I know a few years ago when the trend started to increase the rounds in a lot of major GTs, and go to a win-loss format that a lot of people thought it was a good idea at the time because it found a true winner. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the battlepoint systems that were the vestiges of GWs tournament format that most tournaments were using because they ended up having several players undefeated and soft scores often determining who won the tournament.

With GTs getting larger and larger they have had to increase the number of rounds to get it to where only one player is undefeated. For example: if you have a tournament with 129+ players you need 8 rounds to find the one undefeated champion, and if you have 65+ you need 7 rounds, etc. This is in contrast to the 5 round GTs that we were previously accustom to.

Now this was ok (even though this is a lot of games for a weekend) back in 5th edition when you can finish your games in a somewhat timely manner, but in 6th edition this is no longer the case.

We all know that 6th edition takes a lot longer to play than 5th edition (I can get into all of the reasons why, but I think at this point it is a well known fact), so does it make any sense to have all of these games if they are not coming to their natural conclusion? If you have 8 rounds, and the games are not finishing are you truly finding the one best player, or are you finding the person who wins the dice roll to go last and can manipulate the time the best to their advantage?

To combat this there has been talk about lowering the point limits to try to get games to finish, but a hundred points here and there does not seem to have much of an impact. People like to play games in the 1750+ point range so how low do you need to lower them before you can finish in less than 2.5 hours? The other option is that you can increase the round times. There has been some pushback with this because the first problem is that some say that people will just play slower and still take longer to do everything, and you still end up with games not finishing. The other is that the day is only so long, so if you go to 3 or more hours for each round you will not be able to get all of the games in.

So my question to everyone is which is better?
#1. To have complete games at a tournament even though that means that you will have several players undefeated?
#2. To have 1 undefeated player in a tournament where most of the games do not finish?

I want games to finish, a winner in a system where games can't finish has less meaning than a winner decided by soft scores to tie-break two undefeated records. (at least to me)

I would rather have the following in this order:
1. Games finish cleanly (enough time)
2. Lower points per game (appropriate size for the time)
3. Single winner (4 games a day instead of 3)

I am 'OK' with soft scores or secondary battle points determining an overall winner. I can see others who will not accept anything but single win/loss record, and that is ok. I totally can see why that is important, but it isn't a big factor for me.

The event needs to decide what it wants to do. If it wants to do single winner, there needs to be plenty of time for games. If they want all games to finish 'naturally', then they may need to give up on single winner.

Hey Y'all

IMHO getting in a complete game is far more important that a "True" winner. It has been my experience that some folks will game ANY system we can come up with. Until we are able to have all games come to a natural end we will never really find a "True" winner.

If you win all 7 or 8 of your games, but don't get past round 3 in some of your games are you a "True" winner? I would say no you are not.

Now, the problem. How to get in a complete game. Unless you are willing to let games go on and on and on there really isn't a way to force games into a set time frame. In a recent tournament I was faced with a relatively new player who was really slow. When the 15 minute warning was sounded we had just completed the top of turn 2. That game could have gone on for 4 more hours before we achieved a natural end.

At the same time I've sat and watched experience players hold their ruler in their hands looking at the table, measuring this & that, humming & hawing while they figure out were to move their models and take up 30-45 minutes doing so for no other reason then to SLOW the game down. I know this is true as I can watch the exact same player play with lightning fast speed if they are currently loosing and want to get in more turns to turn that lose around.

I really think we as a community need to think about bringing some type of sportsmanship back into GT's. I know I'm out of the loop on this but the thumbs up or down system isn't working in my experience. Or give both players a warning if they don't complete the game and start docking them somehow for each of their next games they do not complete. Or something like that.

Again, all this is just my opinion and you are free to like it or not.

Game Hard, Laugh Often!

Doc

6th edition is too un-balanced to make a conclusion of "best player", especially in a tournament that size. There will likely be several undefeated players, and if you did it all over again the next day, it
would change. It means nothing.

I would rather have longer rounds. The games take longer because of rules and higher model counts in general. Also, all of the psychic powers for certain armies take some time to generate between
games.

I think there can be a good middle ground, but the idea that you must have only ONE undefeated player is too extreme for most venues, I think.

But on the other hand, I played in a 3-round 60-person event... and that's just no fun either, as you've just got too many players with the same record.

A 5 or at most 6-round event is about right, I think (3 games per day) for the majority of GTs.

Also agreed with this:

nkelsch wrote:I would rather have the following in this order:
1. Games finish cleanly (enough time)
2. Lower points per game (appropriate size for the time)
3. Single winner (4 games a day instead of 3)

I believe that the majority of players want a chance to play their games to completion. Saying that you have an undisputed winner when many players are not able to finish their games is not even remotely accurate. I hear too many horror stories now, especially from the more competitive events about deliberate stalling. This can be both in-game and a product of the list construction.

I like that there is a nice variety of events and in the end, all of them should allow players to finish their games no matter what format. Once you get past the format effects then the point limit and time allowed should be easy to work out how many rounds you can fit in for your event.

Straight 40k rules - nice an simple, no soft scores - timing is entirely on the players if the staff get pairings and missions out on time
40K with soft scores - an added component, should not take more than a few minutes per player once per weekend to interact with staff
40K with house rules - FAQs add complexity by changing some rules to the local interpretation. Sometimes this is completely wrong but most times it helps remove arguments. Having a 100+ page document (Adepticon's 5E) surely makes for another time element to be factored in but the 6E ones seem to have a much smaller effect
40K with comp - I am glad to see Da Boyz went back to their roots. This should only add time in prep and not during games

My biggest pet peeve - where do you place your army for the game? Most events do not allow space for your army to be next to the game table and you lose a considerable amount of time going under the table or back in your cases to get your army deployed. Adepticon '13 for example, even though they had a huge number of players they were well staffed to turn around results but there was no room for your army and sometimes you had to wait 15-20 minutes for the last player on your table to move. Losing 20 minutes before you can even start deployment is a huge problem.

Then you have the end of time rules...

Dice down - allows the staff to get the data in and pairings for the next round out ASAP
Finish current turn/even # of turns - my preference, but if you are dealing with a very large event it may not accommodate the staff needs
Scoring for finishing games - if whether you finish your game can be an issue and it will have a Battle or Sports effect then you must allow better timing/points caps

To sum up:
-make sure the full time limit allowed is actually able to be used
-allow a reasonable point/time limit to finish games

dlight wrote:
6th edition is too un-balanced to make a conclusion of "best player", especially in a tournament that size. There will likely be several undefeated players, and if you did it all over again the next day, itwould change. It means nothing.

That is true of any game with an element of chance. You would have the basic same folks in the top 10 then.

You'll never have a satisfactory answer because of the problems you outlined in the OP. I could give players 3+ hours to finish a game, and certain players would still be on turn three when time is called. The timing out issue came up in the thread about timed turns, and how "unfair" it is to horde army players to get the same time to play as people playing lower model count armies. So what else can you do other than set a time, set a number of rounds, and determine the best outcome you can under the rules of the event?

You could set a long time and give yourself a goal of 95% completed or somesuch.

 derek wrote:
You'll never have a satisfactory answer because of the problems you outlined in the OP. I could give players 3+ hours to finish a game, and certain players would still be on turn three when time is called. The timing out issue came up in the thread about timed turns, and how "unfair" it is to horde army players to get the same time to play as people playing lower model count armies. So what else can you do other than set a time, set a number of rounds, and determine the best outcome you can under the rules of the event?

You will always have outliers who will not finish games, but you can manipulate the amount of games being completed.

This fact remains the more time you add, the more games will complete.

For an example: if you add 30 minutes to the game time and you go from 70% of the games not finishing to 30% would it not make sense to do so even though 30% are still not finishing?

I preferred the win-loss one undefeated player in 5th edition which was a much more competitive rule set.

With 6th edition being far less competitive and a much "longer" and complex game than 5th I have moved back in favor of less win-loss undefeated winner format tournaments. 6th edition is no where near as competitive tournament friendly as 5th was.

That being said I am happy to attend both types of events. I was in 5th and I am in 6th as well. The change now is I am happier at events which are not winner takes all, the reverse of my attitude 2 years ago.

It sounds like there are 3 issues: Point limit, Game Time and Number of games for a W/L winner.

Of all 3, it sounds like the issue is gamers seem intolerant or resistant to modifying the point limit below the 1750 mark and seemingly prefer 2000 so they can have spammy double force orgs. People overwhelmingly want 'toys' and they want all of them. So it sounds like reducing point values to 1500 or 1250 is just a non-starter with attendees in this day and age.

So you can't change the game to fit the time, then the time needs to change to fit the game.

More time in rounds seems to be of merit; or, more "prep" time built into pre-round (i.e., pairings released with 15-20 minutes of advance notice).

Despite thoughts to the contrary, there really isn't a community bent one way or another. Formats in all the major tournaments are varied, and contain parallel tracks, to try and give every player their "type" of event sort of at the same time. Keep giving TO's the benefit of the doubt - we listen to all the noise coming in. I.E., at NOVA next year you'll see adjustments to address round time and see more games finish ON time.

As far as targeting a % of completed rounds, it's probably not a smart errand to pursue. At NOVA, the vast majority of players listed "finished game naturally" when given the choice, yet lots of loud folks on the internets have already come up with 5,000 reasons why those answers were lies, or made out of fear, or inaccurate, etc. They may HAVE been ... but the point is, you won't be able to ever satisfy everyone that objective statistics are in fact objective or properly accumulated (and they may not have been), so it's not wise to base your success metrics upon whether or not you hit an objective % of games completed.

Best thing you can do from a TO perspective is go "did most people have a fantastic time? are most people returning?" If the answer is an overwhelming yes, you're doing things right. Right or wrong, you can't ever rest on laurels, and every event you run provides key information for what to do better next time. For us (As an example), it's fixing our alternate terrain layout, and finding ways to give players more time to complete their games ... and to complete them comfortably.

I think longer time rounds are needed. Will it solve the problem? Not totally, but some alleviation will happen. It seems more and more tournaments would rather have that 1 undefeated player and have a high attendance than have a shorter tournament, maybe not as many people, but have all of the intangibles that go along with it. The intangibles being a stricter run tournament with other things that matter (Paint and Sportsmanship) rather than who won the most games.

A good friend of mine use to attend a lot of the old GW sponsered GTs around the country. He ALWAYS talks about the "good ol' days of 40k" and GTs and how tournaments nowadays don't compare with what was. He always said that GTs had far more stricter rules on paint, Sportsmanship, and other army related things. The tournaments of old were about more than just who won the most games. Nowadays, the strict-ness of GTs is almost non-existent. Most TO's of big GTs want the attendance number and the way an army looks is irrelevant and doesn't matter so long as you are good at the game. I used to dismiss this claim and thought he was just a bitter player with how the game is now. (He is not a big fan of 6th Ed.)

However, after reading the "horror stories" of NOVA, Adepticon, and other GTs, I think his thoughts might have some merit. Tournaments it seems have become lax with army restrictions (not Comp) and pretty much just want a winner based on games won. This used to not be the case. To the TO's who read this, if you can answer some questions and a small explanation of how you answered that would help.

1. Why does paint not matter towards an overall score to help determine a winner? At the GTs I have been to, all the paint "requirement" is is 3 colors and based and is essentially a check box of sort. You do receive a score, but with a win/loss format, paint means nothing.

2. Now at every single GT I have been to, I have seen grey models, grey armies, and yet these people were still allowed to play. What's the use of this "requirement" if it isn't a requirement at all? (2 parter i guess!)

3. To go with Blackmoor and his rumblings, why do we need only 1 undefeated person at a tournament? Why can't we have multiples?

4. Why can't soft scores carry the day and declare a winner of the undefeated based on paint and Sportsmanship? They used to... Paint and Sportsmanship have no bearing on the overall winner. Why?

5. If you were to see 5 or so models that were grey at a tournament on a table, would you, as a TO, ask the player to remove them? Or would you just shrug and say, "oh its just 5 models, not a big deal."

Now I know some peopel will probably get on here and say that paint does matter and so does sportsmanship. But the Overall Winners of tournaments are those people that are only undefeated. Melted Crayons could painted their army, and the Winner could be a total D*ck, and they would still win Overall. I think Paint should have more bearing and Sportsmanship should have more bearing on the Overall Winner.

Am I saying that someone with the Best Painted army should win a tournament with 3 losses? No, I am saying to reduce then umber of games and make it ok for not having 1 or more undefeated players. Make their ability to Paint and be a good Sportsman matter for them to win Overall Winner, not just how many games have you won the last two days.

Sorry i derailed a little bit, but I had a lot of thoughts and decided to put all of them down in the thread.

I think you're not entirely up to speed on some of the way these events are scored.

1. NOVA determines Best Overall and gives its by-far largest prize / biggest award to a placing based on 50% appearance score. Aka one of the largest paint contributions to overall anywhere. AdeptiCon does something similar with its Best Overall.

2. When someone spends thousands of dollars to fly out to a GT, and hasn't finished painting all his models, it's very difficult from a TO point of view to do more than gently shame him. You certainly aren't going to find many people staying in the TO game who thank someone for spending their hard earned vacation and dollars by telling them they can just turn around and go home / not play. YES, it's disrespectful to the entire field, and frankly embarrassing, to show up with unpainted models. But people will do it, b/c their inability to finish coincides with a window of time in which they cannot cancel airline tickets and obtain GT refunds.

3. You can have multiple undefeateds and then determine the winner off other methods if you desire. My only problem is with those who heap insult and derision upon events that DO determine a solo undefeated for their Best General, instead of basing it upon how much they crushed a random assortment of opponents (or whatever). Again, Best Overall at almost every event I'M personally aware of is still based heavily on soft scores, nation/world-wide.

4. They still do. And sportsmanship matters; more than 1 negative score at NOVA (for example, since it's the best one I can give) can D/Q you from winning anything.

5. As a TO, you can see my answer to #2. I would talk to the guy about it, ask him why he showed up with grey models, but I'm (and I think most TO's are) unlikely to tell someone who spent thousands to be there "Tough gak, remove 'em!" Call me a softie if you wish. I try not to be harshly judgmental of the reasons and whys behind what other people do (though I don't always succeed at this).

The overall winners of tournaments are NOT only those who are undefeated. You're basing your judgments and opinions on patently false information.

I attended a local tournament, and would have gotten first place, but got 2nd because the other player had a fully painted army HE DID NOT PAINT.

How can a TO enforce painting scores; they realistically can't. Any player with deep pockets can just pay to have his army painted and claim he did it.

A fully painted army you did not personally paint should generate 0 points on painting. But the dillema is this is virtually impossible to enforce.

I have talked to a few TOs I know that have been having trouble with round times. People playing slow hasn't just been a 6th ED problem, it has always been here. There will always be people who move their models as slow as molasses.

An interesting thing I brought up to my friends and TOs I knwo is, what if you instituted a minimum game length, say 3 turns. If you don't get through 3 full game turns, the game is a draw?

I know this will hurt some armies that have terrific match ups. This could result in even more deliberate slow play by people who couldn't possibly win a game because either they are playing the hardest counter to their list or most of their stuff died Turns 1 and 2 and the only way they can win is by Drawing. Some people would consider a Draw a Win against some armies they face. But, with a minimum length of time instituted, it would give incentive to both players who want to compete and who want to win, to play faster and to get turns in so a draw does not occur.

Thoughts?

I hate incomplete games, and their prevalence at tournaments is the main reason that I don't go to more events. I would be extremely enthusiastic about chess clocks or any other method of strict time control.

SCP Yeeman wrote:
I have talked to a few TOs I know that have been having trouble with round times. People playing slow hasn't just been a 6th ED problem, it has always been here. There will always be people who move their models as slow as molasses.

An interesting thing I brought up to my friends and TOs I knwo is, what if you instituted a minimum game length, say 3 turns. If you don't get through 3 full game turns, the game is a draw?

I know this will hurt some armies that have terrific match ups. This could result in even more deliberate slow play by people who couldn't possibly win a game because either they are playing the hardest counter to their list or most of their stuff died Turns 1 and 2 and the only way they can win is by Drawing. Some people would consider a Draw a Win against some armies they face. But, with a minimum length of time instituted, it would give incentive to both players who want to compete and who want to win, to play faster and to get turns in so a draw does not occur.

Thoughts?

You could also / alternately easily DQ people from MOST award categories if they don't finish games on time. In something like NOVA format, you wouldn't be able to do this with bracketing / best general, but you could do it for best overall, battle master, bracket champs, bracket ren men, painting scores, etc., etc., easily enough. There are a lot of things to ponder. But generally speaking, you want to avoid rules that put power in an opponent's hand to "Screw" you or encourage potentially unsportsmanlike behavior.

MVBrandt wrote:
More time in rounds seems to be of merit; or, more "prep" time built into pre-round (i.e., pairings released with 15-20 minutes of advance notice).

This makes a lot of sense, good to see the feedback getting taken into account

RE: OP:

I prefer none of the above. I want a single winner determined entirely by win/loss record, and I want a solid majority of rounds to finish on time (the only exception being the worst of the slow players who will never finish within any practical deadline). Instead of choosing between the two I would rather play at a lower point level. If that means 500 point games are the only way to have a tournament run properly, then that's just how it is.

MVBrandt wrote:
2. When someone spends thousands of dollars to fly out to a GT, and hasn't finished painting all his models, it's very difficult from a TO point of view to do more than gently shame him. You certainly aren't going to find many people staying in the TO game who thank someone for spending their hard earned vacation and dollars by telling them they can just turn around and go home / not play. YES, it's disrespectful to the entire field, and frankly embarrassing, to show up with unpainted models. But people will do it, b/c their inability to finish coincides with a window of time in which they cannot cancel airline tickets and obtain GT refunds.

So what exactly is the point of having a rule that requires painted models?

MVBrandt wrote:
ou could also / alternately easily DQ people from MOST award categories if they don't finish games on time. In something like NOVA format, you wouldn't be able to do this with bracketing / best general, but you could do it for best overall, battle master, bracket champs, bracket ren men, painting scores, etc., etc., easily enough. There are a lot of things to ponder. But generally speaking, you want to avoid rules that put power in an opponent's hand to "Screw" you or encourage potentially unsportsmanlike behavior.

IMO give the loser a bonus for finishing on time. So, say, 10 points for a win, 5 points for a draw, 2 points for a loss that finished, 0 points for a loss that didn't finish. That way the loser still has an incentive to try to finish the game instead of stalling out of spite, and the winner is a lot less likely to be in a spiteful mood and try to screw over their opponent.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 derek wrote:
You'll never have a satisfactory answer because of the problems you outlined in the OP. I could give players 3+ hours to finish a game, and certain players would still be on turn three when time is called. The timing out issue came up in the thread about timed turns, and how "unfair" it is to horde army players to get the same time to play as people playing lower model count armies. So what else can you do other than set a time, set a number of rounds, and determine the best outcome you can under the rules of the event?

You will always have outliers who will not finish games, but you can manipulate the amount of games being completed.

This fact remains the more time you add, the more games will complete.

For an example: if you add 30 minutes to the game time and you go from 70% of the games not finishing to 30% would it not make sense to do so even though 30% are still not finishing?

I should also point out that I haven't played a game of 40k since 6th edition released and don't plan to. I do however help organize a local convention's 40k tournament every fall, mostly on the admin side of it, so this discussion does intrigue me. This year we're going two and a half hours, with 15 mins set up time after pairings are posted. This is at 1850 points. I'll come back to the topic after the weekend with my direct observations on how many games timed out, etc. Speaking only from past observation, I'd say that less than 20% of games last year (which was played under 6th edition rules) timed out. Those that did were the same usual suspects that always time out, because of their army choice and refusal to adjust to playing under a time limit.

Still, I'm not opposed at all to adding more round time on average to large events (even if it may not seem like it), but I would also want to still have the winner as the sole undefeated player at larger events like NOVA.

Put me down for 'Smaller points levels.'

Me too for smaller points battles.

- I'd like to complete all my games
- I like appearance and sportsmanship included in the winning score - and I like that sports can be a surety against slow playing
- I like three games a day and 'fun gaming' in the evening.
- I'm happy to play at 1500 - the gameplay loses nothing, the games are quicker, and it's easier to collect/build/paint the army.

@MVBrandt

Mike if someone showed up to NOVA and had grey models, can they win prizes? What if Spag showed up and had a squad of Dire Avengers that weren't painted? Would he still have won the Invitational? (Pretty sure he took it)

More simply, are people with an army that is not meeting the requirement exempt from prize support?

nkelsch wrote:
It sounds like there are 3 issues: Point limit, Game Time and Number of games for a W/L winner.

Of all 3, it sounds like the issue is gamers seem intolerant or resistant to modifying the point limit below the 1750 mark and seemingly prefer 2000 so they can have spammy double force orgs. People overwhelmingly want 'toys' and they want all of them. So it sounds like reducing point values to 1500 or 1250 is just a non-starter with attendees in this day and age.

So you can't change the game to fit the time, then the time needs to change to fit the game.

It doesn't seem that way from this thread - everyone who has mentioned it seems quite happy to lower the points. Time for another poll!!!

2.5 hour 1.5k games sounds great to me, preferably with chess clocks too!

Aftermath. wrote:
.

How can a TO enforce painting scores; they realistically can't. Any player with deep pockets can just pay to have his army painted and claim he did it.

Any player with deep pockets can buy 4 rip tides and buy a win!!!!
I would rather play and lose tournament place to a pretty pro painted army then ugly models that barely meet the 3 color min. Up your painting game. My painting sucks. I need to spend more time doing it. I embarrassed myself having Redbeard on my team and his models are glorious.

I want to finish my games so three 2.5 hour games a day is ideal. Set point level so most games finish.

 Kingsley wrote:
2.5 hour 1.5k games sounds great to me, preferably with chess clocks too!

How would you reconcile the chess clock inclusion with the shared turn dynamic of the game?

I didn't vote because the poll is hilariously biased.

I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

More time would be great, I'd love an hour between rounds, but I just don't see this pervasive time problem. I'm sure there are slow players, but in my tourney experience games very rarely finish by time getting called.

Gimme an undefeated Tourney Champion over Battle Points #1 Sealclubber any day.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

What were you playing?

I had a reasonably-sized daemons army (i.e., NOT a 5 FMC army). Of 8 games, I had 2 finish naturally.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I didn't vote because the poll is hilariously biased.

I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

More time would be great, I'd love an hour between rounds, but I just don't see this pervasive time problem. I'm sure there are slow players, but in my tourney experience games very rarely finish by time getting called.

Gimme an undefeated Tourney Champion over Battle Points #1 Sealclubber any day.

My experience at NOVA this year mirrors yours. 7 of my 8 games finished with at least half an hour to spare. The last finished on Turn 5. Several games featured pairings well in advance of the round start time so I really don't know why so many had problems this year. Given the score sheet data (the collection of which was, admittedly, flawed), perhaps this sentiment is just the result of a loud minority.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I didn't vote because the poll is hilariously biased.

I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

More time would be great, I'd love an hour between rounds, but I just don't see this pervasive time problem. I'm sure there are slow players, but in my tourney experience games very rarely finish by time getting called.

Gimme an undefeated Tourney Champion over Battle Points #1 Sealclubber any day.

My experience at NOVA this year mirrors yours. 7 of my 8 games finished with at least half an hour to spare. The last finished on Turn 5. Several games featured pairings well in advance of the round start time so I really don't know why so many had problems this year. Given the score sheet data (the collection of which was, admittedly, flawed), perhaps this sentiment is just the result of a loud minority.

So many people at NOVA I would have said hello to had I realised.

The only games I had that finished naturally were the really one-sided tabling ones, where one list was innately superior to the other and it was practically an auto win (that's both me tabling and being tabled!!!).

All the real fun, close fought games I had ended because of time. At least one of those I could have won given another turn, and that could easily have won me my bracket.

People do realize these things are only mutually exclusive in basically the countries larges events, anything 64 players or less can do both. As for larger events....that becomes tricky as with 7+ games you need 3 days to make 3 hour rounds work.

Aftermath. wrote:
I attended a local tournament, and would have gotten first place, but got 2nd because the other player had a fully painted army HE DID NOT PAINT.

How can a TO enforce painting scores; they realistically can't. Any player with deep pockets can just pay to have his army painted and claim he did it.

A fully painted army you did not personally paint should generate 0 points on painting. But the dillema is this is virtually impossible to enforce.

This is one of the reasons why I left the GT circuit years ago and is a reason when I TO a game, painting is a separate award all together.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

What were you playing?

He played a small mech necron army with nob bikers.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I preferred the win-loss one undefeated player in 5th edition which was a much more competitive rule set.

With 6th edition being far less competitive and a much "longer" and complex game than 5th I have moved back in favor of less win-loss undefeated winner format tournaments. 6th edition is no where near as competitive tournament friendly as 5th was.

That being said I am happy to attend both types of events. I was in 5th and I am in 6th as well. The change now is I am happier at events which are not winner takes all, the reverse of my attitude 2 years ago.

I didn't find 5th edition more competitive. There was one build no matter what army you played: 5-man squads and a ton of transports. While that technically made things quicker because list-building was cut-and-paste, every damn game was the same. It was boring and bad for the game all together.

What's funny is, people complained that because of it's simplicity, the game wasn't complex enough to reward smart players, creative list-building, etc., often referencing the rules "complexity" of PP and other companies. Now there are tons of intricate ways to win objectives. Playing to the mission is far more important now, and requires a much higher level of tactical acumen than just math-hammering the most efficient way to deliver a meltagun.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I didn't vote because the poll is hilariously biased.

I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

Is it possible your results were atypical?

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I didn't vote because the poll is hilariously biased.

I was at Nova. I only had 1 game go to time out of 7. The other 6 finished with 30-45 minutes to spare.

Is it possible your results were atypical?

It's certainly possible, but in all my time playing tournaments over the past 3-4 years time has very rarely been an issue. My Nova army was Necrorks with Wraiths, Nob bikes, some mech, some flyers and a scarab farm. Lots of complex assault fun. Last year I had 60 Orks and more foot Necrons and not a single game went to time.

I play at a reasonable pace, know my army and the rules, but I don't think that's anything special. I think Mike said that the majority of games finished "naturally" anyway, so I'm just not seeing where you're getting "most" games coming down to time. Is it possible that your results are atypical?

Also, next year we need some kind of "internet hugging" area where everybody can get their glomp on.

Who cares. If you dont like how a tournament is ran dont go. The opinion will be voiced but if it doesnt change anything then just dont go. Heck host your own tournament. Ill come ^.^

Chumbalaya- Janthkin also knows his army well, had a reasonably sized one, and had most of his games not finish, though (he originally posted a longer statement of this in the main Nova thread).

I think a NOVA specific bent is needless. Adepticon and NOVA both played 2.5 hours and 1850 points, and both recorded most games by a wide margin finishing on time.

Even a loud minority, however, is worth addressing if you plan to be worth attending as an event, so we'll be looking at numerous options for giving players more time anyway. If we went off large majorities we'd never have improved off year one, since the large majority had a great time then. To the complacent goes the rightful criticism.

I DO think it's important for people to understand perspective, from both angles. More players than in the past didn't finish their games. Most players did. Worth being honest about for both sides. Some of you by your and opponent's fault did not play at the pace of the "norm." But clearly the game takes longer to play, because more people failed to finish and it's being heard about more loudly. Requires concession and address from both directions.

Said another way ... people who attend tournaments need to be prepared to play at a much more clipper pace, and need to use judges and social applications to manage slow opponents. Tournaments simultaneously need to find a way to lower points and or give players more time.

Nova is only being discussed because it just happened, and as stated above should only be an issue at the biggest of events (Nova, AdeptiCon, etc) because of the need for more rounds. So, it's not a dig, it's a compliment to discuss Nova... I also don't see a belligerent minority, I see a few folks expressing an opinion and discussing it reasonably. Just what a forum is for

"It is best to have 1 undefeated player in a tournament where most of the games do not finish."

The problem with this poll is it is very biased due to the first choice which has already been shown to be often not the case.

It is the responsibility of both the TOs and players to make sure games go to at least the fifth turn. TOs should keep track of players whom can't seem to ever get past a third turn - if it happens twice give them a strong verbal warning. If it then happens again DQ them or pair them up versus other slow players on the lower tables.

Sixth edition can be played at a timely pace... The players must manage their time accordingly.

Getting to a 5th turn and knowing it must end then is different from finishing naturally, though.

 Chumbalaya wrote:


It's certainly possible, but in all my time playing tournaments over the past 3-4 years time has very rarely been an issue. My Nova army was Necrorks with Wraiths, Nob bikes, some mech, some flyers and a scarab farm. Lots of complex assault fun. Last year I had 60 Orks and more foot Necrons and not a single game went to time.

The past results do not matter because we were not playing 6th edition 3 to 4 years ago, and even then only until a couple of months ago we have the codexes released that take the longest to play (Demons, Tau, and Eldar).

I play at a reasonable pace, know my army, but I don't think that's anything special. I think Mike said that the majority of games finished "naturally" anyway, so I'm just not seeing where you're getting "most" games coming down to time. Is it possible that your results are atypical?

I do not have a computer (I am doing this from my phone) so I can't check, but we have access to 13 games on the uStream channel so how many of those finished naturally?

Given the two rather limited options of the poll, I would prefer complete games.

To black moor, I think your poll and initial post are really flawed. I didn't get a chance to chat with you at nova, but if I am correct from the tone of your post your games did not finish and you lost games because of that. If I guessed correctly then your approach to this topic should probably be reevaluated with some data from mike and a neutral perspective.

As for the games, I felt like my games at nova were slower than my games at adepticon. At adepticon I played a list that I had much more tournament experience with while at nova I played a new tau list that had lots of test game experience but no major tournament experience with hard time limits attached.

For a fact playing a new army with more dice slowed the pace a bit, as the new armies get more shots (with rerolls) than before. However lack of timed tourney game experience was another factor, as even when I played a match versus a club mate I have played 20 times already, the outcome was different solely because I took too much time at nova to play out my turns and a time limit ended the game early. I noticed a marked speed improvement in my play with more timed games under my belt as the weekend went on, as I knew what to hurry and what to focus my time on, but by no means am I quick enough with that force yet in a timed environment simply because nova was the first tourney I have had my new tau for.

So while I have voiced that I wanted more time for my games, my only complaint from nova round time was I felt a disconnect from when pairings were made to when the round started. I felt like this portion of the game time was out of the players control, as finding your table, getting moved over to your table, and getting your table sides sorted all ate into your round time.

All in all though, we have data from the etc games with their much longer round times that still shows that some games will not finish on time no matter how generous the time given is. This is the reality of some armies being slower to play combined with some players being slower to move their models. With this reality in mind and with the penchant for GW to increase the amount of dice being thrown by armies (each 80 point dev centurion throws 11 dice all with some form of reroll when shooting) we the players need to step up our games regardless. Chess clocks in a tournament are not the answer. Chess clocks in our practice games, however, WILL help us finish our tournament games.

3 hour round times may help some games finish, but a game that got to turn 3 in 2.5 hours will not go to turn 7 if given 30 more minutes.

MVBrandt wrote:
I think a NOVA specific bent is needless. Adepticon and NOVA both played 2.5 hours and 1850 points, and both recorded most games by a wide margin finishing on time.

Even a loud minority, however, is worth addressing if you plan to be worth attending as an event, so we'll be looking at numerous options for giving players more time anyway. If we went off large majorities we'd never have improved off year one, since the large majority had a great time then. To the complacent goes the rightful criticism.

I DO think it's important for people to understand perspective, from both angles. More players than in the past didn't finish their games. Most players did. Worth being honest about for both sides. Some of you by your and opponent's fault did not play at the pace of the "norm." But clearly the game takes longer to play, because more people failed to finish and it's being heard about more loudly. Requires concession and address from both directions.

Said another way ... people who attend tournaments need to be prepared to play at a much more clipper pace, and need to use judges and social applications to manage slow opponents. Tournaments simultaneously need to find a way to lower points and or give players more time.

Saying the players need to be prepared isn't possible in some cases. I can't prepare for an opponent's play if they play hoard or slowly. I think the TO needs to prepare and plan better IMHO.

Being a competitive player who now has family and less free time, I view your post is just as bias as Blackmoor's. You may think that there is "enough" time to finish but it doesn't mean that doesn't mean the players aren't rushed. Its just not fun. I enjoy competitive games and the challenge they bring but I will not play in a rushed tournament. Remember, a majority of us go to events because they enjoy the game and the hobby.

If any event for that matter, its not enjoyable for me, I will not go. Cramming as many games as one can exhausts a lot of players and i wish the community of events would trend back to this. As someone else posted, I choose not to go to those events.

This is why I do like Daboyz and attend and OTHER events I skip.

@The Rogue Engineer,

Have you tried other events? There are other events (I'm assuming you are in the North East if you go to Daboyz) in the area that allow for enough time. Battle for Salvation has 3 hour rounds this year. I ran 3 hour rounds at my GT at Connecticon.

I also enforced a penalty on players if they consistently did not finish games.

We played 2k points and had 1 game out of 70 not finish naturally. Many finished with 30+ minutes to spare.

However all that said players do need to be prepared, a lot of the responisbility is on the players. Even with 3 hours, it is possible to slow play, it is up to the players to call a judge if they feel this is the case. It is also up to the players to honestly report their games not finishing if they don't.

AS a TO I can try to provide a reasonable amount of time (3 hours is reasonable, anything longer is not funcitonal.), and I can enforce penalties for slow play, or simply not finishing games consistently. Beyond that everything is on the players.

I'm only particularly talking about Nova because I brought the same army to 6 GT's this year and before Nova only had 2-3 games called due to time. At Nova I only had one game finish naturally.

Now, I don't think that was entirely Nova's fault. Partly it was due to Tau and Eldar now being out and slowing down game play (mine included, thanks intercepting Riptides....)But a contributing factor was pairings giong up 1-2 minutes before rounds started which meant just getting to your table ate up clock time.

Personally, I think it'll ease out and that just ensuring a little more cushion would work out. But I also wouldn't mind a 1500pt GT here or there.

Rogue, to be fair your criticism is misguided. If your opponent is slow and playing horde, Mike said in your quote that you need to use judges and social apps to manage slow players, yet your first comment is how your helpless versus a slow player! Slow players will not finish games even when given 4 hours, just look at the etc. A judge can't intervene with a slow player if you don't say anything.

Your observation about being rushed is no fun is quite valid, but da boyz ALSO has a time limit, and you still need to play quickly to finish a game. As for cramming games in, the open had a max of 3 games a day. If anyone wanted more games than that, they had the option, both with organized games like trios and unorganized open gaming. The fact is you are the only one who makes your schedule, and furthermore nova is drop friendly so there is no pressure to even play a game if you are tired of playing already.

Like I put in the post above yours, 6th edition requires you to play faster than 5th, regardless of format. 30 extra minutes will not turn a game that ended on turn 3 with 2.5 hours to turn 7 in 3 hours. That player will not finish their games regardless of being in upstate New York, Chicago, or northern Virginia.

While it is true that 30 min won't change the turns that ended on turn 3 to ending on turn 7, but it will change those turn 4 games to turn 5+, and turn 5 getting called on time to likely turn 7 games. Turns tend to get faster as the game goes on.

To deal with those 3 turn games you need 3 things.

1.) The opposing player to call a judge, and call him early, if you call a judge with 15 min left and you are only on turn 3, it is too late to do much.

2.) Consistent time reminders. Many events don't let you know about time until the last 15 minutes. At that point if you are playing too slow, you cannot adjust. I always try to remind when there is 1 hour left (sometimes 1.5 hours), 30 min, 15, 10 , etc.

3.) A penalty for not finishing games. The reason for this is two fold. First it provides impetus to finish games. Second it provides motivation for people getting slow played to get a judge so that they are not penalized. What I do is as each table if they had a natural conclusion (as well as monitor games running over time). IF a player has more than 1 game not finish they are penalized(increasingly for each unfinished game). That way, each of their individual opponents are not penalized, but consistent slow play is. Is it perfect no, but like I said, 1/70 games not finishing is pretty good.

 Blackmoor wrote:
The past results do not matter because we were not playing 6th edition 3 to 4 years ago, and even then only until a couple of months ago we have the codexes released that take the longest to play (Demons, Tau, and Eldar).

The vast majority of the Daemon armies I saw at NOVA were flying circus lists with extremely low model counts. The predominant Tau configurations seemed to keep large portions of their army (namely, their Kroot) in reserve, which results in a very brief deployment phase and first game turn. And almost every single Eldar army at NOVA was fully or almost fully mechanized, making them one of the fastest armies to play in 40k.

I would argue that Daemons, Tau, and Eldar represent armies that take the shortest amount of time to play when using common competitive builds. Having played literally nothing but Daemons, Tau, and Eldar at NOVA (and using Tau myself, with only two games worth of experience before NOVA), this is consistent with my own experiences at NOVA. Had I not gone in cold with respect to my own army, the games probably would have been even shorter.

Well Daemons take up quite a bit of pregame time with rolling Powers, and Rewards, but during game play how long they play largely depends on warpstorm rolls etc.

Having Watched the live feed, it is very evident that lots of players spend a lot of time measuring moves, checking LOS, measuring again etc. (At least on top tables.)

That said I rarely have trouble finishing games, but I can see with lots of pregame rolling, needing to get to the table, etc...games not getting finished.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I think a NOVA specific bent is needless. Adepticon and NOVA both played 2.5 hours and 1850 points, and both recorded most games by a wide margin finishing on time.

Even a loud minority, however, is worth addressing if you plan to be worth attending as an event, so we'll be looking at numerous options for giving players more time anyway. If we went off large majorities we'd never have improved off year one, since the large majority had a great time then. To the complacent goes the rightful criticism.

I DO think it's important for people to understand perspective, from both angles. More players than in the past didn't finish their games. Most players did. Worth being honest about for both sides. Some of you by your and opponent's fault did not play at the pace of the "norm." But clearly the game takes longer to play, because more people failed to finish and it's being heard about more loudly. Requires concession and address from both directions.

Said another way ... people who attend tournaments need to be prepared to play at a much more clipper pace, and need to use judges and social applications to manage slow opponents. Tournaments simultaneously need to find a way to lower points and or give players more time.

Saying the players need to be prepared isn't possible in some cases. I can't prepare for an opponent's play if they play hoard or slowly. I think the TO needs to prepare and plan better IMHO.

Being a competitive player who now has family and less free time, I view your post is just as bias as Blackmoor's. You may think that there is "enough" time to finish but it doesn't mean that doesn't mean the players aren't rushed. Its just not fun. I enjoy competitive games and the challenge they bring but I will not play in a rushed tournament. Remember, a majority of us go to events because they enjoy the game and the hobby.

If any event for that matter, its not enjoyable for me, I will not go. Cramming as many games as one can exhausts a lot of players and i wish the community of events would trend back to this. As someone else posted, I choose not to go to those events.

This is why I do like Daboyz and attend and OTHER events I skip.

I'm not sure you read my quote. Events like mine need to give people more time. As others have said, however, games that go three turns in 2.5+ hours are not going to go to 7 in 3 or even 4 hours. Some people ALSO need to play faster. I've heard nothing but wonderful things about DaBoyz so I'm glad you're going and supporting it!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm only particularly talking about Nova because I brought the same army to 6 GT's this year and before Nova only had 2-3 games called due to time. At Nova I only had one game finish naturally.

Now, I don't think that was entirely Nova's fault. Partly it was due to Tau and Eldar now being out and slowing down game play (mine included, thanks intercepting Riptides....)But a contributing factor was pairings giong up 1-2 minutes before rounds started which meant just getting to your table ate up clock time.

Personally, I think it'll ease out and that just ensuring a little more cushion would work out. But I also wouldn't mind a 1500pt GT here or there.

I find it interesting that this is the opposite of Danny Internets' post (about Tau and Eldar taking more time). But this is what I have heard most often, too, that these armies tend to just take more time. Not sure why Danny's experience would be different when I've heard that from so many other people...

Agree very strongly with your last line- just a little more time cushion, or even a lower point level tourney here or there, would be really great

MVBrandt wrote:

I'm not sure you read my quote. Events like mine need to give people more time. As others have said, however, games that go three turns in 2.5+ hours are not going to go to 7 in 3 or even 4 hours. Some people ALSO need to play faster. I've heard nothing but wonderful things about DaBoyz so I'm glad you're going and supporting it!

I did miss that the first time around. Sorry. How do you propose to manage other people playing faster? I am not sure that is realistic.

I would like to see more time and I am glad you are looking into options for that. Mike, I do consider both NOVA each year but its easy to dismiss for me as it sounds more like work and less like fun as a result of lots of games and short (from my perspective) time limits. I tell you this, not to criticize, but for information only.

I am with Blackmoor, in that I would like more time per round.

I haven't been to the bigger of the 40k GTs like Adepticon or NOVA, but dont most have long posts with table numbers on them? What if along with the table numbers, you had a round counter on them as well? I think this could alert the judges as to what round some games are on and maybe they can give some encouragement to pick up the pace.

You could have rounds 1 and 2 be colored red. This would be to show that the game is in its infant stage. If 30 mins are called, and a red card is still up, the judge should go over and see what the deal is. Rounds 3 and 4 could be yellow while rounds 5-7 could be green, meaning everything is good and the game is getting to the right number of turns.

There will be some issues with this, like players forgetting to turn their cards. However, if the judge comes over to a table with 30 mins left and a red card is up, and they see the game is either over or really on turn 5, then there is no problem. But, I think with the card system, the TO and judges could be more informed with how games are going and who is playing these games. If the same people are having red cards consistently, talk with them or have a system to dock them points.

The cards I think would be a simple indicator and enable the judges and TO to track games to give that reassurance of playing faster and the encouragement to get more rounds in.

Thoughts on this idea?

MVBrandt wrote:
I think a NOVA specific bent is needless. Adepticon and NOVA both played 2.5 hours and 1850 points, and both recorded most games by a wide margin finishing on time.

I don't mean to pick on the Nova Open, but this is the only major event after Tau and Eldar were released to give us an example of how long games take to play these days.

We knew that 6th edition takes longer to play. That is why you increased the round times and dropped the points down to 1850, but it turned out to be a bigger problem than anyone thought.

2.5 hours I believe is plenty of time if cupled with a 15 min deployment/assignment time.

If this was the case would people find it easier or find the ability to play the game out? All 5 of my games finished naturally at NOVA so im finding it hard to get my hands around the fact that 2.5 hours isnt enough time. But I understand that some matchups will have a hard time due to sheer numbers etc..

Now NOVA didnt have the 15 min window would adding something like this help in this area or is this still not enough time?

SCP Yeeman wrote:
I haven't been to the bigger of the 40k GTs like Adepticon or NOVA, but dont most have long posts with table numbers on them? What if along with the table numbers, you had a round counter on them as well? I think this could alert the judges as to what round some games are on and maybe they can give some encouragement to pick up the pace.

You could have rounds 1 and 2 be colored red. This would be to show that the game is in its infant stage. If 30 mins are called, and a red card is still up, the judge should go over and see what the deal is. Rounds 3 and 4 could be yellow while rounds 5-7 could be green, meaning everything is good and the game is getting to the right number of turns.

It's a nice idea, and not too hard to implement, I think. It might even make it easier for roaming judges to know where to check in on at the event, and thus save work rather than creating more work for those putting on the event (most suggestions only create work).

Great suggestion

I would also agree that it is a great suggestion. +1

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
The past results do not matter because we were not playing 6th edition 3 to 4 years ago, and even then only until a couple of months ago we have the codexes released that take the longest to play (Demons, Tau, and Eldar).

The vast majority of the Daemon armies I saw at NOVA were flying circus lists with extremely low model counts. The predominant Tau configurations seemed to keep large portions of their army (namely, their Kroot) in reserve, which results in a very brief deployment phase and first game turn. And almost every single Eldar army at NOVA was fully or almost fully mechanized, making them one of the fastest armies to play in 40k.

I would argue that Daemons, Tau, and Eldar represent armies that take the shortest amount of time to play when using common competitive builds. Having played literally nothing but Daemons, Tau, and Eldar at NOVA (and using Tau myself, with only two games worth of experience before NOVA), this is consistent with my own experiences at NOVA. Had I not gone in cold with respect to my own army, the games probably would have been even shorter.

Why Demons, Tau, and Eldar take longer to play.

Demons

Demons have a lot of pre-game rolls. They have a lot of MC and Heralds so they generate a lot of rolls on the psychic power tables, and then they have to roll for all of their gifts.

In game they are casting all of these psychic powers every turn. 3-4 level 3 heralds or 4-5 MC=around 12 psychic powers a turn.

They also have the warp storm table and this takes time out of the game. They roll on the chart and then if they have fateweaver they need to decide if they want to take the result or not, then they re-roll it. Then most of the time you have to roll for every unit in their opponents army to see if they get hit with the effect or not, and then you have to resolve all of these hits.

Then in the course of the game Demons take longer to play. Most are Tzeentch based so they have a lot of saves that they re-roll.

Then their shooting takes longer. They do not have X amount of shots. They have to make a roll to see how many shots they have before they can even roll to hit. Then they have prescience so they re-roll all of their misses.

The same with screamer attacks since they do not have a set number of attacks, their flyover needs to roll a D3 for each screamer before they can resolve the damage.

Then you have items like the grimore and portalglyph that are additional rolls. Then with the portalglyph you have to dig around for models to add to the table.

So to illustrate an example of shooting at a FMC, most armies roll a lot of dice to hit a FMC, then they have some kind of re-roll, then they roll to damage, then the FMC re-rolls any roll of a “1”, then any unsaved wounds often gets a FNP save, then a grounding check, then if they fail that a they often have a re-roll, and then if that is failed then you have to resolve the strength 10 shot. All of this seems simple when you are dealing with only one model, but it all takes time.

Tau

Tau (unlike Eldar and Demons) have a fast pregame since they do not generate any psychic powers, or have any random rolls other than warlord traits.

They do have some elements that they have to do before the movement phase like Nova reactors and Puretide chips, but not too bad.

Where they take longer is in the shooting phase (a shocker I know).

They have to shoot their marker lights first and then resolving those takes a bit longer. Where their time gets wasted though is with the amount of shooting they have. Tau are cheaper and so they have high model count and a ton of shots. You have to count out all of these dice and then roll them. Either the Tau are making everything TL, or Eldar are often allied with them so they have to re-roll all of these shots. Then all of these hits need to be resolved. Think about the amount of firepower that Tau have and everything from Fire Warriors and Kroot down to Riptides heavy burst cannons and Broadsides with all of their missiles. That is a lot of counting dice and rolling.

Tau surprisingly, takes a lot longer to play than any other army in their opponents’ turn. The examples of this are that they have a lot of interceptor fire so they will be shooting a lot of shots after their opponents’ movement phase. Then to top it off 6th edition also added a new phase that takes Tau a lot of time and that is shooting of overwatch. Since you shoot most of the army whenever they get assaulted, this is like an additional shooting phase to the game.

The last thing is that they a lot of jump packs that have a random (and random takes longer) assault move.

Eldar

Eldar have to generate a lot of psychic powers pre-game.

Then every turn they have a long psychic power phase to cast all of those powers.

Where Eldar really bog down though is in the shooting phase. Almost every unit gets a run move before or after shooting (and not only does this take longer because you have to roll to see how far they run, but they are fleet and get to re-roll this) but then you have to move all of the models. It is almost like another movement phase.

Then almost every Eldar unit will either be TL, or have guide or prescience on them so they re-roll every miss.

Wave serpents take a while to shoot as well. To break it down you have to roll for the scatter laser first (which is TL so has a re-roll). Then you shot the serpent shield which does not have a fixed amount of shots either, so the number of shots needs to be generated for every model shooting, and then these need to be re-rolled from the TL from the scatter laser.

Then you have another Eldar movement phase when the jetbikes and warpsiders get to make an additional random move (more dice rolls).

Grey Knights require lots of rolls for psychic powers but I don't seem to remember anybody having ever claimed they slowed down the game in fifth edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Grey Knights require lots of rolls for psychic powers....

Ummm...no. They really don't.

I have a relatively light psychic daemon army: 1 level 4 caster (Fateweaver), 2 level 3s (a Herald & a CSM Sorcerer), and a level 1 (big block of Horrors). Each requires power generated at the start of the game (I have a pre-printed spreadsheet - just roll & circle the results; it's as fast as I can make it), which comes out to 12-14 rolls (I'll often skip the last roll on the Tz Herald & the Horrors); I also have 3 daemonic gifts to roll up (same spreadsheet). Each and every game turn, I'm usually casting 9 powers (3 of which require additional random rolls before getting to the "to hit" step). Several of the others create reroll situations.

A 5e GK army would cast...2 powers a turn? Maybe 4, if they were in assault?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Grey Knights require lots of rolls for psychic powers but I don't seem to remember anybody having ever claimed they slowed down the game in fifth edition.

Well, edition didn't require so many pre game rolls so that wasn't as much of a problem. But in 6th, I imagine any extra time grey knights take in psychic powers is more than mitigated by the army size, and how fast the rest of their turn becomes...

Exactly, grey knights in 5th ed were almost the epitome of a "low model count" army... of course they didn't take long to play!

I see no mention of many of the generic things that make 6e games take longer. Look, anytime you have to pick up, count, roll, evaluate, and reroll dice, you're adding time

Prescience...everyone is rerolling stuff;
Overwatch!!!;
A lot more LOS/Tank-Character stuff;
rolling charge distances;
more dangerous terrain tests;
a lot more psykers/powers in general!
mysterious this and that;
more attacks...eg vector strikes, hammer of wrath, etc
an increased emphasis on super-shooty units...more dice = more time!

I have no horse in the race, just random thoughts while skimming the thread. If I'm repeating something that's been said...sorry, I suck!

 Blackmoor wrote:


Demons
...

I play Daemons too. The pre-game rolls take about 2 minutes tops if you're prepared for them (you have copies of the charts printed that you can circle for each character, space on your army list to write the results, etc.). Saying that the psychic powers themselves take a lot of time to cast is silly because Daemons have essentially zero shooting beyond these powers, so it's a zero-sum comparison (even with Warp Storm results and random shots thrown in, it still less time than most other armies take to shoot).

Sure, things like Screamer flyover attacks and Vector Strikes take extra time, but this is similarly cancelled out by the extremely low model count (i.e., it takes less time to move 15 models and resolve a few vector strikes than it does to move 70+ models with no vector strikes). The rest of the examples amount to grasping at straws (re-rolling failed saves of 1 for Tzeentch units eats up a lot of time? Really? That's like saying Orks take a long time to play because of Boss Poles).

Tau
...

There are many ways to speed up dice rolling--getting bogged down with complicated units' shooting is generally a trap that only inexperienced players fall into. It's really not hard to color code dice and roll them in batches. With an appropriate amount of dice, these batches can even be counted out beforehand while your opponent is doing things. But, yes, obviously Tau are generating more dice in the Shooting Phase than most other armies; this is, of course, offset by the fact that they tend to have an extremely brief Assault Phase.

The comment about Interceptor slowing things down is somewhat of a misconception. The weapons fired using Interceptor cannot be fired in that owning player's subsequent Shooting Phase, so all that's really being done is shooting the weapon earlier--it still takes the same about the same amount of time. (One could argue that Interceptor actually speeds up the game by potentially eliminating units before they can do anything, such as killing a Flyer before it has the opportunity to shoot.)

Eldar
...

I faced four Eldar armies at NOVA and there was one psyker among them. An Eldar list with a Seer Council obviously takes a lot of record keeping, but I don't think anyone other than Matt DeFranza was playing one. Virtually everyone else was running Serpent spam with a cheap Autarch or a lone Farseer for Guide and Prescience. That mechanized armies are quick to play should be self-evident. This more than compensates for the assault moves made by supporting units (Jetbikes are typically turbo-boosting around the board anyway and not making assault moves).

DevianID wrote:
Rogue, to be fair your criticism is misguided. If your opponent is slow and playing horde, Mike said in your quote that you need to use judges and social apps to manage slow players, yet your first comment is how your helpless versus a slow player! Slow players will not finish games even when given 4 hours, just look at the etc. A judge can't intervene with a slow player if you don't say anything.

Your observation about being rushed is no fun is quite valid, but da boyz ALSO has a time limit, and you still need to play quickly to finish a game. As for cramming games in, the open had a max of 3 games a day. If anyone wanted more games than that, they had the option, both with organized games like trios and unorganized open gaming. The fact is you are the only one who makes your schedule, and furthermore nova is drop friendly so there is no pressure to even play a game if you are tired of playing already.

Like I put in the post above yours, 6th edition requires you to play faster than 5th, regardless of format. 30 extra minutes will not turn a game that ended on turn 3 with 2.5 hours to turn 7 in 3 hours. That player will not finish their games regardless of being in upstate New York, Chicago, or northern Virginia.

Devain, I missed your post earlier. Your post is well stated and I agree with most of it. As far as the Nova having 3 rounds in a day, i believe that to be a good thing. So why not allow more time for each round?

Also, having an extra 30 minutes I believe with dramatically increase the games that finish. It may not make it a 7 turn game from a 3 turn game. It could make it into a 5 turn game. Each turn can often take less time than the previous due to casualties.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

Devain, I missed your post earlier. Your post is well stated and I agree with most of it. As far as the Nova having 3 rounds in a day, i believe that to be a good thing. So why not allow more time for each round?

Also, having an extra 30 minutes I believe with dramatically increase the games that finish. It may not make it a 7 turn game from a 3 turn game. It could make it into a 5 turn game. Each turn can often take less time than the previous due to casualties.

Playing 3 games in a day is true for the Nova Open, but the fact is that the tables themselves were being used by the Invitational in the morings and the Team Trios in the evening, so they were really used for 5 games in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Demons
...

I play Daemons too. The pre-game rolls take about 2 minutes tops if you're prepared for them (you have copies of the charts printed that you can circle for each character, space on your army list to write the results, etc.). Saying that the psychic powers themselves take a lot of time to cast is silly because Daemons have essentially zero shooting beyond these powers, so it's a zero-sum comparison (even with Warp Storm results and random shots thrown in, it still less time than most other armies take to shoot).

Sure, things like Screamer flyover attacks and Vector Strikes take extra time, but this is similarly cancelled out by the extremely low model count (i.e., it takes less time to move 15 models and resolve a few vector strikes than it does to move 70+ models with no vector strikes). The rest of the examples amount to grasping at straws (re-rolling failed saves of 1 for Tzeentch units eats up a lot of time? Really? That's like saying Orks take a long time to play because of Boss Poles).

Tau
...

There are many ways to speed up dice rolling--getting bogged down with complicated units' shooting is generally a trap that only inexperienced players fall into. It's really not hard to color code dice and roll them in batches. With an appropriate amount of dice, these batches can even be counted out beforehand while your opponent is doing things. But, yes, obviously Tau are generating more dice in the Shooting Phase than most other armies; this is, of course, offset by the fact that they tend to have an extremely brief Assault Phase.

The comment about Interceptor slowing things down is somewhat of a misconception. The weapons fired using Interceptor cannot be fired in that owning player's subsequent Shooting Phase, so all that's really being done is shooting the weapon earlier--it still takes the same about the same amount of time. (One could argue that Interceptor actually speeds up the game by potentially eliminating units before they can do anything, such as killing a Flyer before it has the opportunity to shoot.)

Eldar
...

I faced four Eldar armies at NOVA and there was one psyker among them. An Eldar list with a Seer Council obviously takes a lot of record keeping, but I don't think anyone other than Matt DeFranza was playing one. Virtually everyone else was running Serpent spam with a cheap Autarch or a lone Farseer for Guide and Prescience. That mechanized armies are quick to play should be self-evident. This more than compensates for the assault moves made by supporting units (Jetbikes are typically turbo-boosting around the board anyway and not making assault moves).

We had two very different experiences at the Nova Open.

 Danny Internets wrote:

I play Daemons too. The pre-game rolls take about 2 minutes tops if you're prepared for them (you have copies of the charts printed that you can circle for each character, space on your army list to write the results, etc.).

This part I agree with....

Saying that the psychic powers themselves take a lot of time to cast is silly because Daemons have essentially zero shooting beyond these powers, so it's a zero-sum comparison (even with Warp Storm results and random shots thrown in, it still less time than most other armies take to shoot).

This part I don't - specifically, if you're NOT playing FMC Daemons, then you aren't gaining any time in the Shooting phase (nearly every model in my army was either psychic shooting, or else Running, which is slower than the Movement phase).

Sure, things like Screamer flyover attacks and Vector Strikes take extra time, but this is similarly cancelled out by the extremely low model count (i.e., it takes less time to move 15 models and resolve a few vector strikes than it does to move 70+ models with no vector strikes). The rest of the examples amount to grasping at straws (re-rolling failed saves of 1 for Tzeentch units eats up a lot of time? Really? That's like saying Orks take a long time to play because of Boss Poles).

Scoff if you want, but rerolls DO take time - instead of just rolling & having pass/fail, you now have to sort into 3 buckets: pass, fail, & reroll, and then actually reroll. It adds 10-15 seconds whenever someone shoots a significant number of shots at a big block of Horrors; across a whole game, it's another couple of minutes. Again, not a problem you may have had with FMC daemons.

Tau
...

There are many ways to speed up dice rolling--getting bogged down with complicated units' shooting is generally a trap that only inexperienced players fall into. It's really not hard to color code dice and roll them in batches. With an appropriate amount of dice, these batches can even be counted out beforehand while your opponent is doing things. But, yes, obviously Tau are generating more dice in the Shooting Phase than most other armies; this is, of course, offset by the fact that they tend to have an extremely brief Assault Phase.

Great; convince all the Tau players to do that, please. Not a single one of my Tau opponents had pre-counted batches of dice. And their Assault Phases aren't that brief: all those suits like to jump around in their turn, and my Assault phase becomes a second Tau shooting phase.

It's entirely POSSIBLE to play out a complete game with large armies in the alloted time in 6e. But it requires that both players be using every fast-play trick possible, and they have to know their armies well. I don't think that is the common scenario in 6e.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

Devain, I missed your post earlier. Your post is well stated and I agree with most of it. As far as the Nova having 3 rounds in a day, i believe that to be a good thing. So why not allow more time for each round?

Also, having an extra 30 minutes I believe with dramatically increase the games that finish. It may not make it a 7 turn game from a 3 turn game. It could make it into a 5 turn game. Each turn can often take less time than the previous due to casualties.

Playing 3 games in a day is true for the Nova Open, but the fact is that the tables themselves were being used by the Invitational in the morings and the Team Trios in the evening, so they were really used for 5 games in a day.

Ah, that makes sense then. Also agree with Rogue_Engineer's post.

There's no way to define how long it will take to complete a game.

Doug Johnsons and Liz Foster, two of the best players I know, recently played a 1750 game with no time limit and they took 5 hours to come to a natural conclusion. That is obviously not possible in a tournament setting.

So much depends on the mission, the army being played, etc. The more intense the game, the more focus you put into it and the more thought. I know I play fastest when I know I am winning by a mile and I can be a little sloppy. Close games just take longer because they require more thought.

You have to choose an arbitrary time limit one way or the other.

For me, there's no point to a tournament without a winner. Going back to battle points is a potential solution, but then you change the game a great deal from the format it is and end up with smash face armies and incentivize players to utterly destroy their opponent.

I personally don't think that is a fun way to play.

The other issue is that players push for more points but then complain that they don't finish their games on time. You can't have both.

If we all agree to come together to play 40K at a tournament we all have to agree to play within the limits the TOs set up. If that means a time limit, then you have to learn to play within those limits and be mindful of that while playing.

We try to always base our decisions on things like points and time limits based on hard data, and we found that at 1750 with 2hr and 15min, the large majority of games were reported as coming a natural conclusion and I believe other TOs have based their decisions off of similar data.

 Reecius wrote:
The other issue is that players push for more points but then complain that they don't finish their games on time. You can't have both.

I agree with your post, Reece. Just want to address this point. I know it's hardly a scientific study, but I started this thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551869.page - to see how people are feeling about points values in 6ed.

It's only been running a day, but the poll in that thread and everyone who's commented in here seem to agree that most people would be happy to play at smaller points values.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
The other issue is that players push for more points but then complain that they don't finish their games on time. You can't have both.

I agree with your post, Reece. Just want to address this point. I know it's hardly a scientific study, but I started this thread - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551869.page - to see how people are feeling about points values in 6ed.

It's only been running a day, but the poll in that thread and everyone who's commented in here seem to agree that most people would be happy to play at smaller points values.

i agree, I am very surprised at that result as it is totally opposite of what I have experienced IRL opinions.

I would seriously like to see 1500pt larger event and see how it shakes the meta up and addresses speed issues.

I also would love to see what happens when people can't max a force org and don't rely on 9 of the exact same unit because the points can't support it.

I played GK in fifth edition. I remember rolling for lots of psychic powers. It never slowed any of my games. As far as model count look at daemon flying circus. I simply write on a piece of paper each game what each model gets. It doesn't really add a whole lot of extra time.

Reecius- 2 hours and 15 minutes for 1750 sounds like less than I would personally like (just opinion). 2 hours and 30 minutes for 1850 was being discussed as too little here; at least with no prep time.

I'd prefer longer rounds, lower points, or less side events cramming the schedule over that... any of them over that, and by a long shot.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I played GK in fifth edition. I remember rolling for lots of psychic powers. It never slowed any of my games. As far as model count look at daemon flying circus. I simply write on a piece of paper each game what each model gets. It doesn't really add a whole lot of extra time.

Janthkin was referring to non-flying circus daemons as far as I can tell.

Longer time to play will help. It's not going to fix everything but it'll help.

 RiTides wrote:
Reecius- 2 hours and 15 minutes for 1750 sounds like less than I would personally like (just opinion). 2 hours and 30 minutes for 1850 was being discussed as too little here; at least with no prep time.

I'd prefer longer rounds, lower points, or less side events cramming the schedule over that... any of them over that, and by a long shot.

2:15 is still very tight at Frontline's events, but haven't been as big a problem (at least for me, and at least to date). Fewer people, fewer tables, and (usually) more space/table helps quite a bit in getting your pairing, getting to your table, and getting rolling.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Longer time to play will help. It's not going to fix everything but it'll help.

No matter how long your round time is, make sure ALL of it can be used.


I have seen what really works and it applies to all events regardless of format, point limit or round times.

Get the pairings up early, BEFORE the round. The efficiency of the Adepticon staff this year was the best I have ever seen, and I have been attending 40k events for 20 years.

Allow time for meeting your opponent and swapping lists as well as asking questions BEFORE the timed round.

Provide proper play space. This includes an area for the players to have their army ready to deploy, books and supplies easily at hand. NOVA started using sideboards, many events have spare folding tables set up for this. It makes a HUGE difference in getting that wasted time back into the round.

And for the players, practice with your army to be able to play quicker. ESPECIALLY IF YOU PLAY HORDE ARMIES!

If you are expecting time management tactics, provide staff to watch for slow playing and come up with a plan on how to deal with it. I have seen players start their slow play from the second they get their opponents list (taking 10+ minutes to go over every unit, open the book, talk how they play at home).

Provide proper breaks between rounds for food, bathroom, checking voicemail, etc.. A 10 minute bathroom break in the middle of a round usually can be avoided. The 3 minute break to buy your opponent a beer is usually a welcomed pause though !

A big reason why games are longer is the interaction between players in each phase of the game now. In 5th you pretty much took your saving throws during your opponents turn and that was it.

Now instead of taking a nap until it was your turn (j/k) players are taking look out sirs,deny the witches, over watches, defensive powers, going to grounds among others that compounded over a 5-6 round game make them longer. This doesnt include other things such as simple game setup.

Not much we can do other than give some more time, possibly lower points (1500 would be the only points level that i see making a difference over 1750-2000) and as gamers be more prepared players.

-ed

@ArbitorIan

Wow, that is really interesting data!

I would love to play 1500pts in tournaments, it honestly think that is the ideal points limit for a tournament. You can run 90-105 minute rounds and the day is SO MUCH shorter. Much more enjoyable but folks hate building lists at 1500pts.

Our exit poll from the BAO was essentially a perfect curve of votes for 1500, 1650, 1750, 1850, 2000. The narrow majority was to stick to 1750 so we did.

@RiTides

I agree, honestly. However, bare in mind that every 15 minutes we add to a game adds an hour to the day. When you are already there for 10-12 hours, that really does matter for a lot as when you hit that point of fatigue, every hour feels like 2-3.

@Janthkin

Yeah, it is cutting it close no doubt but when we plan logistics properly and people have room, it so far has been no issue. For anime expo for example, almost every game finished to a natural conclusion.

BAO had issues due to being overcrowded but that won't happen again.

 Reecius wrote:
@ArbitorIan

Wow, that is really interesting data!

I would love to play 1500pts in tournaments, it honestly think that is the ideal points limit for a tournament. You can run 90-105 minute rounds and the day is SO MUCH shorter. Much more enjoyable but folks hate building lists at 1500pts.

Our exit poll from the BAO was essentially a perfect curve of votes for 1500, 1650, 1750, 1850, 2000. The narrow majority was to stick to 1750 so we did.

Interesting - how long ago was BAO? Did it include those three new Codices?

I guess my preference would be to lower the points value but keep the time the same - so that more people can finish rounds, and have time to set up/roll powers etc - decreasing points AND decresing round time wouldn't actually solve the problem?

--

Could anyone figure out the points difference between their pre-6ed Codex army and their post-6ed Codex army? So, take your competitive OLD Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Marines 1850 list and calculate how many points that would be in the NEW 6ed codex. We all know that points values have gone down, which means more models in an 1850 army, which slows things down.

People like to play with all their toys, but they may get just as many toys in a 6ed 1650pt list as they used to get in a 5ed 1850pt list....

(I'd do this myself but I don't have any 1850 competitive lists from 5ed)

EDIT - Did it! Now you can too - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/552271.page

The thing I keep coming back to in terms of time and points levels is simple.

15 minutes isn't going to make that big of a difference. My games that don't finish "naturally", such as my round 1 at AnimeExpo, still would have failed to finish if I had 15 more minutes. I was playing a very fast list.

HQ
GUO
Bloodthirster

Troops
2x Plaguebearers

Heavy
3x Nurgle Daemon Princes

Sure there are a lot of psychic powers but with only 25 models in the army how slow could I really have played? My round 1 had my turns lasting no more than 5-10 minutes each, we made it to turn 3. This means that I spent, maybe, 30 minutes on my own turns out of 2 hr 15 min.

The point is no matter how fast you play, or how much time you add to the round, you will still have games that will not come to a natural conclusion.

The idea of a red/yellow/green card per table would help there, though.

Red: Rounds 1-2
Yellow: Rounds 3-4
Green: Rounds 5+

A judge walking around could look for red cards with 45 minutes left and tell those players to hurry. Honestly, if "dice down" is acceptable to end a round, "dice down" to end a slow-playing turn should also be possible.

Players are resistant to chess timers but you can't have one person taking 1 hour 45 min out of a 2 hour 15 minute game. I think there are solutions: the card idea, chess timers, longer rounds, etc.

Another idea with chess timers- just have them count UP. Then you have a record of how much time a player has used. Combined with the card idea, a judge then inspecting a red card would not have to be subjective- he could call "dice down" on a player if they had used over 65 - 70% of the time and the game was still on turn 2-3 at the three quarter game time mark.

I think there are solutions and practicing timed play for 40k and making it part of the culture could be good, if applied correctly and not just copy pasting another game system's timing rules.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The thing I keep coming back to in terms of time and points levels is simple.

15 minutes isn't going to make that big of a difference. My games that don't finish "naturally", such as my round 1 at AnimeExpo, still would have failed to finish if I had 15 more minutes. I was playing a very fast list.

The goal isn't to turn a round 3 game into a naturally-concluding game; it's to turn a round 4 game into a round 5 game, or a round 5 game into a randomly-ending game. Hopefully, most games that don't end naturally fall into one of those latter scenarios, rather than the former.

If games are not reaching their natural conclusion, there are 3 things that can be done:

#1. Lower the point limit.
Pros: It seem that lower point games take less time to finish, but how low do you have to lower points before most games finish naturally?
Cons: In the past there has been a lot of pushback with this as points started to creep up to 2000 point games. These days with 6th edition codex’s lowering point limits you get more bang-for-your-buck, but people still want to play with all of their toys.

#2. Increase the time of the games.
Pros: Although this is not a cure-all, it will help some games finish on a dice-roll instead of one where both players know it would end on turn 5, or make a 4 turn game into a 5 turn game etc. Also people underestimate how time will help because of the way that 40k works. Most of the time is spent on turns 2-4 and turns 5+ normally play much faster.
Cons: There are only so many hours in the day, and if you increase the round times you might have to drop the numbers of games. In tournaments with a win-loss format this means that a single undefeated winner might not be possible.

#3. Stay the course and change nothing.
Pros: It is easy to do.
Cons: Games not finishing naturally.

Would that poll have been better?

At my FLGS we regulary hold 1850 2 day 2.5hr tournaments where 95% of games finish on time.

We use a simple system of submitting the army lists weeks in advance along with payment.

Each game is given a 15minute window to set up the game and begin deployment, before the game clock starts.

Play your game yadda yadda yadda. If you run out of time both players finish the current game turn.

The scoring system is also straight forward:
W/L/D
8/0/4 for primaries
4/0/2 for secondarie

And points awarded both ways for points killed vs points lost. In the event of a tie breaker k/d is the deciding factor.

So the system rewards both tactical play and devastion at the same time.

wargamer1985 wrote:
Each game is given a 15minute window to set up the game and begin deployment, before the game clock starts.

By most tournament standards, then, you actually have 2:45 rounds, rather than 2:30.

Play your game yadda yadda yadda. If you run out of time both players finish the current game turn.

And with the potential for more, if necessary.

Both of those are great things, and I wish more events would (could?) accommodate such timing. That extra 15 minutes would be enough by itself to offset the longer 6e pre-game routine.

Technically yh 2.45 but if you are done before 15min window ends you have to wait for the timer


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And we've been running this style since 3rd edition thinking back over the yrs where we created our own secondaries of fb stwl and lb