I have noticed a few people complain about slow play in tournaments, and about 3 of my 15 recent games ending with time being called instead of a game ending. Would it be offensive to use a stopwatch to time both our turns and record it as proof if a person comes off as slow, such as after noticing an opponent taking more than 30 seconds to move each model in a 10+ man squad? Im sure this doesnt happen to a lot of people, but it happens every once in awhile.

I am personally in favor of timers for players who are known to play slow. Whether they play slow on purpose, i.e. slow playing for advantage, or they are just notoriously slow. Granted everyone has a game that is slow once in a while for various reasons, and I don't sweat people tough decisions, but taking 3 minutes per unit in the movement phase is excessive. If it is a habit, and it's a competitive event, then I think timers are ok.

A better solution, for 40k, than timers is to have a TO watching the game and checking in on rounds every few minutes to insure play is moving along at a good pace. If it is not the TO can intervene and let the player(s) know they need to pick up the pace.

Something that has almost completely curbed slow play at our FLGS is a minimum turn requirement. The game must get to a complete 4 turns in the allotted time. Any game that does not complete 4 turns is counted as a loss for both players. We even had this in the Ard Boyz qualifiers and semis, it worked out well.

@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

I fully support timing of the opponent if you think there might be an issue. But you have to remember that it's only a guideline and shouldn't be used as a cut and dry "you lose if you go over X time."

In reality, if he starts to run late on the first turn (let's say 20 minutes for 1 turn in a 2 hour game), then you should alert him to the fact he's playing slow and ask him nicely to speed up. If he does it again turn 2, I'd probably get a judge and formally address the issue with a judge around the 15 minute mark. (The times I reference are just rough guesses based on a 2 hour game. Adjust accordingly).

The bottom line is that you need to be proactive, to get a judge involved and to give your opponent a fair chance to address the issue.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

At that size our TO generally will have an assistant TO, or two, to help with the policing of the tables and keeping an eye on the time. If that isn't an option than Lee's proactive measures are a good way to go about it, or the 4 turn minimum would be a decent idea to implement as well.

I would stray away from simply timing every turn and then calling a TO over at the end and "surprising" your opponent with the information you've gathered. Generally being proactive as Lee suggests will get you further than an end of round ambush. I understand your point entirely and since you want to avoid being offensive than an open policy would be best I think.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Defeatmyarmy wrote:@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

At that size our TO generally will have an assistant TO, or two, to help with the policing of the tables and keeping an eye on the time. If that isn't an option than Lee's proactive measures are a good way to go about it, or the 4 turn minimum would be a decent idea to implement as well.

I would stray away from simply timing every turn and then calling a TO over at the end and "surprising" your opponent with the information you've gathered. Generally being proactive as Lee suggests will get you further than an end of round ambush. I understand your point entirely and since you want to avoid being offensive than an open policy would be best I think.

Makes since to advise them if your lagging on turn 1 and be polite about it.. I didnt mean that I would secretely record the rounds, I was just wondering peoples opinion on being timed. I saw all the Warmahordes players had timers set up from the TO at Kingdom and got the idea from them.

Works fine for Warmachine Tournaments, don't see why it wouldn't work for other games.

I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

It's iffy. Consider:

On one side, you have Draigowing. About 20-25 models.

On the other side? Green Tide. 150+ models.

The Ork guy is going to be taking a good deal more time than the GK player will.

@Daedalus

While that is true there is nothing more frustrating than a person with only 20ish models to move taking 20+ minutes for a movement phase when my Nids (90ish models) and my all foot GK's (60 models) take less than 5. It's not always horde players who are slow.

I saw all the Warmahordes players had timers set up from the TO at Kingdom and got the idea from them.

Warmahordes has specific tourny rule set that require such clocks and time management. And it works OK for that game because of the turn structure -- with 40k's assault phase mechanic its a bit more problematic. And although arguable, I think warmahorde armies don't vary quite as much in terms of model counts (40k varies between 30-200+. Warmahordes is not quite as variable, at least from my days playing mk1)

The biggest problem I have with a chess clock in 40k is what is really slowing down games. In chess the an actual move takes seconds, all the clock is controlling is time thinking about the move. In 40k it really is the 'move' itself or the mechanics that slow the game down. Speeding that process up can actually cause the game to slow down due to arguments. Think about all the things that can get glossed over if playing fast and loose. Or forgotten.

I'd rather tournaments were realistic in the schedule and points limits then using something like a chess clock. 2 hours for 2k is just not enough time. 2:15 for 1850 is pushing it, especially with non-standard wacky stuff.

daedalus wrote:It's iffy. Consider:

On one side, you have Draigowing. About 20-25 models.

On the other side? Green Tide. 150+ models.

The Ork guy is going to be taking a good deal more time than the GK player will.

You can slow play with any army, one of my 3 was a draigowing turtle. I admit large armies take a lot of practice to finish games on time, my movement phase for my DOA army horde takes 15 minutes turn 1 if everything is on the field legging it. Ive seen a few horde players actually finish turns faster than some elitest armies and some elitest armies play slower than horde armies.

Agree with Winterman.

I thought about using timers in 40k.

But to be fair, you'd have to do it like this:

Player 1 activates his clock. Moves as normal.

Declares unit 1 is shooting. Rolls to hit and to wound. Stops clock, player 2's clock activates.

Player 2 allocates and makes saves. Stops his clock, player 1's clock starts.

And so on.

Do-able? Sure. Will it take a lot of getting used to? Yes. Are tournament going to provide chess clocks for every table? Probably not.

The other question is - how big of an issue is slow playing? Yes it occurs, but is instituting such a grand change the real solution?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't slow play with 20 models or 200. I'm just saying that, however you measure turn time, you should allot for the fact that the guy with 200 models could well be legitimately taking more time than the guy with 20.

daedalus wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't slow play with 20 models or 200. I'm just saying that, however you measure turn time, you should allot for the fact that the guy with 200 models could well be legitimately taking more time than the guy with 20.

This is one of the reasons why the timer works much better in a smaller skirmish style system like Warmahordes. That and in Warmahordes each player's turn is literally their turn with very little, to none of the time from your turn being eaten up by the opponent. Timers on every table would be very tricky in 40k and Fantasy tournaments given the wide range of model counts at the varying levels of game play. That doesn't mean someone should be allowed to play slow with a large number of models but the model count is a consideration. This is why I am a huge proponent of the 4 turn minimum requirement over timers in GW games.

A four turn minimum or what? Should everyone else at the tournament be forced to sit and watch as the one slow table forces round after round to be delayed?

And four turn minimum? With reserves that may mean the player who goes first only gets two turns with any enemy models on the table. Seems too few really, in spite of being poorly enforceable and hell on TOs.

I think NO, the rules are meant to play the game without clocks. Iff you want to play with clocks try Kings of War or Warpath...

There is a lot of ways to disturb your opponent turn time in 40k, and the rules are not made for that type of game.

Myself, I got bad experiences with time, in both sides of it, but i would never accept "timed games", because the rules are not for that.

To Redbeard:

I think it's a 4 turn minimum or both players lose.

Slow players generally play the maximum time anyway, so waiting around for them isn't anything new.

I had a friend who would time his games and found out during play what actions take me the longest. he did not have it for me but it helped improve my game anyway.

Redbeard wrote:A four turn minimum or what? Should everyone else at the tournament be forced to sit and watch as the one slow table forces round after round to be delayed?

And four turn minimum? With reserves that may mean the player who goes first only gets two turns with any enemy models on the table. Seems too few really, in spite of being poorly enforceable and hell on TOs.

I explained this in my first post.

It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Also, if somebody reserves out and you only get to turn 4 in 2 hours then you have a really good case to make to the TO about intentional slow play.

I agree on timing players. Nothing feels bitter like being costed an extra turn because one guy had to slowly roll dice and spend extra precious minutes figured out just how exactly he wanted his models to be placed.

While I am strongly against slow play and yes, I've seen people do it in tournies, there are a few problems with timing a players turn. Pretty much every turn in the game is interactive, ie BOTH players have to perform actions. I shoot you, you have to make saves and decide which models to remove as casualties. I assault you, you have to react and both sides have to attack, etc etc. Multiple combats are especially time consuming as you sort out which models are engaged with which models, etc etc. So, how do you accurately time each players ACTIONS instead of turns?

Am completely against this. If you pull out a stop watch, I'm going to pack up. I'm here to enjoy the game, and I can't very well do that if I'm being hounded by a stopwatch.

OverwatchCNC wrote: That and in Warmahordes each player's turn is literally their turn with very little, to none of the time from your turn being eaten up by the opponent.

eHaley's Feat turn(opponent gets to choose your activation order) and Harbinger's Feat turn(damage rolls whenever you end your movement closer to her) are simply two examples to prove that statement inaccurate.

Reading any thread on the PP boards regarding death clock will show it's a more common problem than you think.

I was recently at a tournament where my opponent was slow playing.

However, the joke was on him. It was the first game and because the tournament started late we had 30 minutes less time than was originally scheduled. Apparently he wasn't paying attention when that was announced. I was.

They did come around to let everyone know when there was 30 minutes left; but he was in the bathroom when that happened and I *forgot* to mention it when he got back.

Game ended at the end of turn 3. He was still too far out to contest my objectives and I had already had his contested. It was a 1500 point game and we had an hour an a half. His army had maybe 35 models, most of which in transports. Mine had over 40, also most of which were in transports. Both of us had reserved about half our armies to begin with; and neither of us spent time looking anything up in the brb or our codexes. In short the ONLY reason we were done was due to his playing.

When they called Dice Down, he was furious stating that he thought we still had another 30 minutes. I just shook my head while happily writing down a win for myself.

The other 2 games I played in the tournament were all over within 90 minutes with over 30 left to spare; one going 6 rounds, the other 7. Those were fast paced and very enjoyable. Each of his lasted the full 2 hours allotted going only to turn 5.

It takes me an average of about 7 to 8 minutes to play my side in a 1500 pt game. I believe it boil's down to a matter of respecting your opponents time.

Terrible idea for 40k. The turns are interactive and the game is not designed or balanced for equal time.

Orks usually have one turn where all my assaults are coordinated. We have a rule that promotes such an action. There will be a moment in the game where green skins crash into power armor like waves on the rocks. This assault will take a long time to resolve. The other player has just as many attacks, armor saves and other things in my turn, but yet it is my time? What if he slow plays during my assault? Do I lose time? If he slow plays enough is my assault negated? What happens if there is no more time left, do we stand there, no attacks made until his phase?

The game is not designed for it, it would actually break the game in situations where attacks simply are not made. It also further destabilizes the meta by removing specific army types and unit types from The game because they are not clock friendly. Time consuming rule mechanics and footsloggers will be drastically impacted and removed from what we see used, which further limits what type of units you need to expect.

Works great for blood bowl where the turns are not interactive and a model can stand still and do nothing without harming the mechanics of the game unlike not resolving models in assaults attacks.

I also feel it will increase slow play of people with small model counts as they will feel morally obligated to more time per model opposed to simply playing at a reasonable speed.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

And this right here is my love/hate relationship with tournaments. I love playing green-tide orks, unfortunately this is a pretty slow way to play, especially for me, since I take a little extra time than normal deriving a battle plan during my movement phase. I don't slow play intentionally, but it's what happens when I try to feign any semblance of tactics.

That's generally the problem with the tournament scene, that constant feeling of being rushed tends to cause bad mistakes and compromises for the sake of time, thus screwing over any tactical thought you had to begin with. Yes, I know 40k isn't the most tactical game around, which is why utilizing every little bit helps.

This is really what sets apart the better tournament players from the rest, they have perfected that time management to tactic thought period. As well as bring armies to complement (another case for why mech is popular, arguably faster than moving 180 models a turn).

I guess that's my long-winded way of saying no, do not time turns/moves/rolls etc, instead even tack on an extra 30 minutes to each round!

Redbeard wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

This. And yes, people will do it on the theory that taking you down with them is beeter than going down alone. Silly tournament scoring only belongs in silly tournaments. Like the time a local group decided to score a Draw at 5 points and a loss at 10 points (they thought it would promote people playing for the win?). Oh, and it was NOT announced in advance, so we only found out halfway through the first turn after driving a couple of hours to get there. Well, for some players, when they saw that they were losing, they basically threw the game, ie played to LOSE, so as to rack up more points. So those of us who did play for the win and finished with draws got punished while those that threw the game scored higher? Yeah, nuts, ain't it?

Whenever I play in a tournament against a Horde, I always say.

"Please get your models on the table as I deploy, and please play quickly so we dont run out of time. If we get to a place where both of us wont be able to finish the round, we wont start the round unless you allow both of us to finish".

that being said, if I feel like a game is going slow, I play like how many rounds we will actually complete, Like if we are going to play 3 rounds, the 3rd round I will position myself like it is the last.

I dont really care if people slow play, but I do care if we start a turn, but only 1 player does anthing, that I dont allow because its stupid.

If I feel like a person is slow playing on purpose, I tell them and confront them to move faster. If they dont, then I go get a TO to watch them and the game.

After playing our first tournament, my friend and I played a series of games where we timed our turns, trying to keep each player turn down to 10 minutes. We did this because we both had trouble finishing games in that first tournament due to taking to long on our turns. This way we would be well practiced for future tourneys with a two hour time limit. After playing several games over about a month long period, we both had no problems in our next tourney finishing games.

I wouldn't mind playing with a timer, as long as everybody in the tourney also played with a timer. I think it would be rather rude to impose a restriction on just certain people.

DarknessEternal wrote:I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

Me too. I'd include deployment in the allotted time too.

One problem though is your opponent being slow to allocate/roll saves in your turn (I think stopping the timer for that and then restarting when they're done would be rather cumbersome given it's a 6x4 and not a chess table, but otherwise I think it would solve a ot of problems).

In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

For casual games though I do not think it would be necessary for a timer,

After all it is supposed to be a casual game.

Oh casual games (like casual games of chess) wouldn't need timed. But tournaments do have time limits and running short of turns because your opponent is slow is a bit irritating.

The point about large model count armies being disadavantaged is pertinent though and I'd be happy enough if the time was allocated on some sort of pro rata basis based on model count (not purely on model count but with it factored in)

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

ruminator wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

Your 20 model armies are explicitly balanced around the concept of having those 200 model armies out there. If we remove high model count due to model restrictions or artificial time limits not supported by the rules then you modify the meta. Instead of rock, papers and scissors, you have a meta with rock and paper and scissors was asked not to play.

He has every right to play a 200 model army as he paid the points for it. Just because 30 boyz are slower to move and run than 12 trukk boyz in a trukk doesn't mean he should be punished for the codex designers. The reason you need 30 boyz is to soak up casualties you will take which you avoid by transporting. What you are basically saying is only mechanized armies should be allowed to play in tourneys and anything that walks should be banned.

Time limits don't work because I guarantee on my horde orks, 75% of opponents will be assaulting me and my 300+ attacks will be done on YOUR clock. And I will then take my sweet time because putting us on the clock has modified the game to include timewasting as a valid tactic. I think people would begin purposfully built around wasting your opponent's clock to negate attacks. I can take some nice combos which will keep my units rolling invuns and FNP rolls over and over on your turn!

Timed turns = Army Comp. It is enforcing peoples static opinions on how they believe the game should be played and diverge from the actual rules of the game.

I seriously considered a timing system for my tournaments but after a lot of thinking I decided against it.

The goal of timing players turns would have to be to reward players who finish games, and I did not want to punish players because that's simply not fun. A less fun environment brings less people in my opinion

I simply couldn't come up with a timing system that was totally fair (As others have stated the assault phase is shared among both players, how do you time that?), is simple to use (Chess clocks are fine if you're a chess player but a lot arent used to them) and promotes quicker player rather than punishing slow people

If there is a lot of interaction with the players, like during the assault phase in 40k, then it doesn't work because your opponent can run out your clock. It works fine in games like war machine because there is very little interaction between players.

With chess clocks (which I agree are problematic in 40K because of the size of the board, and to a lesser extent because you do need to get familiar with them - though that's generally a fast thing to grasp) you could just stop your clock when it was time for the opponent to pick up his dice and he'd then do the same. That, however, is a bit fiddly. A better method would be to simply stop the clock altogether for the assault phase once assaults had been declared (though taking saves in the shooting phase would be a lesser issue also). In fairness it's a very imperfect solution but a game ending on turn four is also very imperfect.

I've no wish to see horde players penalised, nor indeed to give an advantage to small model count armies but a game stopped due to time running out because the other person was dithering is irritating, especially if other games are being played for the full 5-7 turns.

nkelsch wrote:

ruminator wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

Your 20 model armies are explicitly balanced around the concept of having those 200 model armies out there. If we remove high model count due to model restrictions or artificial time limits not supported by the rules then you modify the meta. Instead of rock, papers and scissors, you have a meta with rock and paper and scissors was asked not to play.

He has every right to play a 200 model army as he paid the points for it. Just because 30 boyz are slower to move and run than 12 trukk boyz in a trukk doesn't mean he should be punished for the codex designers. The reason you need 30 boyz is to soak up casualties you will take which you avoid by transporting. What you are basically saying is only mechanized armies should be allowed to play in tourneys and anything that walks should be banned.

Time limits don't work because I guarantee on my horde orks, 75% of opponents will be assaulting me and my 300+ attacks will be done on YOUR clock. And I will then take my sweet time because putting us on the clock has modified the game to include timewasting as a valid tactic. I think people would begin purposfully built around wasting your opponent's clock to negate attacks. I can take some nice combos which will keep my units rolling invuns and FNP rolls over and over on your turn!

Timed turns = Army Comp. It is enforcing peoples static opinions on how they believe the game should be played and diverge from the actual rules of the game.

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

One thing with timing is that if (say) the game was sheduled for 2 hours so you got an hour each, you should only lose on time if the game itself runs over, not merely if your own clock runs out (ie both must happen: you are out of time and the game is over time). Of course the problem then is unsporting players deliberately using up more of their own time than they need but building time-balance to allow for disparate model count would help a bit (eg I get 45 mins, you get 1 hour 15 mins), though would itself be complex to balance in a fair way.

Best overall of course would just be to allow more time for each game so horde players wouldn't be so disadvantaged (and nor would their opponent who will rightly be expecting a 5 turn minimum of course), but time tends to be at a premium anyway...

People keep talking about the army as being the problem. It's not. It's the players, and different play styles.

I've played 200 model armies in tournaments and finished almost all my games. The one game I didn't get full-time on was against a very deliberate, thoughtful player. In that case, the combination of me having a lot of models and him taking time to think through moves combined to stop us a turn short. Realistically that's neither of our fault, it's just how things played out. (And, given that it was the first game of a three-day con, both of us were also breaking out our cameras to take pictures for you guys to enjoy).

Moving 200 models might take time, but those of us who play hordes have learned how to move those models quickly and how to think our moves through on our opponent's turn. It can be faster to move and run six units of 30 guys than to nominate targets and fire 18 MSU units. Rolling dice takes some time, especially if you're being polite enough to tell your opponent what you're rolling for, and let them see the results, not to mention small things like discussing possible cover saves and measuring ranges.

I think that all it really takes is a dedicated effort on the part of both players to play at a reasonable pace. The things that really take time away aren't moving models, or even rolling dice, they're wasting ten minutes to look up a rule, and another five to find a judge. They're challenging every move your opponent makes, and every line-of-sight they draw.

I love WMHD due to timed turns. When heading to a event, you know you have a 2nd opponent, its called the clock. If you bring a horde styled army, you know what your getting into. Can't finish the stuff you wanted to do? Priortize it.

I also play a 40K Horde / Ork list. None of my tournment level games have had trouble with timing. I play very very fast. I move fast, I have my dice set up for fast rolling. IE I'm shooting my lootas, there are dice set down during my opponents turn for lootas, in 10's. That way my opponent can see them as I pick them up. Often i've taken less time for my army then my opponents, and I have over 100 models on the table.

If you cannot play fast, don't bring a horde army. Its that simple. Don Mondo suggested the don't start a new turn thing. I hold to that. I've had many opponents who have small armies start stalling because they know I won't have time to finish my turn on last turn. When they start the turn I make a statement, "don't start it unless i get mine also please."

I notice alot of people saying that timed games wouldnt be fair to Ork hordes players. Thats BS! I've played in tournaments against 150+ model armies with guys who knew exactly what they were going to do before they started their turns and were able to finish games well before time ran out.
On the flip side, I also ran a tournament last week and we had one player (running orks) who didn't finish a single game. He kept blaming his high model count but that was also BS because all of his boyz and nobz had transports. Bottom line is that he's a slow player and needs to learn how to play his army so he can pick up the pace.

Redbeard wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

I guess we don't have complete jerks playing in So Cal. Any system can be broken to gain an advantage, timers or turn minimums, it is up to good TOs and Organizers to mitigate that behavior.

gruebot wrote:I notice alot of people saying that timed games wouldnt be fair to Ork hordes players. Thats BS! I've played in tournaments against 150+ model armies with guys who knew exactly what they were going to do before they started their turns and were able to finish games well before time ran out.
On the flip side, I also ran a tournament last week and we had one player (running orks) who didn't finish a single game. He kept blaming his high model count but that was also BS because all of his boyz and nobz had transports. Bottom line is that he's a slow player and needs to learn how to play his army so he can pick up the pace.

Mech orks can be just as bad for moving purposes, I've actually been observing recently I spend a lot of time during my movement phase just deciding how/where I put my battlewagons before I even disembark, then there's the always fun piling out of 20 boyz onto terrain causing hardcore "wobbly model syndrome," it's not a fast process. I've been purposefully playing games under certain time restrictions just to become better at fast decision making.

I can agree horde armies can be pretty quick to play as well, as they usually lack the MSU shooting other armies have, it's just a matter of moving blobs of mobs forward, but there are times that it's still too cumbersome, and the second you try to develop any type of counter-tactic to dealing with templates(max out that 2" spacing) it adds a lot of time. Though with practice I can now do this fairly fast, so it's not much of an issue.

My biggest gripe, and my whole point, is people who bring these 20-30 model count armies, shouldn't get pissed just because their opponent's turn took longer. It's understandable if you only played 4 or less rounds in a 2 and a half hour time limit, but if you do manage to get a turn 5 in and still complain "so and so took more time than I did!" I don't want to hear it.

we started timing our turns preparing for a tourney.

all it did was now, that we dont time our turns, our games dont take 3 hours.

just getting into the mentality that "hey if its not my turn to do something, NOW is the time to shoot the gak, not while my opponent is waiting for me to roll dice." is a tremendous time saver

The time issue is what killed competitive 40K and fantasy for me. I hated the amount of down time and the ability to slowplay when your backs against the wall.

Cmon, how many times do you see a compatition where the guy on the other side just stops the action and takes as much time as he needs to get out of a jam.

If anything needs to be fixed in GW tournamants its time and soft scores.

ruminator wrote:

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

But now you are talking COMP and peoples philosophies on how the correct way to play the game is. I am simply talking META and what the game is balanced for. A transport costs a specific amount of points as it basically equates to the number of added models a unit would need in order to walk, and take casulties. The weapons to deal with the units are different. People should be encouraged to diversify, but eliminating a specific unit type or putting army comp in to minimize means people diversify less on what they bring, which means people can spam Anti tank and anti armorsave weapons and totally neglect anti meat and lowstrength high shot weapons.

Basically people take only allow rock and paper to come to a tourney, and then people all play paper as there is never going to be any scissors because people think it is 'selfish' or 'rude'.

Not saying everyone should show up with 280 model hordes, but people get overly bored and critical of use of time when people are making movement actions which are not interactive, it is the 'I play fast, you are slow' mentality. Often foot units move the appropraite amount of time, but stillt akes longer than transports and people have a flawed concept of equal time which the game was not designed for and is an urneasonable expectation.

Time limits are all COMP. And I thought COMP was the devil?

ruminator wrote:

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

I don't agree at all with your statement. I have played against horde armies and had no problem finishing games. It really comes down to the player running the horde, and how comfortable/competent they are working within the time constraints of a tournament. I've also had games that didn't finish because I was playing somebody with a regular sized army that took way to much time to consider every movement and shooting phase. To call somebody selfish because of the size of their army isn't really fair, because horde armies can be played in a tournament with no problems.

ruminator wrote:Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

It takes two to tango.

My only game at the BAO that made it through Turn 7 was my 'Nids vs. Yakface's Kan-wall orks. Bodies, bodies everywhere, and plenty of complicated interactions. But we finished, because we both knew what we were doing, and we both WANTED to finish.

I find most horde army players at the GT level have no problems playing their armies in a reasonable time frame; it's their opponents who end up delaying the progress of the game. In some cases, people just don't know how to play AGAINST horde armies, and spend too much time thinking about it.

Zoned wrote:Agree with Winterman.

I thought about using timers in 40k.

But to be fair, you'd have to do it like this:

Player 1 activates his clock. Moves as normal.

Declares unit 1 is shooting. Rolls to hit and to wound. Stops clock, player 2's clock activates.

Player 2 allocates and makes saves. Stops his clock, player 1's clock starts.

And so on.

Do-able? Sure. Will it take a lot of getting used to? Yes. Are tournament going to provide chess clocks for every table? Probably not.

The other question is - how big of an issue is slow playing? Yes it occurs, but is instituting such a grand change the real solution?

This is definitely the way it would have to work.

Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

Deathmachine wrote:Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

It is immpossible to do this with the current 40k ruleset as turns are interactive.

Usually there is one long assault phase which happens and it is unfair for all that time to be penalized against a single player as assaults are interactive. It shouldn't be my fault if I assault you and you take a long time with your high number of attacks, armor saves or special rules on my turn.

And what happens if the time is gone? 40k gives us no remedy for units in assault but without time to resolve attacks. I would actually like sometimes to assault on my turn but not take any casualties. It would be a tactic to assault on my turn, waste time then resolve attacks on your turn when bogged down in combat.

Game breaking, army comp and generally unneeded.

This topic particularly irks me because I feel that people don't really appreciate the impact of what they propose. Too many people have the attitude of: well if I can do 'X' or my buddy can do 'Y' then everyone should be able to, without thinking of what message such an overall change actually sends to both current tournament players and those considering attending tournaments for the first time as well.

Before I get too far into this, let's look at a few incontrovertible facts (this is going to be 40K-centric since its what most people talk about when this issue comes up):


FACT #1: There is no mention of time limitations in the rules for 40K.

Instead, players are allowed to choose any force from any codex in any legal configuration they choose. Taking a 20 model Palladin army is just as acceptable as taking 200 model Tyranid army.


FACT #2: It takes longer to complete a turn when you have more models to move, shoot, fight close combat with.

Yes, some veteran gamers have practiced enough with their horde armies to be able to move at blazing speeds, however the simple incontrovertible fact remains that it just takes more physical time to pick up and move more models and roll more dice for more models then it does when you have less models in your army.


FACT #3: Tournaments are not reserved just for veteran players.

Well, I suppose someone could create a tournament where only veteran players were allowed, but in general tournaments are supposed to be for everyone to attend. And more importantly without having a fresh influx of new tournament players, eventually you wouldn't have tournaments anymore!



Now, it has been said (in this thread even), that players taking a larger army are somehow being 'selfish', which therefore means those same people believe that players who take 20 model armies are being selfless, in that they're taking an army that is clearly designed to help both players finish their games.

Still other people (again in this thread as well) seem to believe that taking a horde army is okay as long as you're like them or their buddy who are able to finish all their games in every tournament without any problems even with their bazillion model Tyranid army. So what message does this send? That it is okay to play a high model count army as long as you've put extra time and effort into practicing how to play faster than somebody who is bringing a 20 model army.


Both these attitudes naturally stem from the issue that some people aren't able to finish their games in tournaments due to time constraints. However, to blame the players that are taking larger model armies for this issue is to completely ignore the 3 facts I presented above.

Players of any skill and background should be allowed to pick any legal army and bring it to a tournament and have the same reasonable expectation to play and finish their games as those who bring tiny model count armies if for no other reason than that the game is written to allow both types of armies!

If a regular-joe non-veteran gamer isn't able to finish any of his games at a tournament with a horde army and he's moving and rolling dice at the same speed as the guy with the 20 man army, then the problem is not with him it is with the tournament.

Whether you realize it or not, the ballooning of point values in games while keeping tournament round times roughly the same has created a 'meta-game' element that essentially punishes players for taking larger model count armies and rewards those who bring small model count armies.

Why? Because when you don't finish a game to completion you never know whether that is going to be in your favor or not. In some games it will be a huge benefit but in other games it won't, and that sort of uncertainty does not work for players who are looking to win every single one of their games and be tournament champion.

Therefore, players are pushed away from large model count armies and into small model count armies by this tournament meta-game change that does not exist in the actual rules for the game.

Just as an example, I've heard that PP specifically have reduced the time limits allowed in their events to help 'push' people away from taking infantry-based armies and instead relying more on jack-based armies.

Whether or not that is actually true (I don't know myself), is really irrelevant because the point is still valid. When you reduce time available to play, players will feel the need to go for smaller model count armies.

And this is even true when just talking about overall round time, let alone allocating time between individual players.


So what is the problem with subtly directing players to smaller model count armies for tournaments? Well, a few things really:


1) All armies start to look and feel the same.

Yep, there's a reason why you keep seeing more and more Paladin-spam armies and less and less Tyranid armies. Yes there are other factors involved besides players not wanting to have to deal with unfinished games, but that factor no doubt helps to contribute. I think we all hate and lament playing against similar army builds multiple times throughout a tournament, yet that's precisely what improper time constraints on tournaments help to promote.


2) This meta-game change ends up affecting the power levels of non-horde armies as well.

Some army builds are actually countered by horde-type armies. However, if improper time constraints in tournaments helps to push players away from taking large model count armies then all of a sudden players cognizant of this fact now no longer have to take those types of armies really into consideration when constructing their armies. This in itself helps make certain army builds much more viable then they would be if you had a ton of high model count armies running around tournaments.


3) It isn't fair to players who naturally play horde armies.

Imagine Timmy goes out and starts playing Tyranids because he loves the models. After years he's built up a nice awesome beautiful army and now he wants to play in tournaments but when he does so he struggles to complete his games because of how many models he has to move and shoot with in relation to how much time is allocated for each game.

Now, some people will simply say that Timmy should switch to a different army or change his army build to include less models. However, why should he have to? What if Timmy likes his army and in his home games with no time-limit he has no problem doing well with the army. Why should a player be denied the ability to play a perfectly valid army type simply because other tournament players and organizers want to keep pushing the points limits of their games up to an unrealistic level in comparison with the time allocated for each round?

The answer is of course should be that a player shouldn't have to do that. If they are playing a valid army and they are playing at a normal speed that everyone else is playing at there should be enough time in the tournament round to complete their game. And if there isn't enough time then the tournament needs to either lower their point level or increase the amount of time allowed for each round.



----



And everything I've said above just applies to overall game time limitations, not even specifically to timing specific players (which is an even more ludicrous idea). But let's get into that:


What is the point of timing each player? To prevent players from 'slow playing'? If so, what exactly does that mean?

Is a player with a horde army blazing through his movement, shooting and assault but still taking 30 minutes for a critical turn where lots is going on 'slow playing', while a player with 20 models takes only 15 minutes for his turn even though he may be taking his time to really consider where to move, etc, isn't?

If so, then we've got some serious, serious problems with the perception of what 'slow play' actually is.

As I said above, a player taking a legal army should be able to play at a normal pace and have enough time in the tournament rounds to finish their games. Indeed, two players taking 20 man armies facing off against each other should finish the tournament round insanely quickly and should have to sit around for an hour or more waiting for their next game, because that is the type of army they chose to go with.

The moment where you start to make tournament round times where that is the norm is the moment where you generally compromise peoples' ability to comfortably bring a high model count army and believe that they can finish all their games, and that's a moment we've long since passed by.

Yes, I understand that you, your buddy and six guys you know all can finish all their tournament games with 200 model armies, but rest assured, you're the minority. Most people just don't bother even bringing such armies to tournaments anymore. Are there other factors involved with people not bringing those armies as well? Of course, but you're a fool if you think the difficult of finishing games with big armies isn't a major part of that.


So getting back to 'slow play', if a horde army player has enough time in the round to comfortably complete his turns while moving and shooting at the same 'speed' as his opponent who only has 20 models, then surely this is not 'slow play', because obviously if there is enough time in the round they would be finishing their game.

So then what is 'slow play'? Slow play has to be when players take a longer amount of time to complete their turns than most players using that same army would, or worse still players intentionally playing slower when they see that completing the game all the way to its natural conclusion would result in them losing the game.

These are the type of people that should be targeted, not large model count players who are simply unable to finish their games because the tournament rounds are too short.

So how the heck do you do this? The only way is to track player data year after year. The first step is to include a 'did your game come to its natural conclusion' box on your tournament results sheets and its probably a good idea to include the game turn players got to if their game had to be called when time ran out.

Once you start collecting this data if you also start entering army model count in, over time as a tournament organizer you'll really start to get a feel for whether or not players in general have enough time in their tournament rounds to finish their games or not, and if not, exactly what model count armies are really struggling to finish. But more importantly, this data will start to identify true slow players, especially if they show back up to the tournament the next year with a different army.

Once these players are identified over a year or two you as the tournament organizer can actually confront them and reveal the data you have for them to point out that they are actually playing slower than others. Obviously if the player is open to change they might actually be able to change their ways, but if they aren't receptive then you can make the tough call of actually disallowing them from your tournaments!

This is really the best and only way to truly track and punish 'slow play'. Attempting to assign each player a set amount of time fails completely because it doesn't take into account the fundamental truth that higher-model count armies physically take longer to play than low model count armies.

If you actually wanted to impose a system to stop true 'slow play' by timing each player then you should be dividing the round time between the players based on the amount of models in each army.

Now obviously this system isn't truly fair either, but it gets a hell of a lot closer to really punishing 'slow play' then even splitting time between the players.

So, my theoretical suggestion (that should never really be used) would be:

Total up the number of models in each army, but subtract 1/2 the number of models worth of transport capacity for each transport vehicle in the army (as units may roughly spend about 1/2 the game in a transport, which would take a whole lot less time to move and shoot with then if the models are out on the table).

So if I had 60 models in my army, but three Rhinos in the list, I would be subtracting 15 models from the total (as each Rhino has a transport capacity of 10, halved down to 5). So the grand total for this army would be: 45 models.

Compare that to an all foot Ork army with 155 models in it.

That means the Ork player should get 77.5 % of the round time while the Space Marine player should get only 22.5% of the round time. So if we had 2 hour rounds, the Ork player would get roughly 1 hour and 33 minutes while the SM player gets only 27 minutes.

This would actually be the way to truly prevent real slow playing from occurring and assuming there is actually enough time in the tournament round to allow players to reasonably finish their game this breakdown of time should not actually inconvenience either player if they're playing at a 'normal' speed.


But of course something like this would never work because players keep pushing TO's to increase game sizes without extending round lengths without worrying about anyone but themselves (the tried and true: 'If 'I' can finish 'my' games then everyone should be able to'). And as long as there isn't really enough time in the round to comfortably complete your games then the alleged burden of 'slow play' will always get shoved back onto the players with large model count armies as it being somehow 'selfish' for them to bring such an army!


However, if you're really truly concerned about combating true slow players, then you should be pushing your TO to increase round length and/or reduce the point values of your tournament games. In addition you should be pressuring them into tracking game completion % for each player and compare it to army model counts in order to help identify true slow players over time and pressure them to speed up or ban them from your tournaments.

And last but not at all least, have a look at what YOU are doing. If you've got a small model count army and you're not playing at the same blazing speed as your large model count opponent, then perhaps you're the real problem! Just because you bring less models to the table doesn't mean you should be able to take forever on your turns. Because keep in mind, that even a low model count army can cause your opponent's army to take longer to play.

How can that be? For example, if I'm playing all shooty Ork army and I'm facing off against Paladin-spam then in order for me to win every turn I need to fire every single weapon I have and pray you fail enough saves to die. Than means I'm rolling tons and tons and tons of dice each turn and you're taking even longer because you have to allocate each and every wound before rolling a save. And god forbid we're talking about an army with Feel No Pain, where you're making an extra roll every time I do cause a wound.

But in essence, the point is: Your army type and configuration actually makes my army take longer to play! So with that concept in mind, you should always be respectful to your opponent and play your turns as fast as they are playing their turns (not overall time elapsed but actual speed of movement and decision-making).

What Yak said x 1000!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point, I play IG with 350ish models at 2k points and 450-500 models at 2.5k points. Even with my fastest moving, rolling, and everything elsewhere I am visible sweating and burning off calories like I'm doing PT, I am really constrained by the 2 to 2.5 hour time limits imposed by most tournaments at those levels. Should I just not take that many models? Why should I not play the army I have spent my time, money, and effort on especially at is is a valid choice and can work to counter much of the meta game going on right now?

nkelsch wrote:

Deathmachine wrote:Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

It is immpossible to do this with the current 40k ruleset as turns are interactive.

Usually there is one long assault phase which happens and it is unfair for all that time to be penalized against a single player as assaults are interactive. It shouldn't be my fault if I assault you and you take a long time with your high number of attacks, armor saves or special rules on my turn.

And what happens if the time is gone? 40k gives us no remedy for units in assault but without time to resolve attacks. I would actually like sometimes to assault on my turn but not take any casualties. It would be a tactic to assault on my turn, waste time then resolve attacks on your turn when bogged down in combat.

Game breaking, army comp and generally unneeded.

Um it does work i play sm against orks alot and we have tried it you see on both turns it will be about the same amount of time for combat cause everyone still fights. it does work not sure in a tournament world if it would work but it does in friendly games. also when playing speed chess it means you dont have much time to think so it makes it pretty fun at times. and its what has made me a faster player in tournaments. and if you did what you say you would do that would make you that guy....

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:What Yak said x 1000!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point, I play IG with 350ish models at 2k points and 450-500 models at 2.5k points. Even with my fastest moving, rolling, and everything elsewhere I am visible sweating and burning off calories like I'm doing PT, I am really constrained by the 2 to 2.5 hour time limits imposed by most tournaments at those levels. Should I just not take that many models? Why should I not play the army I have spent my time, money, and effort on especially at is is a valid choice and can work to counter much of the meta game going on right now?

Until tournaments with longer time limits per round are common, you might just have to accept the fact that you will have a hard time finishing games if you enter said events. This will affect not only you but the opponents you get paired up with. Unless you can get to a level of practice of using your army within those constraints, you and your opponents will be negatively affected by them. I would love to see events with three hour rounds. That might go a long way toward eliminating the problem. Barring that, events at lower points levels would also work.

I recall, maybe incorrectly, that the old GW GTs had longer round times, or perhaps it was a lower point level.

It did make for a nice laid-back atmosphere. But it also led to a huge amount of down-time between rounds, Three hour rounds are great for individual games, but when put into a tournament format they make a three-game event into a 9+ hour commitment.

The GW GT had five rounds over two days. Modern GTs are pushing seven or eight rounds over two days.

You can't add timers to a game where each army is different and could be considerably different. Look at a sm mech list...they have maybe 8-9 vehicles Vrs an nids or tide list. Not fair to the guys playing swarms. While it sucks that the guy moving 9 models could take 20-30 min to complete his turn...it might be his opponent being slow in rolling his saves etc. or trying to chat more than play. If timers were allowed it should be a generous amount in order to get the swarms their chance to move...and yeah the guy moving 8-9 models should be entitled to the same amount.

There's really no good excuse for anyone with 200+ models to take longer than 8 minutes to move his entire army. At the most, moving models themselves only take 3-4 minutes for 200 models, and the thinking time shouldn't take that long either. Although, i do get that a lot of you like to stop and chat between turns and phases.

A player turn though, can go up to 16 mins max if the person doesn't really make decisions quickly. I can get my turns done usually under 10 minutes easily. Granted, I play Space Marines and Imperial Guard, and my model counts usually end up between 40 to 150 models.

I've been on the receiving end of slow play at a 40k doubles event. My very amiable partner did not take offence to our opponents still being in bugmans at game start eating breakfast on the morning of the second day or the thirty minutes they then took to deploy 20 miniatures or the age the took deliberating every move. I on the other had was very conscious of the fact that the mission required our force to move objectives to our deployment zone from theirs and that their stalling meant less time for this to be achievable. Net result, they won and I was not impressed with what I deemed to be a deliberate tactic to ensure victory no matter how the dice rolled!

Games with a time limit could possbily feature turn based time limits but I must add that this was one game from 5 on the weekend and I've never experienced this tactic since.

I think there are two problems here:

1) People deliberately slow playing. There needs to be a rule to counter this.

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

We'll have to find a way to fix 1without interfering with 2.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

This is fair enough, not everybody attending a tournament is actually experienced enough to rattle through a game. Some participants still play for fun would you believe!

geordie09 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

This is fair enough, not everybody attending a tournament is actually experienced enough to rattle through a game. Some participants still play for fun would you believe!

People are welcome to play for fun. But if they sign up for a tournament with time restrictions that they know they can't adhere to, then they are knowingly affecting the games of anyone that they are paired against.

Many good arguments have been made in this thread against timing player turns. I think some of us have also said that the best way TO's can make tournaments fair for every possible army build is to either extend the time for each round, or to lower the points level of the games.

In the end, maybe round length is something that tournament goers will need to consider when list building, in much the same way that we consider missions when list building. If a player doesn't feel that they can play a game within the limits of the tournament, they might consider an alternate army build, or passing on the event. Ultimately, if enough people want either longer rounds or smaller points limits, changes will come.

Why dont TOs just knock the points limit down to 1500pts?

To me this would make for much quicker games, create more balance in army list and encourage something other then Power armor Vs Power armor games.

I hate the idea of timed turns because it only encourages ultra low model count armies. If turns are timed all that will do is cause half of the tournament to turn into draigowing players.

I like the idea that player 2 always gets the last 10 minutes of gameplay. 10 minutes to dice down should=player 1's turn is over. If that ends player 1's turn in the middle of his turn so be it.

DarknessEternal wrote:I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

This works great for Warmachine/Hordes, but people specifically take armies that can be played in the short amount of time.

If people wanted the same to happen with 40k (i.e. no green tide most likely) then it's a good idea... otherwise, it just wouldn't work.

I'm not a supporter of timed turns as any kind of metric. The interactive nature of player turns would me that every table would require a timekeeper, which is an unreasonable expectation.

I do think that preparing for a tournament involves many components - painting, learning the rules, and practice are among these. I have no issue with people playing large armies at tournaments; I personally prefer to play a fairly infantry-heavy mixed IG army with a lot of movement and shooting, which I know takes a good deal of time to play. What I do take issue with is not preparing to play your army in the time limits of the tournament - to me, this is like not painting your army to the expected minimum standard. I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit. I have played foot Orks versus foot IG at 2000 points and finished in under 2 hours; the armies aren't the problem. I have also had a player arrange a dozen vehicles setting up before turn 1 for 30+ minutes, and dealt with players who spend 10+ minutes deciding what to do before moving a single model at the start of their turns. Neither of these is acceptable for a tournament with time limits - playing under time constraints in such a fashion as to guarantee that the clock will run out is at the very least inconsiderate, and often looks and feels like cheating to your opponent.
What can be done for tournament play? We feel that incomplete games reduce the validity of our tournament results, so we take action to preserve the integrity of the event. We make it clear in our event rules that we will intervene if players are having trouble finishing rounds. That said, sometimes it is very hard to finish a game, especially games with multiple multiple combats with complex units on both sides or Shooting issues like Venomspam vs. wound allocated Paladins. If I'm playing the Paladins, I have dice preassigned for resolving complex shooting problems; just having several colors of dice in your box/bag really makes handling these issues much easier.

So yes, timing rounds is generally offensive, and no, it doesn't generally help sort things out.

jwolf wrote: I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit.

Disagree... 2 hours is entirely too short for 2000 points. That timelimit with that points value is unfair to many builds. Anything over 1750 in 2 hours is pushing it.

I agree, two hours is too little time for 2k, while maintaining any sort of social interaction. You can probably rip through playtest games with people you've known for years at that pace, but not games against strangers.

Let's not forget, the reason we're out there playing toy soldiers instead of sitting on our computers playing video games is that there's something to participating in a game with a human being. And part of that is introducing yourself, making a minimum of smalltalk, actually looking at some of your opponent's paint jobs, and so on.

Redbeard wrote:I agree, two hours is too little time for 2k, while maintaining any sort of social interaction. You can probably rip through playtest games with people you've known for years at that pace, but not games against strangers.

Let's not forget, the reason we're out there playing toy soldiers instead of sitting on our computers playing video games is that there's something to participating in a game with a human being. And part of that is introducing yourself, making a minimum of smalltalk, actually looking at some of your opponent's paint jobs, and so on.

nkelsch wrote:

jwolf wrote: I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit.

Disagree... 2 hours is entirely too short for 2000 points. That timelimit with that points value is unfair to many builds. Anything over 1750 in 2 hours is pushing it.

There is a disconnect here.

On one hand, competitive people want to get their games done and then socialize afterwards - the games are not casual enough to make friends. It'd be like making friends at a high-stakes poker tournament, instead of paying attention to the game.

On the other hand, the more casual players like to joke around and peruse models.

I am firmly in the second camp, and I know this. So if I am going to a tournament that has 2 hour time limits, I play a small army and consciously control my urge to socialize until after the game.

I support 2-hour time limits for 2000 points because an 8-game event at 3 hours per game is literally 1 day of warhammer (24 hours). Some part-time jobs don't put in that many hours in a week!

To me its not good to have timed Player turns in 40k, horde armies just need more time, its easy to have 100+ models and a marine player to only have 40.

Even though the armies are *supposed* to be balanced, a timed game favors the army who doesnt ever have a swarm.

Also, you have the whole, opponet needs to allocate wounds, make saves.. Which he could stall there and waste the opponets "offense turn" time.


Timed turns are better for Warmahordes.

Well, in a battle point format, you can make bonus points for making it to the completion of the game a part of the scoring. In a pure win loss format, the answer is somewhat trickier. I have never played someone who stalled without it being obvious it was intentional and you should be able to get a judge to monitor the game covertly when this occurs. It largely comes down to both you and the judge manning up and confronting the person in a firm, yet respectful manner.

As a person who has played both hordes and against them, a big part of avoiding this problem is recognizing there is going to be a time issue and employ reasonable shortcuts to speed play. Avoid inconsequential stuff on later turns that has zero impact on the outcome of the game and devote the time to the parts of the table that matter. Those three scouts fighting a horde of grots out in no mans land might be the highlight of the day, but if it has no impact on objectives and the clock is running, you should probably focus efforts elsehwere on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- and game size adjustments are a seperate discussion. But sufficive to say lowering points and time limits just pushed the game more and more towards small elite marine armies with front loaded offense.

Phazael wrote:
PS- and game size adjustments are a seperate discussion. But sufficive to say lowering points and time limits just pushed the game more and more towards small elite marine armies with front loaded offense.

You are correct that every change to the format will change the meta and the strengths of the possible armies.

If I had to choose between "2 hours at lower point cost" vs "2 hours at 2000 points and timed turns" I would choose the meta that is lower point values as at least people are fully aware what they can bring opposed to this whole 'bring a list that meets the time constraints.'

Yeah some armies are weaker at lower values, but some army is *ALWAYS* weaker in a different format... At least limiting points seems to be upfront and fair opposed to the attempt to force competitive play to unreasonably fast standards in an attempt to address slow players.

0305Smitty wrote:

If I feel like a person is slow playing on purpose, I tell them and confront them to move faster. If they dont, then I go get a TO to watch them and the game.

Sounds both enjoyable and relaxing...

I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

jwolf wrote:I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

This. 2000 in 2 hrs really isn't asking that much if the opponents cooperate.

Glad to hear everyone's opinion. A lot of games get to turn 4 and end it's frustrating but it is a full game. The three games that made it to only turn 3 were a ork trukk army, Terv nids, and the funniest...a slow playing balanced gk army with coteaz and draigo

Unit1126PLL wrote:
This. 2000 in 2 hrs really isn't asking that much if the opponents cooperate.

totally disagree. And I feel like at tourneys, this fact is proven time and again. Even an extra 15 minutes can mean the difference between barley 4 turns and turn 6.

People keep increasing the point limit at tourneys without increasing the time and then blame slow play for unreasonably short games.

jwolf wrote:I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

I've never had the pleasure of watching one of your games, but you (and apparently your friends too) must be a beast or something.

I mean, I know I've finished plenty of 2K games in 2 hours in the past but none of them have been anything but a mad dash focused on getting the game completed at the cost of actually slowing down to enjoy anything that's going on. And 90 minutes for 2K? Fuggedaboudit.

Obviously tastes and ability to react and play in extreme time constraints varies however, so as I keep having to point out, just because you, a veteran of the game for many years and apparently well-practiced in speed 40K can finish your games in that amount of time does not mean most other people can...and obviously the make-up of the armies involved is going to have a big say in that as well, especially when the experience levels of the generals varies.

Of course, I also think having different kinds of tournaments is a good thing, so you can stick to your speed 40K out there in Tejas safely knowing that there's no way I'll ever consider playing in that madness (that may be your master plan, now that I think about it ).


But anyway, I digress...I totally agree with you that obviously timing each player is a totally different level of insanity than just overall short round times. However, I still think so many people (as evidenced by comments in this thread) still have this mistaken idea of what slow play is.

Slow play is not someone with a large model count army who is moving as fast as they can to finish the game but failing because time runs out. Slow play is the actual act of playing slow, regardless of how many models you have in your army.

All to often people who take small armies seem to act with a sense of entitlement as though taking that small army entitles them to sit on their butt and think for 2 minutes before moving. Meanwhile I'm sitting across the table thinking to myself: "Do you see how many models I need to move...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MOVE YOUR 4 RHINOS AND GET ON WITH THE GAME".

And that's the thing: I see any game, tournament or otherwise as a compact between me and the other player to finish the game. That means I'll do whatever it takes to try to move things along on my end, including not moving or shooting some of my models at the end of a game if I know they aren't going to impact the outcome of the game. I also try to tell my opponents to move and shoot really quickly and if they forget something I'll let them come back and do it (so long as something major hasn't happened which makes going back and fixing that thing inappropriate).

But the people who think that they deserve to be able to spend 1/2 of the round time on their own turns without making any of those little sacrifices to help me help us finish the game that are the REAL problem.

And the ONLY way I think you can identify those people is to track whether games were naturally concluded or not and then track that data year after year. The people who play this way will tend to have a higher rate of incomplete games no matter how large or small their armies are.

@yakface - Nah, we've increased the soft dice down time limits to 2:15 this year, with hard dice down even longer, so if you needed 2:30 to play every game, you could get it (though you would be pretty rushed to get around and get snacks, etc). So I think even pokey old you could get it done.
You'll note that my example games of slow play have nothing to do with hordes and everything to do with exactly the situation you've described - the guy with the 45 model army who acts like 2 hours means "each player takes an hour to do his turns," which was the basis of the original question (and completely wrong-headed). I think we agree completely that in a game with foot Orks and mech Space Marines, the Ork player should naturally take longer to move, and the Space Marine player should expect that.
I am, in fact, a beast. I move really quickly, and I already have a plan for turn 5 in my head at deployment. I batch my dice up, I use the same colors to mean the same things every time (not necessarily every game), and I point and roll quickly. I think the biggest thing that makes my games go faster is that I never fight about rules (unless asked to do a TFG game with someone, which is fun) and I never stick it to my opponent when they make a mistake - you meant to move that 6" and shoot? - move it back and shoot then. You forgot to assault? - go ahead. This helps my opponent relax and realize that they can play quickly and not get caught in a mistake, and helps me because I don't have to worry about catching my opponent in mistakes - if I think they mean to do something they won't be able to do, I say something and we try to figure out how they can accomplish their goal. We are after all playing a game of toy soldiers, not actually at war with one another.

I have to back JWolf on this, as this is largely how I conduct myself on the Fantasy side of things, as well. The best way to get a horde army to completion is to not micromanage every single inch of movement in the game. It only works if there is give and take on both sides though. My infantry focused Tau army and my blobed guard list were some of my largest model count armies I ever ran, outside of using my wife's tide/kan wall army. I cannot remember the last time I played a game that did not go the full distance unless the other guy was playing slow to avoid getting tabled, or something.

Usually, I can bang out 2k in 90 minutes like Jwolf is saying. Having dice pre sorted into 10s or whatever multiple is most commonly needed in your army is a big leg up. In fact, just having consistant and clean dice etiquette can solve a lot of problems at the table before they start. Establishing early that you are not a tool and that the other guy does not have to worry about forgetting something takes a lot of pressure off of them so they are not constantly mentally double checking their moves. Some pregame discussion on the more complex elements of your army rules also saves a ton of time.

Again, 2k in 2 hours might not be ideal, but its certainly feasable. Having watched you play in person, Yak, I think you do play a little on the slow side, but its not really intentional; you just play your horde in a very methodic manner and tend to verbally confirm every move with the opponent (also a good habit) before moving on. That and I have never seen you play and army with a model count below 90, heh.

I think we need to idenify that 40k is not deisgned around equal turns. A 2 hours game is not 1 hour per player. You don't get to make one player speed his ass off while the other player takes his time.

Many army builds are agressive which means actions happen on THEIR turn. Some builds are reactionary which means they often are beign assaulted. 40k is not equal time and there should be no expectation of equal time. THis is where timed turns fails as there isnothing wrong if my turn takes 25 minutes and your turn takes 10 and vice versa.

Working as intended.

nkelsch wrote:I think we need to idenify that 40k is not deisgned around equal turns. A 2 hours game is not 1 hour per player. You don't get to make one player speed his ass off while the other player takes his time.

Many army builds are agressive which means actions happen on THEIR turn. Some builds are reactionary which means they often are beign assaulted. 40k is not equal time and there should be no expectation of equal time. THis is where timed turns fails as there isnothing wrong if my turn takes 25 minutes and your turn takes 10 and vice versa.

Working as intended.

This is madness!

We must make all aspects of sporthammer a competition.

How else can we prove our superiority over other nerds?

I think the issue is the size of the games. Right now tournaments tend to run 2000pts. I have problems with this, people like it because its easy to build a 2000pt list and it alleviates the strategic choices and planning needed to build a list that can deal with eveyrthing. That's the problem, if you want games that run quickly you don't want large armies and you don't want them to be able to deal with everything thats thrown at them... both of those things extend the duration of a game.

aka_mythos wrote:I think the issue is the size of the games. Right now tournaments tend to run 2000pts. I have problems with this, people like it because its easy to build a 2000pt list and it alleviates the strategic choices and planning needed to build a list that can deal with eveyrthing. That's the problem, if you want games that run quickly you don't want large armies and you don't want them to be able to deal with everything thats thrown at them... both of those things extend the duration of a game.

Agreed.

1500 forces more hard design choices and reduces spam. I prefer to play 1500 whenever possible.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:I have noticed a few people complain about slow play in tournaments, and about 3 of my 15 recent games ending with time being called instead of a game ending. Would it be offensive to use a stopwatch to time both our turns and record it as proof if a person comes off as slow, such as after noticing an opponent taking more than 30 seconds to move each model in a 10+ man squad? Im sure this doesnt happen to a lot of people, but it happens every once in awhile.

This is not the first time such a thing has been presented. Chess clocks often come up. The problem is that a slow player can force *YOUR* turn to be slow too, not necessarily theirs. They can take all the time in the world to allocate and roll saves, move a unit that falls back, make their attacks in combat, etc.

CT GAMER wrote:


1500 forces more hard design choices and reduces spam. I prefer to play 1500 whenever possible.

Hrm, personally, in my experience, it means people take all the abusive stuff and skimp on everything else, leading to a whole lot more win big/lose big games where one side or the other gets stomped because it doesn't have the answer to the one big abusive thing the opponent brought and the abusive things are either much more powerful or are decisively countered.

PeoPle played 1500 as standard for years and that was BEFORE the general points reduction instituted as a marketing ploy...

CT GAMER wrote:PeoPle played 1500 as standard for years and that was BEFORE the general points reduction instituted as a marketing ploy...

Armies and rules have also changed a lot as well, for instance, in 3E you didn't have wound allocation gimmick multi-wound model units, and fewer multi-wound model units in general. Many of the issues present now didn't exist or didn't exist in the same ways.

Also, armies that can fit lots of high performance specialists into few points or that run deathstars often tend to do much better at somewhat restricted levels than armies that rely more on generalist units that lack the survivability of deathstars.

For instance, being able to run 3 kitted ML long fang squads, a Rune Priest and two grey hunter units at 750pts against an opponent fielding just two troops and 1 HQ that individually may be more capable but can only do so much each round, is obviously going to favor the more specialized SW army, whereas at say 2000pts, the power of those long fangs is diluted as they can't continue to expand on that strength and those generalist units that the SW opponent is running get to play off each other much better.

Same reason why games above 2000pts with 1 FoC (like the old Hard Boyz) tend to massively favor IG armies, as they can still add more tanks and more dudes as other armies run out of FoC slots, because the IG can still build on their strengths where as others are basically just tossing in more upgrades and flair instead of more meat.


So yeah, at 2000pts everyone usually can have their cake and eat it to. At 1500 many armies can basically just scrape off the top layer of frosting and still eat it, while others are having to make do with a cupcake.

I find army themes also are generally better expressed with more points, as you have room to fit in the fun and fluffy stuff on top of the stuff that you "need".

Yes themed armies With more "fun" stuff could be fielded (and would certainly be refreshing), but I don't see the extra points used for this as much as I see them used to build one of the popular 2000pt netdeck lists for the codex in question is...

Sadly, I don't see fluff or "theme fun" factoring In to many tournament lists these days...

Vaktathi wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
1500 forces more hard design choices and reduces spam. I prefer to play 1500 whenever possible.

Hrm, personally, in my experience, it means people take all the abusive stuff and skimp on everything else, leading to a whole lot more win big/lose big games where one side or the other gets stomped because it doesn't have the answer to the one big abusive thing the opponent brought and the abusive things are either much more powerful or are decisively countered.

To me this implies that a tournament organizer might take more extreme measures in addition to a lower point limit. For example, in addition to the 1500 point limit, a more restrictive and different than standard FOC. For example: 2x HQ, 2x Elite, 4x Troops, 2x Fast Attack, 2x Heavy Support... and the 1500 pt limit.

CT GAMER wrote:Yes themed armies With more "fun" stuff could be fielded (and would certainly be refreshing), but I don't see the extra points used for this as much as I see them used to build one of the popular 2000pt netdeck lists for the codex in question is...

Sadly, I don't see fluff or "theme fun" factoring In to many tournament lists these days...

To quote don_mondo to me: You need to get out more. Down here in Texas we have a lot of themed and non-net deck list building, and it turns out to be fun until those lists become net lists. I'm playing Tau for the Alamo GT this weekend because no one else was scheduled to take Tau. Should be fun. Yeah, playing for fun isn't dead here.

yakface wrote:

This topic particularly irks me because I feel that people don't really appreciate the impact of what they propose. Too many people have the attitude of: well if I can do 'X' or my buddy can do 'Y' then everyone should be able to, without thinking of what message such an overall change actually sends to both current tournament players and those considering attending tournaments for the first time as well.

Before I get too far into this, let's look at a few incontrovertible facts (this is going to be 40K-centric since its what most people talk about when this issue comes up):


FACT #1: There is no mention of time limitations in the rules for 40K.

Instead, players are allowed to choose any force from any codex in any legal configuration they choose. Taking a 20 model Palladin army is just as acceptable as taking 200 model Tyranid army.

Counter-fact: There is no mention of composition in the rules for 40k, either,
and yet many tournaments have them. Why? It's part making the tournament
fun and part logistical. I think it's silly to use that fact to counter timed turns.

FACT #2: It takes longer to complete a turn when you have more models to move, shoot, fight close combat with.

Yes, some veteran gamers have practiced enough with their horde armies to be able to move at blazing speeds, however the simple incontrovertible fact remains that it just takes more physical time to pick up and move more models and roll more dice for more models then it does when you have less models in your army.

True, but if you run a tournament you have to have fixed time limits of some
sort in order to keep to a schedule. Are you saying it's fair that larger armies eat
up more clock on both ends of the game? I think people should try to play
with a chess clock to see what would happen with their turns.

FACT #3: Tournaments are not reserved just for veteran players.

Well, I suppose someone could create a tournament where only veteran players were allowed, but in general tournaments are supposed to be for everyone to attend. And more importantly without having a fresh influx of new tournament players, eventually you wouldn't have tournaments anymore!

Clocks are good for newer players as well. A newer player doesn't know
when their opponent is a slow player or stalling for time. The clock makes
all of that objective.

Players of any skill and background should be allowed to pick any legal army and bring it to a tournament and have the same reasonable expectation to play and finish their games as those who bring tiny model count armies if for no other reason than that the game is written to allow both types of armies!

I'd argue that a player of any skill and background should be able to
deal with a clock. They're already dealing with a round timer. Again,
I argue that a newer player can and will be played for time without
knowing it.

If a regular-joe non-veteran gamer isn't able to finish any of his games at a tournament with a horde army and he's moving and rolling dice at the same speed as the guy with the 20 man army, then the problem is not with him it is with the tournament.

Whether you realize it or not, the ballooning of point values in games while keeping tournament round times roughly the same has created a 'meta-game' element that essentially punishes players for taking larger model count armies and rewards those who bring small model count armies.

Then you figure out what a "reasonable" time is. Part of this is a push to
making events single-day events. I have never done a multi-done event in
my life, and I don't ever intend to. It takes a lot of time for me to commit
to single day events as both an organizer and a player.

I also think single-day events fit the criteria for being "open to newer players."

Therefore, players are pushed away from large model count armies and into small model count armies by this tournament meta-game change that does not exist in the actual rules for the game.

And again, this is just a fact of tournaments. A lot of tournaments
I've seen use custom scenarios and other things to keep game play
fresh, exciting and fun. Getting to play four turns to completion is also
beneficial to keeping game play fresh, exciting and fun.

Just as an example, I've heard that PP specifically have reduced the time limits allowed in their events to help 'push' people away from taking infantry-based armies and instead relying more on jack-based armies.

A chess clock changes that. There were plenty of infantry heavy armies
this past year at Adepticon.

Whether or not that is actually true (I don't know myself), is really irrelevant because the point is still valid. When you reduce time available to play, players will feel the need to go for smaller model count armies.

I think Redbeard proves that that's false, or at least, I'd like to see him
play under a chess timer to see if that's false or true.

1) All armies start to look and feel the same.

Yep, there's a reason why you keep seeing more and more Paladin-spam armies and less and less Tyranid armies. Yes there are other factors involved besides players not wanting to have to deal with unfinished games, but that factor no doubt helps to contribute. I think we all hate and lament playing against similar army builds multiple times throughout a tournament, yet that's precisely what improper time constraints on tournaments help to promote.

I think this is also a problem with game and scenario design. I don't know
what the fix is for 40k tournaments.

2) This meta-game change ends up affecting the power levels of non-horde armies as well.

Some army builds are actually countered by horde-type armies. However, if improper time constraints in tournaments helps to push players away from taking large model count armies then all of a sudden players cognizant of this fact now no longer have to take those types of armies really into consideration when constructing their armies. This in itself helps make certain army builds much more viable then they would be if you had a ton of high model count armies running around tournaments.

This I'm not familiar with as I don't play 40k.

3) It isn't fair to players who naturally play horde armies.

Imagine Timmy goes out and starts playing Tyranids because he loves the models. After years he's built up a nice awesome beautiful army and now he wants to play in tournaments but when he does so he struggles to complete his games because of how many models he has to move and shoot with in relation to how much time is allocated for each game.

Now, some people will simply say that Timmy should switch to a different army or change his army build to include less models. However, why should he have to? What if Timmy likes his army and in his home games with no time-limit he has no problem doing well with the army. Why should a player be denied the ability to play a perfectly valid army type simply because other tournament players and organizers want to keep pushing the points limits of their games up to an unrealistic level in comparison with the time allocated for each round?

The answer is of course should be that a player shouldn't have to do that. If they are playing a valid army and they are playing at a normal speed that everyone else is playing at there should be enough time in the tournament round to complete their game. And if there isn't enough time then the tournament needs to either lower their point level or increase the amount of time allowed for each round.

What about players who have to play against a slow timmy?

I think the discussion has to be based around what we think is fair.

Equal points are fair.

Equal number of turns is fair.

Maybe learning to play a horde list faster is fair. After all, horde lists
should feel frenetic and crazy to play anyway in the name of full immersion.

Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.



----

Is a player with a horde army blazing through his movement, shooting and assault but still taking 30 minutes for a critical turn where lots is going on 'slow playing', while a player with 20 models takes only 15 minutes for his turn even though he may be taking his time to really consider where to move, etc, isn't?

If so, then we've got some serious, serious problems with the perception of what 'slow play' actually is.

Let's figure it out. Run some players on a chess clock and see how much time it takes.

Sorry missed the rest of your post yak. Will have to read later.

malfred wrote:
Counter-fact: There is no mention of composition in the rules for 40k, either,
and yet many tournaments have them. Why? It's part making the tournament
fun and part logistical. I think it's silly to use that fact to counter timed turns.

Malf,

My commentary about the issue with timing players was aimed squarely at the game of 40K rather than gaming in general. I think it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable (and fun) for games to be designed with timed rounds or chess clocks in mind, with Warmahordes seemingly being a great example (although only knowing of this from reading and talking to people about it).

When it comes to 40K, additional composition requirements for tournaments is almost a non-existent concept at this point and time.


But let me break down the difference between 40K and PP when it comes to timed rounds to show you what has happened:


With Privateer, they created a game that was supposed to be centered around Jacks with other elements as support but over time this had changed to the point where Infantry heavy armies were apparently rather more powerful than Jack builds. So PP clearly addressed this issue quite a bit with their Mk2 rules, but also (and I can't remember where I heard this but I thought it was somewhere reliable) that they chose to also keep the time limits pretty tight for their tournaments to again help steer people towards taking smaller model count armies, which would naturally mean more Jacks.

This isn't to say that people can't still take high model count armies to PP events as you so rightly point out, but it is something that I'm sure requires a bit of extra skill and practice to do....but here's the kicker: This are all decisions decided upon by the company that makes the game.


Now let's see what has happened with 40K:

The game was written and designed essentially so that some armies tend to function best at being high model count (aka horde) armies, while others are more elite smaller-model count armies. No time restriction component is written in the game rules. Only a standard point limit is recommended, which happens to be 1,500 points, but as with all things GW they make sure to point out that the choice is really yours.

However, over time players continue to buy and paint new models and naturally they want to use more of those models because that's fun to do, so they start whining to their tournament organizers that they'd like to play larger point sizes games. Tournament Organizers capitulate and over time the points levels rise up to 2,000 points becoming the benchmark in some areas and some tournaments like 'ard boyz even sky rocketing up to 2,500 points....and even worse the point levels in the current edition are actually much lower per model then they were when tournaments were first started, so now actually playing an average army with a smattering of different types of models, then a 1,500 point army today is going to tend to be larger than it was 10 years ago.

But despite the increase in points and the decrease in points-per-model, the round lengths for tournaments have barely been increased, because as you say, the practical restrictions of getting an event done in time.

So what this has meant to the 40k tournament meta-game is that over time it has become expected for players to simply have to move much faster if they plan to bring a higher model count army, even though this kind of pressure was never taken into consideration by the designers for their armies. In fact, there are even certain armies like Tyranids that can't even realistically be taken as a small model count army...you literally *have* to play a horde list with them to even have any kind of chance.

Therefore unlike with PP where specific changes were made by the designers to push the game in a specific (desired) direction, with 40K the community as a whole has unknowingly pushed the game in a direction that the designers never meant for the game to be in.


So its a very different can of worms. I don't want to get into how superior PP is to GW when it comes to tournament design (because we all can see how much better they are), but I just keep trying to point out to the 40K community what has happened. Actual 'slow play' should not be confused with players playing fast but having a perfectly legal and acceptable 40K army, and if anyone thinks the latter should be punished (by relegating them only to experienced players who can handle moving everything incredibly fast) then they are attempting to address the symptoms of the problems instead of the cause.


The cause is that 40K is now expected to be played at a points level that doesn't equate with the amount of time given for rounds when you take into consideration the wide array of different army types AND player skill levels that should be welcome at 40K events.

As we aren't magically going to start finding more time in each day, that means the real solution to this problem is to: reduce the number of points played in most 40K tournaments.

The problem is, people don't want to hear or believe it. They want to believe that because they've played the game for 25 years and are super quick with them and their friends that its totally okay to marginalize horde armies for newer players because 'they can do it'.

Unfortunately that mindset only helps to keep marginalizing said armies which is one of the (several) reasons that certain army builds get played much more often than others. But to blame this entirely on GW for poor scenario or game design isn't fair, because the COMMUNITY here has pushed external factors into the game that weren't meant to be there and then try to blame the game and other players (besides themselves) for the issue.

yakface wrote:
When it comes to 40K, additional composition requirements for tournaments is almost a non-existent concept at this point and time.

Wow. When did this happen?

But let me break down the difference between 40K and PP when it comes to timed rounds to show you what has happened:


With Privateer, they created a game that was supposed to be centered around Jacks with other elements as support but over time this had changed to the point where Infantry heavy armies were apparently rather more powerful than Jack builds. So PP clearly addressed this issue quite a bit with their Mk2 rules, but also (and I can't remember where I heard this but I thought it was somewhere reliable) that they chose to also keep the time limits pretty tight for their tournaments to again help steer people towards taking smaller model count armies, which would naturally mean more Jacks.

This isn't to say that people can't still take high model count armies to PP events as you so rightly point out, but it is something that I'm sure requires a bit of extra skill and practice to do....but here's the kicker: This are all decisions decided upon by the company that makes the game.

True enough. However, I always argue that just because warjacks and
battlegroups are meant to be the centerpiece of any good army, infantry
can and should play their part in a battle game. Centerpiece should not
equate with using them in large numbers all the damn time.

(in case you're wondering, I fall on the side of Warmachine being a
wargame and not a warjack-centric one)

Now let's see what has happened with 40K:

The game was written and designed essentially so that some armies tend to function best at being high model count (aka horde) armies, while others are more elite smaller-model count armies. No time restriction component is written in the game rules. Only a standard point limit is recommended, which happens to be 1,500 points, but as with all things GW they make sure to point out that the choice is really yours.

This happens in Warmachine as well. Except, because we build our armies
based on templated models rather than upgradeable ones, we use the large
collections to do ridiculous things like require pseudo compositional type things
like requiring players to play a set number of lists throughout an event (this
happens only at the big cons thus far).

However, over time players continue to buy and paint new models and naturally they want to use more of those models because that's fun to do, so they start whining to their tournament organizers that they'd like to play larger point sizes games. Tournament Organizers capitulate and over time the points levels rise up to 2,000 points becoming the benchmark in some areas and some tournaments like 'ard boyz even sky rocketing up to 2,500 points....and even worse the point levels in the current edition are actually much lower per model then they were when tournaments were first started, so now actually playing an average army with a smattering of different types of models, then a 1,500 point army today is going to tend to be larger than it was 10 years ago.

I see, this is a TO issue as the tournament scene is not necessarily tied
to the design team.

But despite the increase in points and the decrease in points-per-model, the round lengths for tournaments have barely been increased, because as you say, the practical restrictions of getting an event done in time.

So what this has meant to the 40k tournament meta-game is that over time it has become expected for players to simply have to move much faster if they plan to bring a higher model count army, even though this kind of pressure was never taken into consideration by the designers for their armies. In fact, there are even certain armies like Tyranids that can't even realistically be taken as a small model count army...you literally *have* to play a horde list with them to even have any kind of chance.

Sounds like a challenge I'd like to see how much time horde armies
actually use over the course of the game.

Therefore unlike with PP where specific changes were made by the designers to push the game in a specific (desired) direction, with 40K the community as a whole has unknowingly pushed the game in a direction that the designers never meant for the game to be in.


So its a very different can of worms. I don't want to get into how superior PP is to GW when it comes to tournament design (because we all can see how much better they are), but I just keep trying to point out to the 40K community what has happened. Actual 'slow play' should not be confused with players playing fast but having a perfectly legal and acceptable 40K army, and if anyone thinks the latter should be punished (by relegating them only to experienced players who can handle moving everything incredibly fast) then they are attempting to address the symptoms of the problems instead of the cause.

Different game styles, I suppose. A Warmachine game can end suddenly (as
I keep finding out to my chagrin at big events) and so have no set number of
games. 40k games are intended to be slugfests that end after a set number
of turns.

The cause is that 40K is now expected to be played at a points level that doesn't equate with the amount of time given for rounds when you take into consideration the wide array of different army types AND player skill levels that should be welcome at 40K events.

As we aren't magically going to start finding more time in each day, that means the real solution to this problem is to: reduce the number of points played in most 40K tournaments.

Interesting. Or switch to two-day events (which I've said I hate)

The problem is, people don't want to hear or believe it. They want to believe that because they've played the game for 25 years and are super quick with them and their friends that its totally okay to marginalize horde armies for newer players because 'they can do it'.

Unfortunately that mindset only helps to keep marginalizing said armies which is one of the (several) reasons that certain army builds get played much more often than others. But to blame this entirely on GW for poor scenario or game design isn't fair, because the COMMUNITY here has pushed external factors into the game that weren't meant to be there and then try to blame the game and other players (besides themselves) for the issue.

I want to see how much time people use for these games. Chess
clocks are remarkably fair in that you're tapping over your time
for different things. I guess that would have to become a habit
in the tournament scene.

malfred wrote:Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.

Agreed here... or perhaps 6th edition will be designed with tournaments in mind?

What... I can hope, right

Looking forward to trying out my first chess clock warmahordes tourney soon! I do think they just wouldn't work for 40k the way the game is currently designed, or if they were used would influence the kinds of armies taken and result in an unfortunate even Larger shift towards marines 24/7. And that would be a bummer... but at the same time, there has to be a good solution to give players their "fair share" of the time during a game.

The other problem with chess timers is that your opponent must do things "on your turn" in 40k, like attack back in combat, that doesn't usually happen in warmahordes (with the exception of special rules like counter charge or the like).

Not sure what the solution is, but there needs to be one! Smaller point levels or longer game times is a good start.

RiTides wrote:

malfred wrote:Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.

Agreed here... or perhaps 6th edition will be designed with tournaments in mind?

What... I can hope, right

Looking forward to trying out my first chess clock warmahordes tourney soon! I do think they just wouldn't work for 40k the way the game is currently designed, or if they were used would influence the kinds of armies taken and result in an unfortunate even Larger shift towards marines 24/7. And that would be a bummer... but at the same time, there has to be a good solution to give players their "fair share" of the time during a game.

The other problem with chess timers is that your opponent must do things "on your turn" in 40k, like attack back in combat, that doesn't usually happen in warmahordes (with the exception of special rules like counter charge or the like).

Not sure what the solution is, but there needs to be one! Smaller point levels or longer game times is a good start.

However, chess timers allow you to "tap over" time to let your opponent make decisions.

Yeah, which makes total sense for my Hordes games. However, for 40k I just see a problem with things like combat where it's not totally clear whose time it should be under... or else you'd be flipping the button back and forth quite rapidly as one person rolls to hit/wound, the other allocates and makes saving throws, rolls to hit/wound, then back to the first player to allocate and make saving throws.

I would be very interested to see it attempted, I just unfortunately don't see it working as excellently as it does for warmahordes... and think that the key would be an improvement to game design in the coming edition, or else TOs continuing to have to mitigate it like they are trying to currently.

Or maybe another idea that we haven't thought of... yet!

The idea of clicking time back and forth during interactive Phases of 40k is almost mind n umbingly absurd on its face, and there is still no expectation of equal time in the current 40k rule set. Implementing the concept of equal time is army comp. now people will have to take units with simpler rules as to save time. Anything with a complicated mechanic or multiple rolling or is time consuming would need to be rebalanced in points to make it fair for this arbitrary false concept of equal time.

Works for blood bowl. It is absurd on its face for 40k and game breaking. Basically it means play marines as you have less rolls, less randomness and will consume less time.

Right- which comes down to (mostly) game design, I think...

Part of the issue of 40k tournaments and imposing time restrictions is that it isn't chess. Chess is a symmetrically balanced game where there are only two distinctions, players skill and who goes first.

40k is at best asymmetrically balanced, though in reality 40k is a game that comes closest to being balanced when both players chose their armies on how "cool" an idea or model was. You have too many players who go into a tournament or even average games with the perspective of creating as much imbalance in their favor before a games even started. This just accentuates the inequities of different armies.

I think what tournament organizers need to ask is "what is the goal of this tournament?"

Is the goal is to test how good players are when everyone is min-maxing? Or is it to see who plays best with a balanced army? Is it to determine who the best player is? Or is it just for fun?

If its 'ard boys, the whole thing is based on a premise of "too bad"... so you can really implement anything, waving that "eff you" finger proudly.

When it comes to tournaments often enough its hard to enforce basic rules let alone ones that require either special equipment or a constant observer for every table.

If implemented the simplest way to do time restriction would be to have a tournament organizer calling "time" every so many minutes, where if a player isn't done, "too bad" and you go onto the next players turn and making a few wait a minute. At that point fairness is just about making sure that the time given is sufficient for horde armies. The point of a time limit, is that it forces players to think ahead, prioritize, and not dilly-daddle. As long as the rules are announced ahead of time and people know to expect it, people who bring armies too cumbersome to deal with it, only have themselves to blame.

I wouldn't mind, UNLESS they were trying to force me to hurry up

jwolf wrote:

To quote don_mondo to me: You need to get out more. Down here in Texas we have a lot of themed and non-net deck list building,

Id love to see some example lists/pics

It has been stated, but to reinforce--chess clocks dont work in 40k. If there is an issue with players not finishing games, it is something that TO's need to address, either by isolating intentional slow play or adjusting points/time limits. Players should not feel it is their 'right' to enforce a time limit on their opponent, as no such 'right' exists and only animosity between players results when one starts harrassing the other to play faster.

As to the current 'meta' of 40k, it definately favors small/elite armies over hordes via tournement structure. Not only does a small elite army take less time to move around, it also is easier to transport, cheaper, easier to paint, and thanks to having fewer models the details of the models stand out more than the 200+ identical models of a horde.

tfgguy wrote:I wouldn't mind, UNLESS they were trying to force me to hurry up

That's a highly subjective and self-centered basis... For anyone who's taking too long, that's precisely what its intended to do, hurry them up. The question:' is it justified?"-I think that on the basis that the tournament is a limited duration event and its success and the fun of the guy playing against the slow player is dependent on the slower player to hurry up, it is justified. This is a question about fixing the status quo, where the very assumption is that slow players are not acceptable... and while people might not like a time limit, a time limit is likely preferable to excluding armies of a certain type or size or excluding those players who do take to long. It at least gives players a chance where they might have none.

Nothing could be more unappealing to me than timers. I have seen people playing warmahordes game the clock to win... It doesn't really add anything positive to the tourney scene IMO.

Timers are absolutely perferct for warmahordes tournies. If you don't play the game, it's understandable that it might be unappealing to you... but it is as perfect a match for warmahordes as it is a subpar one for 40k.

-666- wrote:Nothing could be more unappealing to me than timers. I have seen people playing warmahordes game the clock to win... It doesn't really add anything positive to the tourney scene IMO.

People game the round clock in 40k too.

It's probably the same guy playing both games, in fact.

RiTides wrote:Timers are absolutely perferct for warmahordes tournies. If you don't play the game, it's understandable that it might be unappealing to you... but it is as perfect a match for warmahordes as it is a subpar one for 40k.

Been watching on how Warmordes play out and yes timers would work well in that system. As far as timers for 40k? Been there. Done that. It is a different meta of list building I liked it as it is another way and method of sharping your skills in game play. I like playing Comp armies and 1500 point armies list as well for the same reason.

Well all of this is going to be moot when 6thED comes out as the present way of playing will be changed. I believe that the model count is going to be larger, the army lists are going to be bigger and the game is going to slow down even further.

I see the problem, but it's weird.

I played an IG foot army yesterday with my armored company at 2000 pts.

He had upwards of 300 models, I had 20 (one chimera, 10 LRBTs, 8 Guardsmen and a HWT).

My turns took longer than his, and the whole game ended with his victory in an hour and forty minutes or so.

Why is this a problem for everyone else? This has been my repeated experience.