on one objective and blow me off the others.

Than be aggressive in taking the objectives, I know which mission you spoke of before, the Chaos Pillage mission now that I looked it up from my editions. Be aggressive, by the rules you still collect points even in combat so long as you have something touching it. Pull them off, assault them and force them off while keeping a token task force on your own.

You have one of those units, true. The armies I mentioned before can easily leave three or more of those units sitting in the backfield with their thumbs up their backside without losing anything. If a GK leaves a squad of terminators and a squad of purifiers in his deployment zone and does nothing but shoot with them, he is not going to kill anything. Same for orks fielding three units of gretchin (maybe doable in a BW list, impossible in all others). As far as I know BA don't use tac squads and assault squads and outside of razorspam, assault squads are required elsewhere.

Than get up and be aggressive, the battle mission Pillage allows you to take points even if you are in combat and next to it with your own.

Have you played it? That would show you the exact flaw I tried to point out. As orks, I have no choice but to be aggressive, so I pretty much do what I do in all objective games, capture the ones the opponent is sitting on. As aggressive as possible means that I hit the enemy front lines by turn 2 (battlewagons) or turn 3 (footslogging) At that time, an opponent who can sit on objectives already has ramped upt 6-9 points (even more if facing fast transports or infiltrators). It will take another turn or so to completely clear the enemies off the objectives, and by that time have no way of catching up with the lead they have taken. Assuming that you are able to clear them out at all, an IG castle with a powerblob around it can easily sit on three objectives and is really hard to move out of the way.

Any games featuring accured points for objectives really needs to have an odd number of objectives, with the 'odd' objective being in the centre of the table. Anyone who simply castles up is going to lose, or at best claim a draw.

Having troops clock points for sitting on objectives each turn completely invalidates assaulty/mobile codices that rely on their troops to fight. E.g. BA, Chaos, Orks, DE.

The reason objectives don't count until the end of the game at the moment is because it allows assaulty armies with troops to do their thing before worrying about objectives.

Perhaps this could work simply by having two objective missions. One where you gain points for sitting on objectives and one where you grab them last turn. To give both types of armies a chance. Troop heavy assaulting armies might find the accumulation missions difficult but it wouldn't be all the time.


An alternative would be to have a mission with 5 objectives and you accumulate a point each turn that you hold more objectives that your opponent. It would mean that a troop heavy assault army could force his shooty-campy opponent to leave his castle and come get him, by temporarily holding two objectives in his backfield to counteract those in his opponent's backfield.

lunarman wrote:An alternative would be to have a mission with 5 objectives and you accumulate a point each turn that you hold more objectives that your opponent. It would mean that a troop heavy assault army could force his shooty-campy opponent to leave his castle and come get him, by temporarily holding two objectives in his backfield to counteract those in his opponent's backfield.

Thats the same net result as either having a single objective, or having an odd number with the 'odd' objective being in the centre. Basically, both teams will accrue the same number of points until one player grabs that 'odd' objective. Players can castle up and hope for a draw, but no one gets to the top tables by playing for draws.

Jancoran - no, there is no real benefit.

Also 6+random turn 7 just means you have made last turn objective grabbing easier than usual - not the complete g'tee you made it with your initial suggestion, but still not exactly a great improvement to proving the "elite"-ness of a skimmer heavy player.

It is entirely 100% unuterrably and incontrovertably fair that table 1 finishes on turn 5 when table 2 finishes on turn 6. Fact. Your premise is still flawed, and instead of complaining that people are only looking at the negatives maybe understand what they are saying, rather than bullishly ignoring it.

I am also a TO, albeit a minor one (max 54 players, all our hall comfortably holds), so I AM looking at this like a TO - balancing missions is hard, what you are proposing would entirely feth the already limited balance this game has, skewing it even more into a game of "whoever wins the dice roll for deployment wins" than this game already can be, with certain match ups.

GW got random game lenth *right*, turn 5 - 7 is exactly the right number of turns, as it covers the long and short games that different armies can play to very well.

Can't wait to see how much 6th Ed rocks some peoples world. Change, or even the mention of it, makes for interesting responses.

Thank you to all who contributed to the convo in the spirit it was meant to be discussed. It's been enlightening and I think I have seen the gamit of responses I'm going to. Random game length is obviously popular and feelings run strong on it so that tells me what I need to know.

Oh for...

This isnt a fear of change, and you characterising it as such as a way to dismiss peoples valid, sound reasoning as to why the removal of random game length would utterly destroy the limited balance this game has, is dishonest and, quite frankly rude.

Random game length isnt just "popular", as you have summarised it - it is *essential* to how an objectives based IGOUGO mission works. The fact you dont seem to understand this worries me, as you profess to be a TO making up missions - and if you cannot understand such a basic concept i doubt your missions will end up balanced.

Poor show.

Your hyperbole aside (and thats what that was) I'm satisfied there wont be any more responses that will add to the discussion. What's been said is adequate.

I "understand" why you think its essential. Just spent 5 pages listening to it. I already knew most of what would be said. What I really cared about knowing was how strong the current was and how willing to try something different. Now I know. Mission accomplished.

Poor show to you sir. Do not ascribe motivations to a person you dont know and dont expand the import of this forum thread beyond what it actually means: very little other than that it got talked about. Lol.

I am really awed by how much you are twisting your own argumentation just appear right, dodging counter-arguments, choking any string of argumentation that doesn't run in your favor and questioning the motivation of everyone who disagrees with you.

Say, did you recently lose an election and move to wargaming instead of politics?

Jidmah wrote:I am really awed by how much you are twisting your own argumentation just appear right, dodging counter-arguments, choking any string of argumentation that doesn't run in your favor and questioning the motivation of everyone who disagrees with you.

Say, did you recently lose an election and move to wargaming instead of politics?

He's been pretty polite and well mannered the whole time. Lay off a little, huh?

Jancoran wrote:Your hyperbole aside (and thats what that was) I'm satisfied there wont be any more responses that will add to the discussion. What's been said is adequate.

Sigh. Gotta love how you twist any rational argument around so you still appear "right". You're not. You're wrong. You have been in pretty much every post.

Jancoran wrote:I "understand" why you think its essential. Just spent 5 pages listening to it.

You have shown zero evidence that you have listened to anything, given you have come to the conclusion that people fear change and this is why they want to keep random game length. It isnt the reason. The reasons, of which there are many, have been explained to you in a number of ways, yet you refuse to accept them and instead ascribe a different rationale to them.

Very, very poor show.

Jancoran wrote: I already knew most of what would be said. What I really cared about knowing was how strong the current was and how willing to try something different. Now I know. Mission accomplished.

And, yet again, you ascribe fear of change to well founded, rational and 100% correct arguments to the contrary.

Poor show.

Jancoran wrote:Poor show to you sir. Do not ascribe motivations to a person you dont know and dont expand the import of this forum thread beyond what it actually means: very little other than that it got talked about. Lol.

"LOL" back. You clearly didnt want to hear the truth, so have ascribed negative connotations to those posting in the contrary to your ill founded, ill thought out ideas.

Perhaps if you reread what *I* wrote again... You'd see that I was quite reasonable. I agreed that the majority want to keep random game lengths. So I dont know WHAT you're actually talking about. Not only did I listen but I moved on from the original question and conceded the point. So should you. Seriously.

You're too busy being righteously indignant, drawing lines in sand and abusing the English language to notice the conversation evolved. And that's fine. I don't need you to notice. I certainly dont need you to tell me what the "truth" is that I "don't want to hear". I just needed your opinion and I got it.

So moving on.

Just let the thread die, the points and counter points that make up the body of the thread still stand by themselves regardless of who gets the snarky last post. Anyone who searches for this topic in the future can read the relevant ideas and opinions and form their own conclusions, a string of personal attacks tacked on the end just muddy the relevant information. There doesn't need to be a winner or loser here.


PS: I'm totally the winner here

Jancoran wrote:Perhaps if you reread what *I* wrote again... You'd see that I was quite reasonable. I agreed that the majority want to keep random game lengths. So I dont know WHAT you're actually talking about. Not only did I listen but I moved on from the original question and conceded the point. So should you. Seriously.

I read what you wrote, which is the conclusion is that people are afraid of change.

Which is wrong.

Meaning you didnt listen. In fact you did the opposite of listening - you made something up, were corrected on it, ignored it and continued to parrot your made up conclusion, and so on.

Random game length means the game is based more on luck than skill.

You might say that the rest of the combat in the game is decided by luck. This is true but you roll so many dice that the combat results average out and you can easily account for your loses and victory's and adapt your battle plan accordingly. you cant do that with single turn roll.

Thats false, it shows which player is able to adapt to a changing tactical situation instead of schenanagins with trying to go second and zip onto the objectives last round.

If I can't deal with random game length, I'm a bad player. Randomness allows players to demonstrate their flexability.

I've always also been of the opinion that while in general dice are ok, the ending of a game time is simply too big a factor to be left up to a single dice roll at the end. However the fact remains that with the current rules last second rushes would get absolutely ridiculous.

That is why I think the current system for ending the game should be replaced entirely and it should become a system in which after turn 3 or turn 4 are over then certain objectives depending on the game type need to be met, and when they are that team wins.

Like Flames of War, basically?

If that was used there would need to be a similer mechanic to FoW where you can break your opponent's army and make them run away. Otherwise it could just be a bloody stalemate and games would take even longer.

FoW can last for 10+ turns, but each turn can be fairly quick. A turn of 40k can take upwards of 15 minutes.

Grey Templar wrote:Thats false, it shows which player is able to adapt to a changing tactical situation instead of schenanagins with trying to go second and zip onto the objectives last round....

I have to agree with this point here. I have played games that are timed, 60 minutes 45 minutes, and the like with no set amount of rounds and watch players activate their characters in minimal controlled ways with the intent of milking the clock so that when the word goes out for last 2 minutes or something they do a massive bum rash attack in attempt to win the game on points at time because they have been cheesy in their play.

However when you don't know for sure if the game is about to end you have to change your style from a turtling style to an aggressive style. So I like the randomness because if you turtle until turn five and then do a full court press with your army only to realize their is a turn six and your army is just all out there....it shows that it still is not about 1 single roll of the dice but your play style has put so much emphasis on that 1 roll.

I play Star Wars Miniatures and was very active in that community and there was a point where the tourny rules had to change because of a power combo that came into being, Black and Blue and Kota Bomb/Han Cannon. Those two combos could essentially destroy a squad/army in one big display of power. Both relayed on a dice role to pull it off (initiative), and both squads had a gimmick that helped even more in that regard (master tactition/Recon). But basically you would use the end of one turn to position your pieces, do some damage to soften up your opponent and then, win initiative and annihilate them. Even if you don't table them you have basically decimated the heart of their squad. So the rules had to change to prevent these combos from taking over the game.

With the random role for turn 6 and 7 it helps assure fair, even, and optimal play for both players. Not a one sided end of game slaughter. (If such does happen its based on combinations of multiple die roles, player skill and tactics and war gear.)

Exactly. It's a great balance between forcing action at the end, while forcing players to balance how "all in" they push against the possibility that the game will continue and they will be too exposed. You need to set up the position in the early turns so that you can make your play for the win on 5 without leaving yourself open to be crushed if it goes on.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. It's a great balance between forcing action at the end, while forcing players to balance how "all in" they push against the possibility that the game will continue and they will be too exposed. You need to set up the position in the early turns so that you can make your play for the win on 5 without leaving yourself open to be crushed if it goes on.

That's pretty much my thinking on it.

You shouldn't be able to count on winning the game on a technicality either,

i like the idea of a tourny game lasting a set length. But i think that the games should get longer as the tourney progresses. So the first game is five round, second game is six round and so on.

this would make it more challenging as the tourney progressed.

but i see where a situation like that would tick people of i mean who wants to loose because of a dice role

You don't lose because the game ends.

You lose because you played worse than the other player up till the point where the game ended.

Jidmah wrote:You don't lose because the game ends.

You lose because you played worse than the other player up till the point where the game ended.

This.

If the games are a set turn length, the game will turn into "hunt the fast skimmer".

I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

It's not due to a single dice roll. It's due to playing to the objectives and not taking the chance that the game will continue.

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

This. It does take skill to position and prepare yourself for the next turn and you need to assume there will be a 6th turn.

But that doesn't stop weaker army's, or army's that have already lost the game if it goes for another turn, rushing on turn five and having a 1/3 chance of winning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if thats what FOW play's like then i am even more interested in it. That sounds like a good way to run objective based games

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

You lose the game when the roll does not turn in your favor, you didn't defeat the enemy. Blowing 2/3 of the enemy army off the table only counts as defeating during Annihilation.

Whenever a single roll (game ends, moral check for that most important unit, psychic test for the power you really need, penetration roll against the vehicle which really has to die) makes you lose the game, it is your fault for maneuvering the game into a state where a single roll makes you lose. Not the dice's fault.

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

I definitely think it's a good thing. Prevents objective rush, forces players to be adaptable, which is a skill they should be able to bring to bear in tourneys...

DarknessEternal wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

ChocolateGork wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

Then they had a better plan than you. If you've destroyed 80% of their army, you destroyed the wrong 80%. That's one reason target priority is important.

ChocolateGork wrote:
But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

With fixed game length, it's far, far bigger issue. In your example, with 5 turn fixed turn length (your opponent has no reason to rush the objectives until last turn) you have 1 player urn to react if you went second and no time at all if you went first. If you had been playing random game length, you would have had 2/3 chance of getting at least one extra turn to solve the problem.

With random gamelengths, enemy is forced to do the rush by turn 5 latest, even though there's 2/3 chance that game will continue to turn 6. Fixed game lengths mean that "last" turn objective grabs become far better than they are normally.

ChocolateGork wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

If you're playing an objective game, killing stuff is not the winning condition.

If you kill an army down to one model who's holding an objective, and you have an entire army and are holding none, you were outplayed.

Jidmah wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

You lose the game when the roll does not turn in your favor, you didn't defeat the enemy. Blowing 2/3 of the enemy army off the table only counts as defeating during Annihilation.

Whenever a single roll (game ends, moral check for that most important unit, psychic test for the power you really need, penetration roll against the vehicle which really has to die) makes you lose the game, it is your fault for maneuvering the game into a state where a single roll makes you lose. Not the dice's fault.

Right, except it is entirely possible to destroy 80% of your opponent's army, lose only 20% of your own, and draw because of that single unlucky dice roll. Short of tabling an opponent there is little you can do to stop late-turn shenanigans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

If you're playing an objective game, killing stuff is not the winning condition.

If you kill an army down to one model who's holding an objective, and you have an entire army and are holding none, you were outplayed.

Right, but no one said that. It's more often than not the difference between victory and a draw. Recently there was a situation where my tyranid opponent had literally only a full-wounded tyrannofex left on turn 5, rushed it forward towards my holding objective. By the end of turn 5 I was still winning. Then during my shooting phase, knocked it down to its last wound but it still moved/ran towards my objective with one wound left. Bam, the game ends end of turn 6. I lost, despite having the good chunk of my army left and having essentially wiped out my opponent.
I know it's popular on dakka to, whenever you disagree with anyone on anything whatsoever, simply accuse the opponent of lacking skill, but this is bs.

@Joey I understand where you are coming from. I lost an objecctive game last week because my opponent daisy chained a bunch of tzeentch horrors from one objective to another. It is not a cool way to lose but it is the way the game has been.

I know my army is designed to in turn 5 rush out speeders to contest objectives. Is it a fething cheap move? Yes it is, but otherwise my handful of troops would have a lot of trouble holding the line against any horde army.

This mechanic while imperfect is nescessary for game balance because it makes you have multiple troop choices to claim objectives in order to have a chance in every game type. Other wise people would field minimum tac squads and load up on terminators etc.

So in short is it perfect no shoul we change it no

Joey wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

You lose the game when the roll does not turn in your favor, you didn't defeat the enemy. Blowing 2/3 of the enemy army off the table only counts as defeating during Annihilation.

Whenever a single roll (game ends, moral check for that most important unit, psychic test for the power you really need, penetration roll against the vehicle which really has to die) makes you lose the game, it is your fault for maneuvering the game into a state where a single roll makes you lose. Not the dice's fault.

Right, except it is entirely possible to destroy 80% of your opponent's army, lose only 20% of your own, and draw because of that single unlucky dice roll. Short of tabling an opponent there is little you can do to stop late-turn shenanigans.

No, that's exactly what he's talking about. If that one die roll could cost me the game, I did not really outplay my opponent. It ISN'T one die roll; it's five turns of die rolls and decisions in which I left myself in a position where a 1/3 roll could lose or draw the game. I had five turns to cripple my opponent's army and/or maneuver my units to block off that objective, and I failed to do so. Thus I did not earn the win.

Joey wrote:

If you kill an army down to one model who's holding an objective, and you have an entire army and are holding none, you were outplayed.

Right, but no one said that. It's more often than not the difference between victory and a draw. Recently there was a situation where my tyranid opponent had literally only a full-wounded tyrannofex left on turn 5, rushed it forward towards my holding objective. By the end of turn 5 I was still winning. Then during my shooting phase, knocked it down to its last wound but it still moved/ran towards my objective with one wound left. Bam, the game ends end of turn 6. I lost, despite having the good chunk of my army left and having essentially wiped out my opponent.

That's only a difference of degree, not of kind.

You didn't wipe out the part that mattered. Whether you look at it as a failure of play skill on your part for leaving him that unit alive to do that, or an achievement of his skill that he preserved a unit in just the right place he needed it at the end. If you had exercised different fire priority, maybe you would have killed that unit, and left something else alive elsewhere on the table where it wasn't in position to win him the game.

Exactly what Mannahnin said.

If you spend five turns playing and your opponent still has the ability to win the game by one dice roll with just 20% of his army left, you should have either killed those 20% instead of other things or prepared countermeasures to prevent that die deciding the game.

You know, like puting someone with a meltagun on that objective, to be able to DoG the jumping tank - that's more than one dice. Or parking a vehicle on the objective. Then you are already up to three dice required to lose the game, as the skimmer has to ram, penetrate and destroy the vehicle and the game has to end.
If you don't have those options left, maybe the opponent sacrificed 80% of his army to outplay you?

As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?
You could also argue that your failure to shoot it down lost you the game, not the game ending. Maybe you should have kept something alive that can reliable wound a tyrannofex.
Blaming the failure to secure your objective on the dice that ended the game, is common practice, but nonsense. "If I had one more turn" or "If the game had ended the turn before" is something I hear way too often. In turn five to seven you have to take into account both the game ending and the game continuing. If you plan for just one, you are going to get screwed when the dice doesn't follow your plan. Just like you get screwed if your only melta in the army fails to hit the landraider.

This, a thousand times this

If you didnt prepare for this situation occuring, you wwere outplayed.

Play to the mission, which isnt as simple as killing nore stuff than the enemy, in objectives missions.

Jidmah wrote:As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?

How about a fast skimmer? You can't toss something in its way, and it can hide quite easily in maximum movement range of an objective. This is what made Eldar so broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This, a thousand times this

If you didnt prepare for this situation occuring, you wwere outplayed.

Play to the mission, which isnt as simple as killing nore stuff than the enemy, in objectives missions.

This isn't about out-killing the enemy. It's about playing to the mission. Some armies, with a fixed game length, can guarantee a draw if they can't get a win, simply by going second, hiding fast skimmers and contesting objectives on the last turn.

ChocolateGork wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Joey wrote:I don't like anything that allows a weaker, defeated army to draw/win due entirely to a single dice roll.

They weren't weaker or defeated if they control more objectives/have more kill points than you. It's the other way around.

If they have more objectives/kill points, you are the weaker army.

But what if you have destroyed 80% of their army and at the top of turn 5 they rush the objectives with skimmers and jetbikes?

As people complain about the enemy doing this with fixed turns. it also works with random turn length. Just now you have an even shorter amount of time to destroy the enemy.

Do you think this problem will be better or worse with fixed game length?

If you're not an idiot the answer is 'worse' because currently the player has to commit to what will probably be a losing move 2/3 of the time. In a fixed game length situation (and there's no reason that you necessarily have 'less' time to do it with RGL because fixed game length doesn't HAVE to be 6 turns) they can do it with complete safety, knowing it can't fail.

-Loki- wrote:This isn't about out-killing the enemy. It's about playing to the mission. Some armies, with a fixed game length, can guarantee a draw if they can't get a win, simply by going second, hiding fast skimmers and contesting objectives on the last turn.

Right - random game length is a good thing in this situation, because the skimmer player must take a risk.
Fixed game length would make this worse.

-Loki- wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?

How about a fast skimmer? You can't toss something in its way, and it can hide quite easily in maximum movement range of an objective. This is what made Eldar so broken.

...block it from landing within 3" of the objective somehow?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?

How about a fast skimmer? You can't toss something in its way, and it can hide quite easily in maximum movement range of an objective. This is what made Eldar so broken.

...block it from landing within 3" of the objective somehow?

They can ram, so they can at least get within that range.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?

How about a fast skimmer? You can't toss something in its way, and it can hide quite easily in maximum movement range of an objective. This is what made Eldar so broken.

...block it from landing within 3" of the objective somehow?

They can ram, so they can at least get within that range.

Only if a DoG doesn't kill it, or if they kill whatever they ram.
Still more than a single die roll.

Trying to ram through a death or glory meltagun and then only having a 1 in 3 chance of the game ending is the kind of long shot odds that keeps that from being an effective strategy.

Yes, which is why I support the random game length myself.

-Loki- wrote:

Jidmah wrote:As for the single MC stealing your objective - maybe you should have tossed something in it's way to prevent it from reaching the objective in time? Grab the other objective instead? Charge it, so keep it busy for the turn?

How about a fast skimmer? You can't toss something in its way, and it can hide quite easily in maximum movement range of an objective. This is what made Eldar so broken.

Uh, did you read my post? I was talking about fast skimmers the very two lines before the one you quoted.

Loki wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This, a thousand times this

If you didnt prepare for this situation occuring, you wwere outplayed.

Play to the mission, which isnt as simple as killing nore stuff than the enemy, in objectives missions.

This isn't about out-killing the enemy. It's about playing to the mission. Some armies, with a fixed game length, can guarantee a draw if they can't get a win, simply by going second, hiding fast skimmers and contesting objectives on the last turn.

I know it isnt, hence my statement - see the bold

General - If you think removal of random game length makes the game more "fair" or is somehow a greater display of someones skill as a general, then you have no idea what skill means - for all the reasons shown throughout these threads, FGL means certain armies have an autowin if they go sedond - they simply hide in reserves till turn 5 and you have, assuming 6 turns, 1 turn of shooting to get them

If you want objective based missions, where end-of-game-holding is all that counts, you CANNOT have FGL and expect this to be a demonstration of any sort of skill for certain armies. None at all. You have just massively reduced the skill level requred to play the game

Corrode wrote:
If you're not an idiot the answer is...

Ah. The epitome of rhetoric. Lol. Just saying.

The way I see it, if winning your game comes down to passing (or your enemy failing ) a certain die roll, then you weren't playing well enough to really deserve the win. Your enemy obviously played well enough that the win might as well be a coin flip.

This goes for bad luck with random game length, enemy units miraculously passing a morale check or armor save despite the odds being against it, your units miraculously failing morale or armor despite odds being in your favor, having a bed shooting phase, having a bad hth phase, etc.

If you find yourself saying "Aw, if it wasn't for *example from above", I would have won!" then it was a close game and your enemy was just as entitled to that win.

Jancoran wrote:

Corrode wrote:
If you're not an idiot the answer is...

Ah. The epitome of rhetoric. Lol. Just saying.

Good to see you still have no argument other than "people are afraid of change!!!!!"

Just saying.

Weak.

Anyways, I got what I needed out of the convo. Like I said: mission accomplished for me.

Jancoran wrote:Weak.

Anyways, I got what I needed out of the convo. Like I said: mission accomplished for me.

As weak as entirely misrepresenting a whole slew of other peoples arguments, entirely lying about the outcome?

Nope, not really.

Whatever man. "Lying" about the outcome. Yeah. You're not a drama queen or anything.

You guys are just the worst kind of internet.

Jancoran wrote:Whatever man. "Lying" about the outcome. Yeah. You're not a drama queen or anything.

Logical, well structured arguments that explain to you, quite clearly, why random game length is important to ensure games have some modicum of skill

Vs

People are a'feard of change! This is the only possible reason they dont want fixed game length!

Notice how one isnt like the other? Notice how it isnt even remotely possible to get from one to the other in an honest fashion?

Not a drama queen, pointing out dishonesty in anothers position, to make sure people aren't duped by you into thinking your position has merit

Jancoran wrote:Fair enough. the number of people who feel its better to have it than not have it seems to be heavily weighted. So it's probably better not to make a change there. This is the same response in various forms i have gotten elsewhere.

trouble with asking these questions is, you rarely get an answer. Instead you get insults towards anyone "who would" do it. I think you have to explore everything when you're trying to build a better mousetrap. Sometimes that exploration ends you where you started, as in this case. hehehe.

Page 1 of this whole debate. page ONE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jancoran wrote:Yeah and a bummer when you look over and see the other guy DID and therefore won the game you could have won had you been one table over. That's the inequity that I wish there was a good answer too. i get that it adds a level to the game in one sense but it does so at a cost also. All things being imperfect, I suppose this isn't the largest evil facing our hobby though.

That evil would be price...hehehe.

Page one also. I was already trying to move the convo forward towards other possibilities. So chill out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jancoran wrote:Weak.

Anyways, I got what I needed out of the convo. Like I said: mission accomplished for me.

As weak as entirely misrepresenting a whole slew of other peoples arguments, entirely lying about the outcome?

Nope, not really.

Holy cow dude, lighten up. There's someone acting like a douche on this thread, and it's not Jancoran...

Sigh.
Yes, and those other options were pointed out as infeasible, based on a faulty premise and would do nothing but infuriate 50% of people.

You then concluded, after apparently ignoring these reasons, that people are jsut afraid of change.

I am very, very chilled, just when posters lie through their teeth its useful to correct them, in case others make the mistake of believing them.

Someone lock this thread. Thanks