In short, a player by the name of Alex Fennel made a sporting decision which cost him his game. I’m afraid I’m not up on exactly what happened, but perhaps someone else is?
Anyways, another chap watching via Twitch, Marc Merrell, co founder of Riot Games gave Alex a $5,000 ‘good sportsmanship’ award off his own back,
Not only did Alex decide to donate this money to a Children’s Hospital, but convinced his employer to match that gift.
And now GW themselves have done the same. So for what I understand to have been excellent sportsmanship, a deserving cause is $15,000 the richer,
Hello everyone, Geoff “iNcontroL” Robinson here discussing for your reading pleasure the streamed etiquette incident that went down at the LVO and how we can benefit from this moment in time.
What Happened:
Two of the best players you can experience playing Warhammer40k squared off in an advanced round of the 2018 LVO. These players are Alexander Fennel and Tony Grippando. For the purpose of this article, if you could do me the solid: when you see either name please make the sign of the cross and mutter “long may he reign” when we refer to Alex and can you squint and grit your teeth (not too hard) and mutter “please don’t say that name” when you read Tony. It will set the theme nicely.
This match was streamed. This is an important part of this because we aren’t selling out stadiums (YET) but we do have the awesome luxury of being viewers on a stream due to the fantastic dedication to make that possible by the FLG crew. Fortunately/Unfortunately this also means we have over a thousand people ready to bare witness to how we play and what is going on. It can also add stress and can make an already difficult situation, even more so. I say this not as an excuse but rather as a way to set the table for what is to come.
The match featured Alex (long may he reign) playing Space Wolves (mostly) and Tony playing Aeldareeeeeeee (Eldar). Both players had recently been selected by Sean Nayden (Team USA’s Captain) to be members of Team USA to go off to a foreign land and underperform at the ETC. A huge honor in Warhammer 40,000 and of course something we all take very seriously. Aside from tha Alex and Tony have competed, practiced and socialized as they are both top players in a community that while growing is still very small.
Tony’s deployment/first turn took something along the lines of 1 hour. This is incredibly inefficient and when the total game is supposed to be 2.5 hours can also become a problem. Whether that factored in or not I do not know as I have not asked Alex (long may he reign) directly but speeding up the remainder of the game is expected. When the time came for Alex (long may he reign) to take his turn he began by deploying one of his Assassins. This is something you would need to do “at the end of the movement phase.” This isn’t nothing by the way. Sometimes where we want to drop those deep strikers is in a place occupied by normally deployed units OR how far something advances and thus can then synergize with the unit arriving from reserves can also benefit from knowing exactly where something like an Assassin would be. Bottom line: Alex moved improperly and he knew it. Alex doesn’t contest this and freely admitted it on the stream. Tony Super-Helpful-Here-Let-Me-Measure-That-For-You Grippando was NOT WRONG in enforcing a order of operations mistake on Alex. But, but… butttttttttttttttttt — it was wrong to do it. The worst part? We all know it. Nobody on the stream, at the event or wearing the skin of Tony or Alex for one second thought it was OK. I will get to that later though.
Alex having not moved his entire army, an army of which is made up mostly of assault units called it then and there only moments later deciding to play it out. The game however was mostly over and we didn’t get to see two top tier players duke it out but rather one player exemplifying class and another (unfortunately) embodying what many would call the worst side of Warhammer 40,000 competitive play.
The game would result in Tony winning only to then face Nick Nanovati who would “Tony him” and jump his overall ITC score by ONE POINT to win $4,000, tons of prizes AND the title of ITC and LVO40k champion.. WOAH. If people wanted justice.. well, they got it. But lets break down this event and talk about how we can all walk away from this better people.
Tony Grippando
Tony by the way, is not a bad guy. In fact, he is super nice. Am I saying this because he could crush my head like a pineapple with his rippling muscles and strangely perfectly angled jaw? Nope. In my time I was pretty buff too.. but we can talk about my body at a later date and preferably after I’ve been exercising for awhile. Tony is a top tier player who had a helluva year. His ATC team won for like, the 4th time? Which is amazing. He was at the top of the ITC which considering it has 7,000+ people involved is incredible AND he was in the top 8 at the LVO. But beyond that I’ve been around Tony and whether you want to believe it or not I am here to tell you he is a nice guy. Perhaps more relevant though is that he LOVES Warhammer 40,000 and competes at the highest level. That could be the excuse we make here for him. Surrounded by his peers at the final tourney of the circuit he was a few wins away from realizing his goals/dreams and nothing was going to stop him. Tony is also a young guy and in my experience in THESE moments specifically you can sometimes act out of character to help get that final push across the line.
Excuses or not the etiquette and “code of conduct” we Warhammer 40,000 players hold ourselves to IS important. It’s unofficial (in most competitions) but it’s unversally known. Had Alex’s movement been anything but him trying to speed up the game what Tony said/did wouldn’t be looked down on. We all make mistakes. But to help him measure out a move you were then going to point out signifies the end of his phase.. knowing this was clearly not what he intended is the kind of Warhammer 40,000 WE DON’T WANT TO WIN BY. We’ve all met “that guy” and if you haven’t? There is someone who is reluctant to attend a tourney because of the stereotype of “that guy.” Now, in my experience this kind of thing is rare and most people would never do what Tony did.. especially to a teammate, friend and in the final rounds of the biggest Warhammer 40,000 tourney _ever_. If you are interested in a big debate on how this is incorrect or “#TonywasFramed” please take it elsewhere. I am not stating my own personal opinion I am sharing with you the incredibly established sentiment that is universally known on matters such as these. What should Tony have done? I’m fond of saying things like “Hey Alex, you have to do this at the end of the phase. Remember that please! I don’t want to give you more mulligans” or “hey man they come in at the end” etc etc. With a player like Alex you are only saying that once and he is realizing that you are going to be tight on order of operations and he will act accordingly. This is the part where a lot of people feign ignorance and start saying “WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? If a dude gets killed in overwatch do we let him TAKE IT BACK?” No, no you silly, silly internet troll. That is again where we reference the unfortunately unofficial “code of conduct” in Warhammer 40,000 which can loosely be described as “do I want to win that way?” or “is what I am doing making my opponent feel icky?” — for some this is too nebulous and they will be frustrated that it isn’t written in a tome or carried around on a leatherbound book and chain from a 30 foot tall robot judicator but we aren’t there yet.
Besides.. it isn’t like we don’t have role models on how to act at a Warhammer40k tourney…
Alexander Fennel
Having already broken down the incident I will simply talk about his reaction. Alex could have flipped out, he could have stormed off or.. being half British he could have removed his white satin glove, slapped tony and then tossed his “piping” hot tea in the face of the foe.
But Alex didn’t do those things.
Alex instead thought about it, realized he was technically in the wrong, assessed that he was strategically behind and probably couldn’t win (he was right) and said “good game.” He then thought better of it and declared he wanted to put on a show for the stream (immediately thought of others). They played it out with Tony almost never mentioning the incident and while crippled and behind Alex put up a fight and gave the stream viewers something to watch. Had he quit and walked away the FLG stream which organized front-page coverage for this event would have had a 2.5 hour block of nothing and lost viewers. The viewers would have ONLY the incident to watch and nothing more.
If that hasn’t made you happy yet, wait, there is more. Watching this particular game was the co-founder of Riot Games. Heard of them? They make a little game called League of Legends. Marc Merill was so moved by the show of sportsmanship that Alex displayed he tweeted saying he wanted to donate a $5,000 sportsmanship award in honor of the class act that is Alex. Upon hearing this Alex began to go to work on forwarding 100% of this $5,000 donation to a children’s hospital fund which has at this stage morphed into Alex’s employers also pledging to match the donation to the Children’s Hospital! Literally, the high-ground you thought Alex was perched on was merely an illusion…he’s like 6 levels higher and we can all only hope to aspire to that level of class.
The Teachable Moment
Winning is important and getting those accolades might not mean that much to all of you but to the top tier competitors in our little world of Warhammer 40,000 it IS very important. What Tony did to some might not be that big of a deal and to others is the worst offense…either way the take-away-thing for us here is that you don’t want to win that way. Be gracious, friendly and jovial. Be stoic, serious and tight. Both are fine. But bridging those play styles needs to be a gentleman. A class act or a role model. If you are doing something that calls into question those things and you are fighting for a title…maybe think about that? We’ve had people win major tourneys but when the path to get there is marred with drama or shadiness we don’t even talk about the win. That moment is tarnished. Alex took the loss and made it into a win. He is inspiring the best part of Warhammer 40,000 which is being a damn good general AND A BETTER HUMAN. As someone who…is known to be a bit snarky and maybe even a pinch mean from time to time I too can learn from Alex. I want to be that kind of opponent. The one where people respect the list, fear the general and look forward to the honor of squaring off with them knowing that if they win they outsmarted / played him and didn’t fall victim to Alex getting rules wrong in his favor, playing “gotcha” hammer or going back on his word.
We are lucky to have players like Tony with his great skill and tremendous ability. We are just SUPER lucky to have players like Alex who can show us how to conduct ourselves and turn a potentially stinker moment into one of the greatest shows of sportsmanship to ever grace Warhammer 40,000.
As much as I belly ache, whine, complain and accuse GW of being clueless money grubbing know-nothings I couldn't be more proud of the hobby at this time.
I really hope this gets some attention and we as community members can draw some inspiration from these upstanding people.
Interesting as the ‘wot ‘appened’ Article is (and it is!), this is the place for back slapping all those who saw the importance of the sportsmanship known.
Right or wrong, foolish or honourable is really quite subjective, and would detract from the good that’s come out of all this.
Two guys are playing a high stakes game. Guy A does something you can only do after immediately having moved your army. Then goes back to try and move the army, which results in him being told he's moved the game to the next phase now, and no take backsies because he's in a tournie.
Guy A then quits because he reckons that means he's lost automatically (having been strategically disadvantaged by not moving anything). But due to the extreme goodness of his humanity, he decides to actually play the game he just set up because people are watching. He loses (as everyone expected). But due to his apparently amazing show of sportsmanship in carrying on with the match, everyone gives lots of money to charity.
I'm all in favour of giving cash to charity for whatever reason. But if my reading of it is right, it happened because he deigned to carry on playing a game when it was apparent he'd lost, something people do every week down their local. Am I missing something?
Ketara wrote: So, just to make sure I'm understanding this.
Two guys are playing a high stakes game. Guy A does something you can only do after immediately having moved your army. Then goes back to try and move the army, which results in him being told he's made moved the game to that phase now, and no take backsies because he's in a tournie.
Guy A then quits because he reckons that means he's lost automatically (having not moved anything). But due to the goodness of his humanity, he decides to actually play the game because people are watching. He loses (as everyone expected). But due to his apparently amazing show of sportsmanship in carrying on with the match, everyone gives lots of money to charity.
I'm all in favour of giving cash to charity for whatever reason. But if my reading of it is right, it only happened because he deigned to carry on playing a game when it was apparent he'd lost, something people do every week down their local. Am I missing something?
Someone who co-founded League of Legends was watching, and they were impressed with his sportsmanship and gave him a $5000 sportsmanship prize. He donated it to charity and it was matched by his employer and now GW.
Ketara wrote: So, just to make sure I'm understanding this.
Two guys are playing a high stakes game. Guy A does something you can only do after immediately having moved your army. Then goes back to try and move the army, which results in him being told he's made moved the game to that phase now, and no take backsies because he's in a tournie.
Guy A then quits because he reckons that means he's lost automatically (having not moved anything). But due to the goodness of his humanity, he decides to actually play the game because people are watching. He loses (as everyone expected). But due to his apparently amazing show of sportsmanship in carrying on with the match, everyone gives lots of money to charity.
I'm all in favour of giving cash to charity for whatever reason. But if my reading of it is right, it only happened because he deigned to carry on playing a game when it was apparent he'd lost, something people do every week down their local. Am I missing something?
Someone who co-founded League of Legends was watching, and they were impressed with his sportsmanship and gave him a $5000 sportsmanship prize. He donated it to charity and it was matched by his employer and now GW.
I'm not having a go at people giving money for whatever reason (as stated). I I'm just trying to figure out why him carrying on with a game he spent an hour setting up is apparently such a noteworthy and praiseworthy example of over the top sportsmanship that people are motivated by it. Because it seems like a run of the mill everyday gaming scenario to me. It feels a bit like if loads of people donated £20,000 to the RSPCA because he gave his opponent a swig from his canteen or let them reroll a D6, y'know?
Wells that's terribly written and editorialized. I foresee a lot more garbage like this being tossed at the other player, which will turn this 'teachable moment' into a ironic lesson about legitimized cyber-bullying.
Anyway, I've had people pull the 'you went out of order, you can't back step' card in tournaments. Tough crap, acknowledging it doesn't make a player a saint, the technically correct player a bad person, nor is a viewer with more money than sense going to happen often.
But I feel it was more the ‘carry on, put on a show’ that really counts.
And I think this was the crux of the issue with the game. GW has never wanted 40K to be high stakes or "take no prisoners". You can have tournament games and not be ruthless. While the "incident" in question was probably good for a story (i..e "hero vs. villain" as some podcast put it) for the final, the live streamed game was basically negative press, showcasing the worst side of the hobby to potential consumers, customers, younger players, etc.
I think this is GW doing a little coverage of bums and taking the sting off a generall negative occurence in a higher profile game setting.
Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Ketara wrote: Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Yeah, that’s the point I was making. The money originally was meant for him, and he donated it to charity, which is why it was then matched twice.
And the motivation is stated in the article, the guy was impressed that he carried on for the audience on twitch rather than leaving 2nand a ha,f hours of dead air after all the set up to stream it etc. Whether you agree is another matter, but it’s the guys money and he presumably has enough of it, so.
In short, Alex was under the impression that the game was going to be played a little looser with exact sequences and distances - there was a hard time limit that they needed to make sure the game was complete by, and there's little point in measuring exactly 9.001" when roughly 9 is exactly the same result and far quicker.
Tony took over 40% of the total game time for just his first turn, so Alex needed to hurry if he wanted to actually play the game. Placing his deep strikers early had absolutely no effect on the game state, and Tony helped him place them knowing he was going to call him on it.
Eldarain wrote: This is absolutely not the place to get into it though. The LVO thread has a many many page discussion of every possible interpretation and angle.
Reading the GW article, they do not mention the controversy that lead up to the donation - which is great. Highlight the parts we want to exemplify and in the background Tournament Organizers can figure out how to work pass this piece. If your stuff is going to be streamed, you may want a way to make sure folks (viewers & players) don't feel cheated.
My understanding from the articles I read was the guy that said you cant take back your turn actually helped him measure and move his units then told him he went out of turn.
For anyone interested in learning more about this and hearing from Marc and Alex themselves what their motivations were, please join us for the live interview on the topic on our Twitch Channel tomorrow at 2:30pm PST. https://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv
Chopxsticks wrote: My understanding from the articles I read was the guy that said you cant take back your turn actually helped him measure and move his units then told him he went out of turn.
Basically, and he did that after using 1 hour for his first turn in a 2,5h game. He did slowplayed and helped his oponent measure just to call him out after forcing him to speed things up.
Then Alex conceded but did keep playing. Thats why everibody watching sided with Alex. Only people that defend Tony is people that dont know the proper context.
But Tony shouldt get bullyed for that. He apologized, thats enough, we all have our right to make mistakes. Nobod here is free of sin to throw rocks. 15k have gone to charity has a result of this. Thats what matters.
Reecius wrote: For anyone interested in learning more about this and hearing from Marc and Alex themselves what their motivations were, please join us for the live interview on the topic on our Twitch Channel tomorrow at 2:30pm PST. https://www.twitch.tv/frontlinegaming_tv
I’m guessing they’ve buried whatever Hatchet might’ve existed, and again that’s pretty much all that matters, no?
Ketara wrote: Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Yeah, that’s the point I was making. The money originally was meant for him, and he donated it to charity, which is why it was then matched twice.
And the motivation is stated in the article, the guy was impressed that he carried on for the audience on twitch rather than leaving 2nand a ha,f hours of dead air after all the set up to stream it etc. Whether you agree is another matter, but it’s the guys money and he presumably has enough of it, so.
Hey, I once watched the King of Dubai take a £10,000 flutter on a horse and lose it without batting an eyelid. If this guy made LoL, it's probably pocket change for him. Once you reach a certain level of wealth against your personal spending, it doesn't mean much. That would explain why he was willing to donate it for what was essentially an extremely common gaming scenario.
Ketara wrote: So, just to make sure I'm understanding this.
Two guys are playing a high stakes game. Guy A does something you can only do after immediately having moved your army. Then goes back to try and move the army, which results in him being told he's made moved the game to that phase now, and no take backsies because he's in a tournie.
Guy A then quits because he reckons that means he's lost automatically (having not moved anything). But due to the goodness of his humanity, he decides to actually play the game because people are watching. He loses (as everyone expected). But due to his apparently amazing show of sportsmanship in carrying on with the match, everyone gives lots of money to charity.
I'm all in favour of giving cash to charity for whatever reason. But if my reading of it is right, it only happened because he deigned to carry on playing a game when it was apparent he'd lost, something people do every week down their local. Am I missing something?
Someone who co-founded League of Legends was watching, and they were impressed with his sportsmanship and gave him a $5000 sportsmanship prize. He donated it to charity and it was matched by his employer and now GW.
I'm not having a go at people giving money for whatever reason (as stated). I I'm just trying to figure out why him carrying on with a game he spent an hour setting up is apparently such a noteworthy and praiseworthy example of over the top sportsmanship that people are motivated by it. Because it seems like a run of the mill everyday gaming scenario to me. It feels a bit like if loads of people donated £20,000 to the RSPCA because he gave his opponent a swig from his canteen or let them reroll a D6, y'know?
There is a little more to it than that. Player A (Alex) did not complain when player B took a long time setting up (good sportsmanship 1) but instead decided to increase his own speed of play to make up for lost time (good sportsmanship 2) . As A direct result of trying to play quickly he was called out for incorrect play by player B but again did not complain ( good sportsmanship 3 ) and decided to finish the unwinnable game to entertain the twitch audience (good sportsmanship 4). He was not a saint but he clearly behaved well in a situation were he could have had a bit of a tantrum and most importantly displayed no sense of bitterness or anger towards the other player.
The rich guy watching decided to offer a cash prize directly to Alex but he instead donated that money to charity.
Ketara wrote: Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Yeah, that’s the point I was making. The money originally was meant for him, and he donated it to charity, which is why it was then matched twice.
And the motivation is stated in the article, the guy was impressed that he carried on for the audience on twitch rather than leaving 2nand a ha,f hours of dead air after all the set up to stream it etc. Whether you agree is another matter, but it’s the guys money and he presumably has enough of it, so.
Hey, I once watched the King of Dubai take a £10,000 flutter on a horse and lose it without batting an eyelid. If this guy made LoL, it's probably pocket change for him. Once you reach a certain level of wealth against your personal spending, it doesn't mean much. That would explain why he was willing to donate it for what was essentially an extremely common gaming scenario.
How many events go past 6 games? How many take place over 3 days on a weekend? How many are determining a 5k cash prize? How often is it a "Gotcha" that wins these things? How often is that televised? Now combine all of that. It's not a common gaming experience. It's one thing to continue to play a game because you're losing and the guy across from you is a good dude. It's less common to do that when you have a gentleman's agreement and the other dude breaks it. It was good of Alex to basically put on a clinic for people watching at home and to keep another Nova from happening (dead air for the final because one guy lost the roll off which I'm sure was going thru Alex's head since he was there too). Besides, the story isn't that the Riot games guy gave money to Alex. It's that Alex then essentially tripled that money for a charity thru others.
So not quitting out when you're punished (in a jerk move or otherwise) makes you 'the very best of sports', but no mention is even made of the blatant slow playing and being a jerk which resulted in the entire scenario arising?
Lord Damocles wrote: So not quitting out when you're punished (in a jerk move or otherwise) makes you 'the very best of sports', but no mention is even made of the blatant slow playing and being a jerk which resulted in the entire scenario arising?
Huh.
Him not bringing up the blatant slow playing which caused the scenario is one of the big points of his being a good sport.
Lord Damocles wrote: So not quitting out when you're punished (in a jerk move or otherwise) makes you 'the very best of sports', but no mention is even made of the blatant slow playing and being a jerk which resulted in the entire scenario arising?
Huh.
Gw very wisely decided to focus on the positives and ignore the negatives in the article. They want to celebrate and encorage good sportsmanship rather than punish bad.
Lord Damocles wrote: So not quitting out when you're punished (in a jerk move or otherwise) makes you 'the very best of sports', but no mention is even made of the blatant slow playing and being a jerk which resulted in the entire scenario arising?
Huh.
1. He was gifted $5000 (for reasons I agree are spurious) and immediately donated to charity. That's great stuff.
2. It would be completely wrong of GW to publicly shame an individual. Absolutely wrong. There already is a public stream of his behaviour.
There's no need for GW to publicly shame anyone - it's a bit late on that front now anyway... - but rewarding good behaviour while borderline pretending bad behaviour isn't happening isn't at all helpful.
If there hadn't been underlying unsporting behaviour, then Alex wouldn't have been put in an 'impossible position' in the first place.
Sorry, I should have elaborated for those unaware of the details.
Marc is Marc Merill, co-founder of Riot games, makers of League of Legends. Alex is the player that got the $5,000 and turned around and donated it to a charity, which has now been matched twice, once by Alex's company and again by GW.
They are who will be on the Twitch Interview.
And yeah, the point of all of this is to focus on the positive, not to cast stones at anyone.
I hate these 'gotcha' types. I know you're expected to have your rules top notch for a tourney, but if you're deliberately working against the other guy in a no-sport way (like slow playing and pushing the opponent to go faster), it is quite wrong.
I applaud Alex, Marc, GW and the third guy (Alex's boss?) for the donation and how things went down.
Although I'd keep some change with me (say 50 dollars?) for a shiny new mini
For everyone watching the final day both games were decided by rules lawyers rather than exciting fun games to watch. It was a huge disappointment for a lot of people.
Primark G wrote: For everyone watching the final day both games were decided by rules lawyers rather than exciting fun games to watch. It was a huge disappointment for a lot of people.
Which is why the positive note is important.
It helps hiding the fact "lawyering the game" isn't fun in itself, yet a lot of competitive hardcore players hold it in high esteem. It's just a way to say "you know, winning the price isn't what matters".
Giving away that 5k money.... Smart of him.... Not for his altruism (altruism is evil) but his smart decision in doing so for his own reputation and fame.
sportsmanship is an odd beast, and whilst the donation to charity is undeniably a good thing its a bit spinny of GW to try and claim this as a win.
I'd be hella wary of introducing any reward system for 'sportsmanship' due to the potential for shenanigans, honesty and integrity should be the baseline behaviour for gaming but as we all know once a prize, however insignificant is on the table it brings out the cockwomble in a select few
Albino Squirrel wrote: The whole idea of treating Warhammer like a competitive sport is so bizarre to me.
Seriously. Grown men moving around little toy soldiers... people get weird sometimes when competing. And for what? 4 grand?
E-sports are huge. This is the logical next step and where GW needs to go for a bigger revenue stream.
Won't happen. Esports are E for a reason. A table top game with random mechanics of dice will never be interesting or skll-oriented enough to be actual competitive.
Sim-Life wrote: How do you get WAAC over a sportsmanship award?
It literally forces you to not act like an asshat if you want a shot at winning it.
Sportsmanship is essentially doing "the right thing." You only have to read any thread in Dakka discussing the concept to see wildly divergent opinions on what "the right thing" looks like.
If you're going to seriously reward people for it, you either subject them to the whims of opponents who will have different ideas of what sportsmanship is, plus any amount of agenda pursuit based on who won, no doubt, or you quantify it. Once you've drawn up a system where you've specified the criteria, you'll inevitably end up with people petty enough to find a way of gaming that system.
But it won't be a set list of criteria because it's not an easily defined thing, it'll just be a consensus by a group about who was the best sport. You're trying to make it sound like a far more rigid thing than it is.
No, that's precisely what I wasn't doing. I noted two ways that it could be approached, and the associated drawback with both, and you've simply restated the part of my post you've apparently missed.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The whole idea of treating Warhammer like a competitive sport is so bizarre to me.
Seriously. Grown men moving around little toy soldiers... people get weird sometimes when competing. And for what? 4 grand?
E-sports are huge. This is the logical next step and where GW needs to go for a bigger revenue stream.
Won't happen. Esports are E for a reason. A table top game with random mechanics of dice will never be interesting or skll-oriented enough to be actual competitive.
It isn't just that. The filming of table top games for videos is almost universally terrible. Sometimes it gets elevated to 'not bad.' It just doesn't work for the medium.
Lord Damocles wrote: So not quitting out when you're punished (in a jerk move or otherwise) makes you 'the very best of sports', but no mention is even made of the blatant slow playing and being a jerk which resulted in the entire scenario arising?
Huh.
Gw very wisely decided to focus on the positives and ignore the negatives in the article. They want to celebrate and encorage good sportsmanship rather than punish bad.
I'm honestly glad GW is. Frontline and other parties are unfortunately not.
I hate to say it, but it seems to me like Tony deliberately dragged through deployment. How does deployment take an hour? I've seen Apoc games where deployment doesn't take that long.
I'm a pretty big critic of GW for a lot of reasons, but this is something else. Give them credit where credit is due, what they've done here is nothing short of exemplary, as I'm sure the children's hospital would agree. Alex is definitely acting as the bigger man in this situation, and to me it's not the calls in game that were truly sportsmanlike (although I'm not going to debate the validity of the original $5k, that's their money to spend), it's his actions after the game was over that show a true sportsman. Kudos to everyone who was involved, it's a great end to something that we all know could've been very messy
Ketara wrote: Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Not making fuss when originally subjected to deliberate slow playing intended to ensure opponent does mistakes like this due to to time pressure and even helping to put in deep strikers(rather like much more reasonable reminded that this ends turn) paid large part for donation likely.
Tony angle shooted hoping Alex makes mistake due to time critical. He could have EASILY got it under hour(he got it done way less than hour when enforced to!) but nope. He deliberately did it that slow.
Alex could for example have countered slow playing by slowplaying himself and ensure his 1st turn eats all the remaining time resulting in 1 turn game. But instead he tried to play up. At that time limit it's bound to be mistakes. Exactly as planned.
The filming of table top games for videos is almost universally terrible. Sometimes it gets elevated to 'not bad.' It just doesn't work for the medium.
Yeah, you can't just grab the stream, but I think with growing professionalism you could do it. That does mean that you need a director, an overview cam and a dude who highlights what's happening, basically like covering Snooker or something like that. It can be done, it's just in its infancy yet.
Sim-Life wrote: How do you get WAAC over a sportsmanship award?
It literally forces you to not act like an asshat if you want a shot at winning it.
I think you've confused WAAC with shenanigans, certainly in any player determined system, even a non defined 1-5 scale is open to 'abuse' ie 'I hate your FoTM list so nil poi for you' to 'I'm relying on you for a lift home so full 5 points for you', I'm fine with the general concept but I'd feel uneasy with anything that had an impact on standings
I'm sure we've all had our rear ends handed to us on occasion. And I'm likewise sure that not all such experiences are the same.
For every defeat I've suffered at the 6-8th Ed Dwarven Gunline of Numbing Inevitability (where my entire range of tactical options are reduced to crossing the board as quick as I can, hoping I'll have enough left to put up a fight on arrival), there's one where my opponent was just plain better than me. And those two aren't mutually exclusive either. Just because someone has a really good list, doesn't make them a bad opponent.
For me, it's all about my opponent's attitude to the game being played. If I'm the one wearing the Kickin' Boots of Abject Humilation, I try not to gloat, or offer platitudes. And I'll always offer to shake hands after any game, as I consider that gentlemanly behaviour. YMMV of course, but as I said, it's all subjective.
And when I do pull off miracle wins, where everything goes my way, I'll offer a run down for my opponent of where I felt things went right for me, and wrong for him. But only offer, because that can become gloating pontification all too easily where one's opponent would rather just move on. And totally fair enough.
Poor sportsmanship in my eyes? When it's clear my opponent's list did all the heavy lifting - where it made up for sloppy play and positioning, knocking the sharp edge off any tactical mis-steps they made, then my opponent crowing like they're some kind of tactical genius for castling on a hill
Then there's attitudes to rules questions. I'm likely to get on better with someone who raises the question, and agrees a way forward (whether with me directly, or a TO.) and just gets on with the game. I don't want an opponent who'll mither over every single rule, especially as in my experience, their sharpness on the rules tends to be a one way street.
So, TL/DR? For me, sportsmanship is all about the player's individual attitude.
For those that've been around the intertubes as long as I have, you may remember a truly horrific article on Portent (possibly Warseer?) about the 'psychology' of gaming. Not Ld tests, Fear tests etc. But how to 'psyche-out' your opponent. Such treats included not saying anything to your opponent beyond 'your turn'. That is the sort of player I utterly dread facing. Win or lose, that sort of behaviour sucks all the joy out of the game for me.
So, TL/DR? For me, sportsmanship is all about the player's individual attitude.
.
I'm not arguing otherwise, just expressing concern at the whole fuzzy area that is subjectivity and how that can be gamed, by all means TO's can stick a sportsmanship award in so long as it is a separate score and has no bearing on standings
Ketara wrote: Actually, I just noticed that the prize for $5,000 went to him, and he donated it to charity. Whilst nothing to do with sportsmanship (seriously, I'm still baffled by the motivation behind that first donation), giving away $5,000 to charity you just got awarded is always respectable. So kudos on that score.
Not making fuss when originally subjected to deliberate slow playing intended to ensure opponent does mistakes like this due to to time pressure and even helping to put in deep strikers(rather like much more reasonable reminded that this ends turn) paid large part for donation likely.
Tony angle shooted hoping Alex makes mistake due to time critical. He could have EASILY got it under hour(he got it done way less than hour when enforced to!) but nope. He deliberately did it that slow.
Alex could for example have countered slow playing by slowplaying himself and ensure his 1st turn eats all the remaining time resulting in 1 turn game. But instead he tried to play up. At that time limit it's bound to be mistakes. Exactly as planned.
With a televised game, the thing that is really on the line is your rep.
You owe it to the viewers to give an entertaining game, broadcasting just deployment and the turn 1s would be a massive failure in that regard.
As regard to gaming the sportsmanship system, it can happen. It happened in Fantasy.
If you have two great sports, one whom is likely to place high, the other who is a nice guy but not competativley succesful then you give the best sports award vote to the uncompetative guy, so the first guy's sport scores don't give him the leapfrog over your own overall score.
What happened at the LVO is not limited to the LVO nor is it that rare of a happening. (that being a WAAC player WAACing and displaying horrible sportsmanship)
The difference now is that everything is livestreamed on tv, so the guy Tony got to be the WAACiest WAAC in front of the world and it brought a huge discredit and stain to the tournament community overall and to the LVO event (unfairly as again this happens at pretty much every big tournament)
The player being rewarded chose not to have a mantrum and throw a fit and play out the game. That does speak to good sportsmanship and I'm very happy that that was illuminated and rewarded as opposed to WAAC business as usual.
One of the big things holding back tournaments from being as big as they want to be is the poor sportsmanship and people not wanting to spend a weekend of their life playing WAAC Tonies.
I'm quite pleased at GW for illuminating the good sportsmanship, even if some people feel that it wasn't any big deal to continue the game.
I'm also curious to see if more live streaming starts curbing WAAC Tonies behavior or if it continues as it always has.
Albino Squirrel wrote: The whole idea of treating Warhammer like a competitive sport is so bizarre to me.
Seriously. Grown men moving around little toy soldiers... people get weird sometimes when competing. And for what? 4 grand?
E-sports are huge. This is the logical next step and where GW needs to go for a bigger revenue stream.
That may or may not be the case (it seems as though GW might be at least looking into the possibility) but I really can't see how you turn 40k or AoS into an e-sport. First of all, the e-sports market is saturated right now and even game designed to be played as e-sports have struggled to gain a foothold.
More importantly, wargames in general are really, really bad as a televised show. The rules are too complex, the miniatures too small and the key action revolves around dice rolls that are hard to show to viewers without massively slowing the game down. E-sports work in part because the participants don't have to make concessions to the live-streaming nature of the event. They're also pretty easy to follow. You may not know the ins and outs of various tactics in Streetfighter or LoL but you can usually pick up what's happening quite easily. Even when you know what's happening, I find a 2-2.5-hour game of 40k is pretty mind-numbingly dull after the first turn or two.
Finally, this episode goes to show that the community as a whole needs to mature a lot more before things can get even close to the sort of standards a game like MtG has achieved for its Pro circuit. You need much clearer game rules to start with, but also much, much better floor rules for dealing with matters of etiquette and sportsmanship at the table in order to make sure the game is being presented in the best light. That also requires judges who feel empowered enough to clamp down on unwanted behaviour, such as taking almost an hour for your first turn. All of these factors, BTW, are the reason I think it's a colossal mistake to play 40k for money, beyond a small amount of store credit. Trying to play 40k with thousands of dollars on the line was always going to lead to this kind of incident because, quite frankly, the game simply isn't robust enough and tournament rules and regulations not tight enough to account of the sort of douchebaggery you get with large sums of money up for grabs.
Alex seems like a great guy.
The other chaps seems like a bit of a *expletive deleted*.
I've never seen someone enforce that kind of rule (especially after 'helping' with the deployment of the models) in order to win a game. Surely even the most competitive player doesn't want to win on a technicality?
Isn't competition about proving you are the best, not that you are capable of seizing on something to get a technical win without having to display any skill or good judgement?
Anyway, I don't know this Tony chap. He might be a lovely fellow, but that's not the side of him that came out on this day.
But I wonder if winning the game is worth the damage to his reputation?
.
Yeah, even though he brought it on himself and deserves it, I still feel bad for Tony. I just picture him sitting in a dark room reading all the LVO coverage like Greg Stillson at the end of The Dead Zone.
Good on Alex, but dear lord... One fething hour to take a single turn? This is why "I go with all my guys, you go with all yours" needs to be taken behind the shed and shot.
Judging by the support that Tony got on facebook and on BOLS comments about how thats how you're supposed to play when money is on the line, I'm betting Tony doesn't care what people think and will continue to waac when money is on the line.
Which is why money being on the line is a terrible thing IMO.
Back on 7th edition, I was one VP behind my opponent in turn 4. The game was timed and we had 40 minutes left. My opponent deliberately stalled through the entire turn when he realized I could come back and slay his warlord and get windbreaker as well as take an objective.
He literally stood there and grinned and said, "still not finished with my turn" and played with his phone.
Told the TO and he told the guy to end his turn or concede.
auticus wrote: Judging by the support that Tony got on facebook and on BOLS comments about how thats how you're supposed to play when money is on the line, I'm betting Tony doesn't care what people think and will continue to waac when money is on the line.
Which is why money being on the line is a terrible thing IMO.
If that is the case, screw him. And all the supporters. I didn't realize WH was big enough to support a "I am not a role model" movement for spankers and their groupies. Between this and some of the recent deleted threads, it's starting to feel like the hobby is full of angry, toxic people. Not a new revelation, I know.
I agree about money bringing out the worst in the hobby community.
auticus wrote: One of the big things holding back tournaments from being as big as they want to be is the poor sportsmanship and people not wanting to spend a weekend of their life playing WAAC Tonies.
I'm quite pleased at GW for illuminating the good sportsmanship, even if some people feel that it wasn't any big deal to continue the game.
I'm also curious to see if more live streaming starts curbing WAAC Tonies behavior or if it continues as it always has.
It would be far more beneficial then, for GW and the LVO to visibly punish (even if just by calling out and criticising) poor sportsmanship rather than praising and rewarding the 'good sportsmanship' of tolerating said poor sportsmanship.
I will have to admit... Playing for massive amounts of money is going to make things a bit different. All kinds of folks want to act like they would be any different, but put several grand on the line and you'd be shocked at what people will do.
For $100.00 of store credit I've seen people get cutthroat at the tables. When you put cash or prizes on the line you have to anticipate your opponent using every trick, exploit, and ruse imaginable.
You can call Tony a scumbag but I can easily say that very few gamers would he different for that kind of money. Money is the leading cause of divorce. It can turn family on one another. It can ruin friemdships.
I might be misanthropic about this, but a year ago I had a settlement pay out and came into a significant amount of money. I saw people show a nasty side of themselves over it.
One of the things they can adopt from CCG format games is that the main body of the event is timed but when it comes to the final playoffs for the top 4 they don't have a time limit, that tends to deter stalling. Also during the finals you can have "active judging" where the judges step in if anything is being misplayed or done out of sequence. Anyone in the finals should know the rules well enough but it helps keep game play more even keeled and keeps "slip ups" or accusations of cheating from happening which might favor or disfavor one of the players.
Another thing that can be adopted from CCGs is not trying to play 100% strictly by RAW. For example, in MTG the tournament rules explicitly acknowledge that players can and will take shortcuts with executing the details of game actions/phases. If there's a single creature on the table and no decisions to be made "swing for two, go" is often the result and the players will only go through the entire combat phase with all of its steps explicitly stated if someone wants to do something where the timing of it matters. Even with tens of thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake people understand that formally executing every step of the game is a tedious slog, and it's ok to rush through the routine stuff where the details don't matter.
Apply this concept to 40k and the response by the TO is telling Tony to STFU and stop being a . The exact order of deployment had zero effect on the game state, and there is no rule preventing a player from placing a model on the table without deploying it ("I'm just setting this here so it's ready when it's time to deploy it"). Placing things out of order in that case is exactly the kind of shortcut that is allowed in MTG and the "mistake" was a failure to be excessively literal with announcing the order of every action rather than a legitimate bad decision. Trying to claim that taking shortcuts with the exact order of moving models means forfeiting your entire movement phase is on the level of "lol, you forgot to put a comma in that sentence, I WIN LOLOLOLOLOL" and no sane judge should ever have allowed it.
I think the most interesting here is our money grubbing souless explitive overlords who grind us into the dust and dumb down the game for every penny, giving away five grand to charitable causes.
Sure it's got them some good PR, but they could of done a lot of things to get good PR they've never bothered to do, much less giving away five grand.
Good on them.
The last torny I went to, I was down on VP, but my opponent only had a Captain and a Librarian left, the Librarian being at the other side of the board in the open. I had a gunline primarily of lascannon toting devastators, a Cannoess, and some SoB. There were seven minutes left on the clock till hard dice down as we entered his turn, and he spent five of those minutes debating if he should cast null zone with his librarian and might of heros on itself, despite being 20 inches away from any other models. Unsuprisingly, I didn't get to finish my own turn, and lost the match rather than tabling him.
I did at least get to kill the Librarian with a lascannon, though.
Puzzling why people aren’t using proper chess clocks in tournaments if you have a game where there are known delaying tactics that cause problems. Seems a must where prizes are a stake.
notprop wrote: Puzzling why people aren’t using proper chess clocks in tournaments if you have a game where there are known delaying tactics that cause problems. Seems a must where prizes are a stake.
Because chess clocks don't work in 40k. There are too many ways to waste time during your opponent's turn (slowly rolling saves, demanding lots of LOS checks, etc), and by the time you have a clock system that is correctly tracking which player is spending time you've created something that's more trouble than it's worth and probably slows the game down worse than not having clocks.
notprop wrote: Puzzling why people aren’t using proper chess clocks in tournaments if you have a game where there are known delaying tactics that cause problems. Seems a must where prizes are a stake.
Because chess clocks don't work in 40k. There are too many ways to waste time during your opponent's turn (slowly rolling saves, demanding lots of LOS checks, etc), and by the time you have a clock system that is correctly tracking which player is spending time you've created something that's more trouble than it's worth and probably slows the game down worse than not having clocks.
I've played with chess clocks at a high level and there is literally no issue. Granted it takes a bit of a spine but if there are a lot of saves you click over to him or if he's taking to long. If he's arguing tell him you'll switch the clock to him. If he's demanding tons of LoS checks then advise that comes out of his time. It's not hard to manage at all but does require a bit of resilience. I don't think everyone needs them. But I think that people should have to play with them if their opponents want to. Because just pulling one out or a timesheet out seems to make slow play issues disappear.
auticus wrote: One of the big things holding back tournaments from being as big as they want to be is the poor sportsmanship and people not wanting to spend a weekend of their life playing WAAC Tonies.
I'm quite pleased at GW for illuminating the good sportsmanship, even if some people feel that it wasn't any big deal to continue the game.
I'm also curious to see if more live streaming starts curbing WAAC Tonies behavior or if it continues as it always has.
It would be far more beneficial then, for GW and the LVO to visibly punish (even if just by calling out and criticising) poor sportsmanship rather than praising and rewarding the 'good sportsmanship' of tolerating said poor sportsmanship.
This is really just one big hot mess. It's good for more people to get a good look behind the tournament façade.
At least he gave the money away. I wish I got paid for not knowing the rules.
notprop wrote: Puzzling why people aren’t using proper chess clocks in tournaments if you have a game where there are known delaying tactics that cause problems. Seems a must where prizes are a stake.
Because chess clocks don't work in 40k. There are too many ways to waste time during your opponent's turn (slowly rolling saves, demanding lots of LOS checks, etc), and by the time you have a clock system that is correctly tracking which player is spending time you've created something that's more trouble than it's worth and probably slows the game down worse than not having clocks.
I've played with chess clocks at a high level and there is literally no issue. Granted it takes a bit of a spine but if there are a lot of saves you click over to him or if he's taking to long. If he's arguing tell him you'll switch the clock to him. If he's demanding tons of LoS checks then advise that comes out of his time. It's not hard to manage at all but does require a bit of resilience. I don't think everyone needs them. But I think that people should have to play with them if their opponents want to. Because just pulling one out or a timesheet out seems to make slow play issues disappear.
Agreed, I really haven't had any problems with chess clocks in various systems. I haven't done it in 40k or AOS yet, but did plenty in Warmachine/Hordes and Wild West Exodus and other games, and you can hit similar nitpicking/arguing/stalling tactics. If your opponent starts taking extra time during your turn, you tap the clock and let it eat out of their time. If it's something you need to call a judge over on, you pause the whole thing (usually). Once you've played a couple games this way, it literally becomes no issue if you're not trying to be a douchecanoe in the first place. The hardest thing, in my experience, is just getting used to remembering to tap the clock, but that only takes a couple of games and becomes second nature for everyone I've seen or played with that did chess clocks.
notprop wrote: Puzzling why people aren’t using proper chess clocks in tournaments if you have a game where there are known delaying tactics that cause problems. Seems a must where prizes are a stake.
Because chess clocks don't work in 40k. There are too many ways to waste time during your opponent's turn (slowly rolling saves, demanding lots of LOS checks, etc), and by the time you have a clock system that is correctly tracking which player is spending time you've created something that's more trouble than it's worth and probably slows the game down worse than not having clocks.
I've played with chess clocks at a high level and there is literally no issue. Granted it takes a bit of a spine but if there are a lot of saves you click over to him or if he's taking to long. If he's arguing tell him you'll switch the clock to him. If he's demanding tons of LoS checks then advise that comes out of his time. It's not hard to manage at all but does require a bit of resilience. I don't think everyone needs them. But I think that people should have to play with them if their opponents want to. Because just pulling one out or a timesheet out seems to make slow play issues disappear.
Hulksmash, 40k? I'm comfortable and familiar with clocks in warmachine. I
haven't heard of anyone using them in 40k. I think what makes it work in
Warmachine is that it's become ubiquitous. We don't just wait until Finals
rounds to bust out chess clocks. Everyone just uses them for locals and
even in practice. I think the only times I see clock mistakes happen now
are when people are in new situations (first time cons, first time tournaments,
first time with/against specific armies, etc)
Bossk_Hogg wrote: Good on Alex, but dear lord... One fething hour to take a single turn? This is why "I go with all my guys, you go with all yours" needs to be taken behind the shed and shot.
That would mean then they would take something ridiculous like half an hour for his first unit.
Just wait 'till somebody comes into game he figures he can't win anyway so minimizes losses by spending entire game time on his first turn.
Valander wrote: I haven't done it in 40k or AOS yet, but did plenty in Warmachine/Hordes and Wild West Exodus and other games, and you can hit similar nitpicking/arguing/stalling tactics.
The difference, as I understand it, is that WM/H has non-interactive turns. If it's your turn you activate your models, roll your dice, and generate the results. Your opponent doesn't have to do anything during your turn. So if it's your turn you are the only player active, and your clock is clearly the clock that should be running. But with 40k you have a lot of back and forth during a player's turn, and the fact that it's my turn doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the one doing something.
If your opponent starts taking extra time during your turn, you tap the clock and let it eat out of their time.
What will happen there: no, cheater. *slow player hits the clock again and gives it back to the opponent*
For a clock system to work which clock is running needs to be an objective fact that can not be disputed. If there's a situation where a player makes a judgement call and decides "your clock should run, not mine" then it doesn't work. It just generates arguments over whether the clock should be passed or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Granted it takes a bit of a spine but if there are a lot of saves you click over to him or if he's taking to long.
Define "too long". And do it in indisputable terms, such that the slow player can't respond with "I'm not taking too long, stop trying to pause your clock" and refuse to let you clock over to him.
If he's demanding tons of LoS checks then advise that comes out of his time.
Then you get the opposite problem: all of my units have LOS at all times, even if it means shooting through a solid wall. Want to dispute this? Better be prepared to spend your clock time to check LOS, and I'm going to make sure that I refuse to accept your check unless you spend a lot of clock time demonstrating it beyond any possible doubt. And then I'm immediately going to make a similar LOS claim with my next unit and force you to spend clock time again. Unless you just want to assume that there is no terrain on the table for my units, and I always have clear shots?
Valander wrote: I haven't done it in 40k or AOS yet, but did plenty in Warmachine/Hordes and Wild West Exodus and other games, and you can hit similar nitpicking/arguing/stalling tactics.
The difference, as I understand it, is that WM/H has non-interactive turns. If it's your turn you activate your models, roll your dice, and generate the results. Your opponent doesn't have to do anything during your turn. So if it's your turn you are the only player active, and your clock is clearly the clock that should be running. But with 40k you have a lot of back and forth during a player's turn, and the fact that it's my turn doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the one doing something.
No. Warmachine has loads of stuff your opponent does outside of their turn. Tough rolls, counter-charges, reactive movement, models that hit back when hit just as a few examples.
A lot of the problems you list with chess clocks are easily splved by pausing the clock and calling a TO. If someone os being awkward about LoS to stall, call a judge to decide if it has LoS. If the problem persists the judge will tell the player to knock it off.
You're making this far more complicated than it is in order to formulate an argument.
Sim-Life wrote: You're making this far more complicated than it is in order to formulate an argument.
No, I'm pointing out the ways that TFG is going to try to break the system. Obviously a chess clock works fine if you're dealing with reasonable people, but with reasonable people you don't need a chess clock because they aren't slow playing to exploit the time limit.
Turn structure doesn't enable or prevent slow play, no matter how it actually works.
Someone intent on playing for time will always play for time, if that's a standard tactic of theirs.
If they dither in the 40k method, where you work out your force as a whole, or in the Warmahordes method, they're still going to dither if they see advantage in doing so.
I've seen people draw out turns by not batch rolling. Now, fair enough if there's differing results needed. But when it's all say, 4+ to hit with 60 shots, and they insist on rolling one at a time? Well, there's nothing in the rules about doing it that way.
I've seen people dither with actually rolling the dice, just holding them in their upturned hand, shaking it for a good minute or two.
I've seen people on batch rolls group the dice into like results, then remove their failed rolls.
And I'm afraid to say that it's the inherent time limitation of tournament play that's the main cause here. When we're playing at home or in a club, we can be a bit more elastic with time if planned properly. That means less incentive to slow play your opponent. But when you've got a distinctly finite time to get things wrapped up in, there's a bigger incentive to do so.
Sure, it's not cheating. The rules don't say 'crash through your turns, quick as you can'. But it is absolutely, 100% pee poor sportsmanship to do so. It's not an advantage brought by cunning manoeuvre, or a carefully crafted list. It's just mucking about so your opponent misses any and all chance to react.
It ain't the game, whatever it is. It's the player.
Addendum - I was thinking X-Wing is perhaps somewhat immune to slow play. After all, your actions are set once the Disco Biscuits go down. But then....you can always faff about in the Disco Biscuit placement phase.
The point of chess clocks in they provide an extra mechanism for catching this kind of thing. Does it eliminate 100% of the problems? No, of course not. It does solve some of them, though, such as the lengthy first turn Tony took in the game in question. If someone is intent on playing for time we can create systems that make that very difficult, which is a far cry from what we have now.
It's also important to realise that just introducing chess clocks isn't a magic bullet. You need proper, enforceable rules for what constitutes time-wasting, clock abuse etc. Even without chess clocks a lot of the problems people are highlighting here could have been dealt with by having proper rules in place for time wasting and judges willing to enforce them. I think the fact a time limit was introduced for the final at the LVO shows the organisers/judges were aware of the problem. Not dealing with it in the semi final was a mistake, IMO, but I'm not sure how much scrutiny there was of that game at the time.
But what of someone playing an infantry heavy army, such as foot slogging Orks, Guard or a small bug based Nid horde?
Their turns are naturally going to take longer, because they've simply got more to do.
Compare their expected turn duration to say, that of my Adeptus Custardcreams (mmmm....Custard Creams). I've got maybe a couple of dozen models at most, so my turn is going to be inevitably swift, unless for some reason I've decided to be a poor sport and go for maximum faffage.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But then....you can always faff about in the Disco Biscuit placement phase.
Yeah just stall until game ends if it's good for you. Say you either are going to lose anyway so ending game now means smaller loss or you are slightly ahead but know you would lose if it continues...Say in 40k tournament you know odds of avoiding massacre loss is so close to 0% as to make the(still possible technically) >0% chance you don't get wiped. You get first turn. If scenario has first blood you take it and then for rest of your turn you stall until time's up. Opponent didn't even get a turn and lost by first blood...
Extreme example but technically possible if player feels so inclined...
Though for orks etc time limits then needs to be set up long enough you can realistically play game with those as well. Decreasing game size if extending round length isn't possible.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But what of someone playing an infantry heavy army, such as foot slogging Orks, Guard or a small bug based Nid horde?
Their turns are naturally going to take longer, because they've simply got more to do.
Compare their expected turn duration to say, that of my Adeptus Custardcreams (mmmm....Custard Creams). I've got maybe a couple of dozen models at most, so my turn is going to be inevitably swift, unless for some reason I've decided to be a poor sport and go for maximum faffage.
The entire point of a tournament game is that each player competes as equally as possible on the table. How is it fair that you get to monopolise the game time because of your army choice? You know the tournament rules beforehand so you have to tailor your army selection to those rules. If your army takes so long to play that you're effectively stealing time from your opponent it's you that need to adjust. That's not exactly a new concept. Also (and I don't know why this has to keep being repeated) simply introducing chess clocks doesn't fix everything on the spot. We still need to determine what an appropriate length of time for a tournament game of a certain points level should be. This shouldn't be punishing for players who take large model count armies but at some point it may indeed become a consideration in army selection. AFAICT WM/H, which uses a chess clock system, doesn't exclude horde-style armies other than possible in the most extreme of cases.
Having a smaller army with fewer decisions is actually a valid meta choice for long tournaments anyway. I've rejected quite a few lists for X-Wing tournaments, for example, because playing 6-8 games with a complex, multi-ship list that relies on precise manoeuvring and forces lots of critical decisions over the course of a game is something that's very difficult to run after 5 or 6 games in a day. The list itself may be good but the fatigue of playing it can make it worse than it actually is the deeper you go into a tournament,
There may well be a hypothetical 'perfect system' which could eradicate or seriously discourage playing for time.
Tournaments, as mentioned, heighten the appeal because there are necessary, unavoidable time limits to get the games done in. I understand a common rule is 'no half turns', which helps somewhat. Certainly, it prevents me having the final say if I went first, as you're guaranteed your player turn.
Already, those make certain army builds ill advised or outright undesirable - an all infantry Ork army for instance. Even playing with alacrity, your turns are gonna take a while. And when you need to be getting up close and personal wiv da ol' boot levva, that's just not gonna work. Whether or not the army itself is flawed (different topic, I'm just working with a clear example, making no judgement), you're instantly at a disadvantage tactically to a shooty army. Not only are their turns gonna be shorter, but they can hammer away at units to bag First Blood and possibly Kill The Warlord, bagging VPs far earlier than you're realistically able to. All they need to do is fall back from your advance for a turn or two to really compound things.
But when someone does it from the get-go? That's not a flaw in the game I'd say, just that specific player.
Pretty sure Clocks are not the answer to counter durdling, like Docs pointed out the massive variable in model count where a 2000pf list can vary from under 10 to over 200, and the even huger swing in dice chucking
Games the do use clocks usually top out at the 40-50 model mark and generally have little to no interaction from the inactive player
You could most likely teach 40k players to clock but the lack of crystal clear, non-abusable rules and player resistance suggest its wasted effort
Turnip Jedi wrote: Pretty sure Clocks are not the answer to counter durdling, like Docs pointed out the massive variable in model count where a 2000pf list can vary from under 10 to over 200, and the even huger swing in dice chucking
Games the do use clocks usually top out at the 40-50 model mark and generally have little to no interaction from the inactive player
You could most likely teach 40k players to clock but the lack of crystal clear, non-abusable rules and player resistance suggest its wasted effort
Well yes the time available for each player would need to be assigned so that it works with horde armies. But at least then it prevents one player from eating whole game time either getting win that way(his army would lose if game goes more than 2-3 turns) or forcing enemy to do mistake.
Instead if somebody deliberately wastes 1h on 1st turn(ridiculous) all he archieves is making his remaining turns be very short or risk losing by clock.
Problem is going to be to figure how much time horde armies need for selected game size or should game size be dropped.
But then it would be much more fair for organizer to simply flat out ban said armies rather than take the money from players who flat out will auto-lose every game from the get-go either by time or by being forced to take worthless junk just to make game go faster and lose automatically that way.
Making armies auto-lose but still take their money is just greed.
I think I'm less sympathetic to players who field such armies in such an environment.
I mean, it's rubbish for them that Ork players have certain builds effectively locked out. But, that should be pretty obvious when planning your force.
It's one of the reasons I'm currently favouring small, elite armies. I'm so incredibly rusty on the rules, that working with fewer models means less faffing about getting me up to speed.
But as you say, there is an argument that at least part of the onus is on TO's to provide guidance on such as a minimum.
It makes the whole tournament thing a little farcical though if you cannot play a horde army because it takes too long, or an assault army if the short time-limit favours shooty armies.
40K makes no mention of time limits in the rule book and whatever balance exists in the game is going to be thrown further out of wack by the imposition of time limits.
No idea what the solution should be.
Well, it should be that games last as long as they last (which instantly removes any issues of slow play or army selection) but I can see why that isn't feasible for a tournament.
Personally this just strikes me as further evidence that 40K is not suited for tournament play, but YMMV.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Though for clarity - if you rock up to a known time restricted game with a massive force of foot sloggers, you've only got yourself to blame!
Just as some forms of list do well in tournaments, others just don't suit that environment.
I play Nids and almost always rock up with over 100 models. I may take slightly more time in the deployment/movement phase, but shooting often far less than my opponent and I've practised enough that I can get my army moving in a reasonably quick time, have my dice set up in blocks of 10, 20, know my stats etc. If I couldn't do so I wouldn't take it to tournaments or even single games where there is a strict time-limit. I'm currently trying out various movement tray options to see if this will help further, but those old-style genestealers and their wavy arms!
I would adjust my list or practice my deployment/movement phase enough until I could get that deployment and first turn done in half an hour or less. There is no excuse for rocking up to an event with an army you know you can't run in a timeous fashion, it's just selfish. You can run ork and nid hordes and not hog all the time, but you've got to put the work in and lose that sense of entitlement ...
I'd agree that Tournaments introduce issues not intended in the design of the rules, with the time limit being possibly the most significant.
Whilst Tournaments are absolutely social affairs, 40k is a particularly social based game - intended to be one's afternoon/evening hang out with your friends. That's why many games last more than a couple of hours, depending on the size.
Compare to X-Wing and even Shadespire. Both of those play much, much faster. Not just because of a far lower model count, but just in how they play. They're designed for the games to be swift, so you instead play three or four in the time of a 'regular' 40k battle.
Peeps wanting to enjoy the Tournament scene need to account for that in their army design. As well as looking for a decent list where everything pulls it weight, you want to make it time efficient to field. There's little point in going for a '6th Turn Tide Turner' list (I may have invented that concept for sake of example) if you're more likely to only get four turns in. Hence the reliance on transports - one model to move, much quicker across the board. They may not always be points efficient in a 6 turn game, effectively having little to do once their cargo is dropped off. But in a four turn game? They make the seizing of objectives a more attractive proposition.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think I'm less sympathetic to players who field such armies in such an environment.
I mean, it's rubbish for them that Ork players have certain builds effectively locked out. But, that should be pretty obvious when planning your force.
It's one of the reasons I'm currently favouring small, elite armies. I'm so incredibly rusty on the rules, that working with fewer models means less faffing about getting me up to speed.
But as you say, there is an argument that at least part of the onus is on TO's to provide guidance on such as a minimum.
You aren't just locking certain builds. You have effectively locked entire ork army out period! If time limit is designed with marine army in mind ork player can just not bother up as there's no way he can make competive list that won't lose by time. Orks dont' bring mobs of 30 player just cause it's fun but because it's pretty much only thing that prevents from being roflstomped without breaking a sweat. Non-infantry swarm orks goes green at envy at the awesome broken power of GREY KNIGHTS.
Although that is rather your point; tournament play is a sub-set of 40k (it's a more specialised sub-set of Matched Play), so you have to give something up to allow for it. Unfortunately that might end up being entire armies. :(
AndrewGPaul wrote: Although that is rather your point; tournament play is a sub-set of 40k (it's a more specialised sub-set of Matched Play), so you have to give something up to allow for it. Unfortunately that might end up being entire armies. :(
Sure. As long as tournament organizer is then playing fair and not take money from armies that tournament organizer has effectively banned.
Assuming the tournament info pack says that the games will run for a set time, you would think that players who usually field a lot of models would realise their army wouldn't be suitable. I'm not sure explicitly saying "no Orks" or whatever is really necessary. Just say "Games will last for 2 hours, no exceptions. If you can't complete a turn in 20 minutes, that's on you."
And not everyone is attending the Tournament with a 'must win it' mindset.
Sure, there are those who do so. But for many, it's just a way to enjoy their chosen hobby with new faces, and new challenges.
But, if someone fields a traditional Goff Ork list, then complains that the time limit stuffed them? No mate. You're thinking of your lack of forward planning there!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And not everyone is attending the Tournament with a 'must win it' mindset.
Sure, there are those who do so. But for many, it's just a way to enjoy their chosen hobby with new faces, and new challenges.
But, if someone fields a traditional Goff Ork list, then complains that the time limit stuffed them? No mate. You're thinking of your lack of forward planning there!
There's difference about "must win" attitude and not wanting to lose by default EVERY GAME. Not many people will find games fun if a) they can't win b) they can't even play to the end. Just because tournaments stick to point sizes which were in first place increased when GW increased cost of models a lot and then followed by massive price decreases.
Tournaments are doing GW great favour by voluntarily forcing more and more models to be bought. And thus effectively banning entire armies. It's not like orks even have alternatives.
If 2h really is all you have time(time which btw is tight even for tank heavy IG army as I have found personally for ~1600 pts!) then lower the point costs. There's no universal rule 40k games must be 2k.
And I dare say that there's others like me (well, when I actually get an army painted!) that want to push themselves by taking a list not specifically optimised* for Tournament play - to see whether I've got the tactical chops to still bust out win after win.
*I actually hate that word. Hates I do. It's just so....meaningless. I also hate 'top tier army' and 'sub-optimal'. So nyeah. Not relevant at all. But nyeah!
Automatically Appended Next Post: There's definitely an onus on the TO to match the time to the size.
No point making it a 2,500 point limit, then giving 1.5 hours per game.
... but people can play 2k ork lists in 2.5 hours!!
The index is not taken out of the equation, it's just players that can't handle the list quickly enough have to spend time improving their time management or take a less onerous list. I bet the players who say they can't run an ork horde list don't use movement trays, group their dice, practice deployment and decide/measure their movement in the opponents turn rather than waiting until their own turn. Tournaments have to be timed games, there is no alternative and 3 hr+ games would mean less games and some players who do play quickly kicking their heels between rounds. Lower points games seem don't appear to be seen as a popular option for those who attend tournaments (I'm happy to drop to 1,5k but many aren't) so if the time and size of lists can't change the only option is to learn to play faster. Orks not being able to play a game in 2.5 hours is just not true, you just need to get a move on; leisurely play, tournaments and horde lists don't go together, you need to chose!
Well what did you expect?
For the record time constraints in regard to infantry heavy armies are also a thing in Warmachine. Remember in Warmachine every model attacks one at a time. So if you run 50 dudes thats 50 sets of hit and armor penetration rolls you need to make as well as remembering and playing out special rules.
Generally it's accepted that if you want to play a horde army you're welcome to because you accept the risk of clocking out. It's you're choice so you take on the burden of having put yourself at a disadvantage.
Denny wrote: It makes the whole tournament thing a little farcical though if you cannot play a horde army because it takes too long, or an assault army if the short time-limit favours shooty armies.
40K makes no mention of time limits in the rule book and whatever balance exists in the game is going to be thrown further out of wack by the imposition of time limits.
No idea what the solution should be.
Well, it should be that games last as long as they last (which instantly removes any issues of slow play or army selection) but I can see why that isn't feasible for a tournament.
Personally this just strikes me as further evidence that 40K is not suited for tournament play, but YMMV.
All sorts of things are introduced in tournament play that aren’t in the main rule book.
Whole new scenarios, round times, expected behaviors, etc
The best solution to deliberate slow playing would simply be for the event organiser(s) to make it clear that it won't be tolerated, and then have tournament judges actively punish those who are obviously guilty of it.
Well what did you expect?
For the record time constraints in regard to infantry heavy armies are also a thing in Warmachine. Remember in Warmachine every model attacks one at a time. So if you run 50 dudes thats 50 sets of hit and armor penetration rolls you need to make as well as remembering and playing out special rules.
Generally it's accepted that if you want to play a horde army you're welcome to because you accept the risk of clocking out. It's you're choice so you take on the burden of having put yourself at a disadvantage.
True but WMH has a more robust scoring system that tend to minimise time problems, I'd imagine 40k meta would be somewhat different if Slay the Warlord or getting 5 (6?) VP ahead ended the game
Well what did you expect?
For the record time constraints in regard to infantry heavy armies are also a thing in Warmachine. Remember in Warmachine every model attacks one at a time. So if you run 50 dudes thats 50 sets of hit and armor penetration rolls you need to make as well as remembering and playing out special rules.
Generally it's accepted that if you want to play a horde army you're welcome to because you accept the risk of clocking out. It's you're choice so you take on the burden of having put yourself at a disadvantage.
True but WMH has a more robust scoring system that tend to minimise time problems, I'd imagine 40k meta would be somewhat different if Slay the Warlord or getting 5 (6?) VP ahead ended the game
Don't most tournaments use altered scenario rules anyway though? I don't see why they can't rewrite the tournnament scenarios to accomodated a deathclock.
Most likely, but I think the existing variations that ITC etc run are most likely as far as it'll go, and GW aren't going to use resources to come up with a Steamroller type tournament mission pack just to satisfy a very small slice of the playerbase
Denny wrote: It makes the whole tournament thing a little farcical though if you cannot play a horde army because it takes too long, or an assault army if the short time-limit favours shooty armies.
It's already farcical. At the LVO you only had a shot if you took a broken unit and spammed it to oblivion. A tournament should strive for a balanced fair event for players, not for fair representation in regard to armies. I own horde armies and super elite armies, I am not stupid enough to attend any tournament with 150+ models, heck, I am reluctant to field 75+
AndrewGPaul wrote: Although that is rather your point; tournament play is a sub-set of 40k (it's a more specialised sub-set of Matched Play), so you have to give something up to allow for it. Unfortunately that might end up being entire armies. :(
Sure. As long as tournament organizer is then playing fair and not take money from armies that tournament organizer has effectively banned.
Hog wash. Are they supposed to hold your hand while you cross the street too? At some point players need to own up to their responsibility. If your too much of a novice to realize a 200 model army probably won't finish games in a timed event, then you probably to much of a novice to be attending a competitive event. Stick to narrative or play another army. All the tournaments I can think of tell you how long rounds are slotted for, players should consider that plenty of warning.
I do wonder how much of these tournament restrictions bleed into the normal 'meta' (god I hate that word)
'Dark Reapers are OP'
Are they? Or are they OP in a tournament with time limit restrictions and a disincentive to take hordes?
Dunno. They might be OP anyway, but I do hope that players realise that you cannot judge which unit/codex/army is OP in a 'standard' game of 40K if you introduce additional restrictions not supported by the core game.
Hog wash. Are they supposed to hold your hand while you cross the street too? At some point players need to own up to their responsibility. If your too much of a novice to realize a 200 model army probably won't finish games in a timed event, then you probably to much of a novice to be attending a competitive event. Stick to narrative or play another army. All the tournaments I can think of tell you how long rounds are slotted for, players should consider that plenty of warning.
Again: Ork players don't have any option. They either take tons of boyz or they lose. Simple as that. They likely lose anyway even if they take boyz in unlimited time but if they take anything but boyz swarm they lose period.
So if tournament organizer makes time limits that don't allow playing orks with any chance of victory it's plain greed for tempting any ork players to attend at all giving in money. Especially when there's options. Honest options would be to either increase game length or drop point cost. Point costs which btw are GW's money making greed scheme. Keep upping point costs, keep lowering model points=more models=more money. Why players follow GW's greedy plans like lemmings is another thing.
Hog wash. Are they supposed to hold your hand while you cross the street too? At some point players need to own up to their responsibility. If your too much of a novice to realize a 200 model army probably won't finish games in a timed event, then you probably to much of a novice to be attending a competitive event. Stick to narrative or play another army. All the tournaments I can think of tell you how long rounds are slotted for, players should consider that plenty of warning.
Again: Ork players don't have any option. They either take tons of boyz or they lose. Simple as that. They likely lose anyway even if they take boyz in unlimited time but if they take anything but boyz swarm they lose period.
So if tournament organizer makes time limits that don't allow playing orks with any chance of victory it's plain greed for tempting any ork players to attend at all giving in money. Especially when there's options. Honest options would be to either increase game length or drop point cost. Point costs which btw are GW's money making greed scheme. Keep upping point costs, keep lowering model points=more models=more money. Why players follow GW's greedy plans like lemmings is another thing.
Show me the Ork player who practices deploying/first turn movement, uses movement trays (why not, no blast templates), groups dice, knows all his stats and doesn't waste time thinking about moves in his own turn and I'll show you the Ork players who can play 4 rounds in 2.5 hours. Nid, IG, Ork infantry lists can all be played at tournaments - it just needs some commitment, planning and hard work to do so. If some players can so it why can't all - generally lack of preparation; I've seen the players spending 20+ mins getting the models out of their cases at the start of the game and then they wonder why they run out of time? if you can't deploy and play first turn in an hour then you need to look at where you're wasting the time and do something about it rather than blaming the TO!
As to how competitive Index orks are is entirely irrelevant here, the issue is if you take that list you learn how to play it before you turn up to a timed event.
Hog wash. Are they supposed to hold your hand while you cross the street too? At some point players need to own up to their responsibility. If your too much of a novice to realize a 200 model army probably won't finish games in a timed event, then you probably to much of a novice to be attending a competitive event. Stick to narrative or play another army. All the tournaments I can think of tell you how long rounds are slotted for, players should consider that plenty of warning.
Again: Ork players don't have any option. They either take tons of boyz or they lose. Simple as that. They likely lose anyway even if they take boyz in unlimited time but if they take anything but boyz swarm they lose period.
So if tournament organizer makes time limits that don't allow playing orks with any chance of victory it's plain greed for tempting any ork players to attend at all giving in money. Especially when there's options. Honest options would be to either increase game length or drop point cost. Point costs which btw are GW's money making greed scheme. Keep upping point costs, keep lowering model points=more models=more money. Why players follow GW's greedy plans like lemmings is another thing.
I've seen a couple of ork lists make passable performance with 20 - 28 mek gunz. Not tourney winning, but midtable respectable.
I just don't buy that because someone takes a green tide list that they should have special concessions made for them.
When I go to a Warmahordes tournament and I bring Old Witch (who is considered a low tier model and I know it) and 40 infantry I don't walk up to the TO and say "I'm playing Old Witch and my turns take a lot of careful planning and working things out, can you please make a special exception on the death clock for me? Also she can't deal with armour so can you please make sure I don't match up with any ARM skew lists?" What I do do is practice her to death, know her rules inside and out and know exactly what to do in any given situation and be prepared.
When you go to a competitive event you go KNOWING what to expect then the only person at fault for being unprepared or taking a sub-par list is you. If you want to play orks then go ahead, but you do so KNOWING it will be an uphill struggle. You shouldn't expect people to treat you differently because you CHOSE a difficult path. That's on you.
Sim-Life wrote: I just don't buy that because someone takes a green tide list that they should have special concessions made for them.
This was my main point. Tournaments are not supposed to strive for making every army faction and list build type playable, they are supposed to provide a smooth and fair environment to play a game that was never intended for competition. This makes the job difficult enough. If you want to play an Ork horde army then do it in open play and not timed events. This idea that everything needs to start on a level base is idiotic. Tournaments already create an artificial meta that becomes even more evolved depending on whos organizing it. The meta is part of the deal and unfortunate as it may be, massive armies have never been great in any meta since tournaments have been held for 40k. Ironically 8th edition is the first edition to LOWER the hurdles by removing blasts and scatter, making things like these possible:
My IG army runs at least 70 guardsmen and I can tell you that using those trays I actually finish deploying before some of the grey knight players I have faced. It's called knowing how to play in the environment and having a game plan before you get there. Ork deployment is one of the EASIEST things in the game to do when your running hordes and dropping 10 boys at a time using those bases should make deployment and movement last seconds per mob.
PS they come in 20 and most providers will make you custom ones if you email them.
I haven't read the whole thread, but on the first page people are operating under the impression that Alex just owned up to a mistake he made and played through the game. That is not quite what happened. Tony offered to helpfully measure out the offending move for Alex... then when it was complete, he told Alex that his phase had just ended because of the move. Sorry if someone already clarified this.
So Tony took 1.5 hours to deploy and take his first turn, then set Alex up knowing that he could call the violation and basically skip his turn, but Alex took it like a champ and played through the game without batting an eye. That is why people are saying he was a good sport.
Simple solution, death clock next time. I imagine behind closed door GW are super annoyed that this showcase of the hobby, which they've supported, turned into entrapment rules lawyering to get a win after over an hour of boredom.
Sim-Life wrote: I just don't buy that because someone takes a green tide list that they should have special concessions made for them.
This was my main point. Tournaments are not supposed to strive for making every army faction and list build type playable, they are supposed to provide a smooth and fair environment to play a game that was never intended for competition. This makes the job difficult enough. If you want to play an Ork horde army then do it in open play and not timed events. This idea that everything needs to start on a level base is idiotic. Tournaments already create an artificial meta that becomes even more evolved depending on whos organizing it. The meta is part of the deal and unfortunate as it may be, massive armies have never been great in any meta since tournaments have been held for 40k. Ironically 8th edition is the first edition to LOWER the hurdles by removing blasts and scatter, making things like these possible:
My IG army runs at least 70 guardsmen and I can tell you that using those trays I actually finish deploying before some of the grey knight players I have faced. It's called knowing how to play in the environment and having a game plan before you get there. Ork deployment is one of the EASIEST things in the game to do when your running hordes and dropping 10 boys at a time using those bases should make deployment and movement last seconds per mob.
PS they come in 20 and most providers will make you custom ones if you email them.
I quite agree on 'no concessions' for certain builds. As mentioned earlier, as soon as you know there's strict time limits to a game, most players will know that certain armies just aren't going to cut the mustard.
Those movement trays are a solid idea. Spesh if you've already magnetised your troops in for transport. Might take a while to properly catch on in 40k though, simply because people are used to blast templates making such things a bad idea in previous editions
TwilightSparkles wrote: I imagine behind closed door GW are super annoyed that this showcase of the hobby, which they've supported, turned into entrapment rules lawyering to get a win after over an hour of boredom.
Too true. The main tactic I learn from that game was to be frustratingly slow in order to aggravate your opponent into making mistakes, then 'help' them into rushing a move that will cost them the game.
It probably worth firing some guns and stuff too, but that's very much a secondary concern.
This was very much a thing from 1998 - 2007 as well (the years I was active as a GT player). Intentional slow play is something that keeps me from ever playing in tournaments today without a chess clock or some kind of timing mechanism.
. The exact order of deployment had zero effect on the game state, and there is no rule preventing a player from placing a model on the table without deploying it ("I'm just setting this here so it's ready when it's time to deploy it"). Placing things out of order in that case is exactly the kind of shortcut that is allowed in 
