Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
Also more the fact that no one bothered attending the GT Final because they wern't using the latest FAQ and the terrain/rulespack is terrible. Also judges rulings have been...questionable...throughout every GW heat.
Lets not forget that the ork player slow played almost every game from what I hear and barely got passed turn 2/3, which doesn't seem to be an issue for GW, but has a very big impact . Shows in the fact that he got barely any VPs.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
Also more the fact that no one bothered attending the GT Final because they wern't using the latest FAQ and the terrain/rulespack is terrible. Also judges rulings have been...questionable...throughout every GW heat.
Lets not forget that the ork player slow played almost every game from what I hear and barely got passed turn 2/3, which doesn't seem to be an issue for GW, but has a very big impact . Shows in the fact that he got barely any VPs.
Gratz either way to the winners.
Did he? Dunno. Just saying different lists tend to win.
And 2/3 turns is pretty normal if you don't have cheaters using fast-rolling/moving to cheat with the dice/movements and fraudulent "theory-hammering" turn 5/6 under the pretence of avoiding "fast-play" like pretty much the entire Top 50 at the London GT.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
Also more the fact that no one bothered attending the GT Final because they wern't using the latest FAQ and the terrain/rulespack is terrible. Also judges rulings have been...questionable...throughout every GW heat.
Lets not forget that the ork player slow played almost every game from what I hear and barely got passed turn 2/3, which doesn't seem to be an issue for GW, but has a very big impact . Shows in the fact that he got barely any VPs.
Gratz either way to the winners.
Did he? Dunno. Just saying different lists tend to win.
And 2/3 turns is pretty normal if you don't have cheaters using fast-rolling/moving to cheat with the dice/movements and fraudulent "theory-hammering" turn 5/6 under the pretence of avoiding "fast-play" like pretty much the entire Top 50 at the London GT.
What lol?
I alos hear he also slow played at Heat 2 and last years London GT where a ref had to watch the table so yeah, slow play is a thing.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, looking at that sheet, it's clear he slow played. 0 favorite games, only 3 out of the top 34 got that.
3rd lowest points killed out of the top 24. 3200 points over 4 games. Meanwhile, the guy in second had 7500 points killed.
That's just ridiculous. Hope that guy feels good about his cheating trophy.
3200 points over 5 games.
I don't think this indicates cheating, it seems more like a consequence of playing a horde army competitively. Don't try to kill stuff, just drown the table in bodies and cover all the objectives. Time out because moving 100-200 models each turn takes a while.
djones520 wrote: Yeah, looking at that sheet, it's clear he slow played. 0 favorite games, only 3 out of the top 34 got that.
3rd lowest points killed out of the top 24. 3200 points over 4 games. Meanwhile, the guy in second had 7500 points killed.
That's just ridiculous. Hope that guy feels good about his cheating trophy.
wow-wow-wow, it escalated quickly.
"Cheating Trophy"?
Do you think if his opponents felt he had been intentionaly slowing the games they woulndn't call in judges?
Orks are slow to play mainly because they have all 4 phases.
Of course tau, which mainly have 1 phase per turn, are faster to play (insanely faster).
But I think main source of Orks' success was due to the Eternal War in play without maelstrom.
I think he just covered the table with bodies and endured.
Looking forward to see the list on Warhammer-Community.
As I see they didn't show his games on WarhammerTV on Twitch.
P.S. Am I the only one who wonders what's included in the lunch at GT Finals?))
djones520 wrote: Yeah, looking at that sheet, it's clear he slow played. 0 favorite games, only 3 out of the top 34 got that.
3rd lowest points killed out of the top 24. 3200 points over 4 games. Meanwhile, the guy in second had 7500 points killed.
That's just ridiculous. Hope that guy feels good about his cheating trophy.
wow-wow-wow, it escalated quickly.
"Cheating Trophy"?
Do you think if his opponents felt he had been intentionaly slowing the games they woulndn't call in judges?
Orks are slow to play mainly because they have all 4 phases.
Of course tau, which mainly have 1 phase per turn, are faster to play (insanely faster).
But I think main source of Orks' success was due to the Eternal War in play without maelstrom.
I think he just covered the table with bodies and endured.
Looking forward to see the list on Warhammer-Community.
As I see they didn't show his games on WarhammerTV on Twitch.
P.S. Am I the only one who wonders what's included in the lunch at GT Finals?))
There was a few opponents of his who told me he slow played. He was offered to play over time end in the last round but forced his opponent to shake his hand at turn 3 because they only had 20 minutes left to play, even after being told they can play on by a judge. Other players played upto 90 minuted over set time.
The guy with Daemons on one of the top table had over 200 models and made it to turn 6.
This was clearly intentional and he has done it at other events too. A lot of peoples testimony's are on facebook
Yeah. He got an opponent to shake at the end of round 3. Then the events team said it's Ok to keep playing as there is plenty of time but he refused too carry on. Other tables played around an hour longer
I walked past to my table at the start round 4 and he was already arguing about terrain....
I heard the exact same from a buddy of mine who was there.
Well a guy who says he knows him on Reddit certainly doesn't seem to think it was cheating as there's a congratulations thread. I'm not sure how much we should buy "lots of testimony over Facebook" (maybe like how rules errata shouldn't be published on Facebook).
Anyway, they also posted a snippet of his list:
"3x30 boys, two weird boys, two painboyz, warboss, two trucks with 10 tankbustas, alot of grot guns"
My brother played him and while he said he was a nice dude, he did slow play. if they had got past turn 3, he ( my brother) would have racked up more points.
I would add though, that that's just one of the down sides to running a horde army. it naturally takes longer. You can do things to speed up the game of course, but it does take longer.
I played him at the finals. Firstly for those asking his list:
Warboss on foot, relic choppa and combi skorcha
2 painboyz
2 kff melta
2 weirdboyz with jump.
4x30 boyz.
6 Kustom mega kannons
2 chinorks full of tankbustas.
On the event overall, I attended with a beta army and self imposed the limits on myself. One other guy at the event was doing the same. TBH I was treating the whole thing as LGT warm up since the tables are a bit of a joke (I played on one board with a single piece of line of sight blocking terrain. The other 4 all had windowed ruins if anything) and the judging was poor. The ork player and a couple of others were complained about multiple times and ‘warned’ which seemingly had no impact or effect whatsoever.
Feels very much like for GW it’s a big advertisement for the game and having a winner get disqualified or penalised is bad press so they refuse to actually make any calls.
Will say that aside from a couple of people though there were a lot of top chaps around and had a good weekend.
Next up proper 40k at the LGT
Sneggy wrote: I was treating the whole thing as LGT warm up since the tables are a bit of a joke (I played on one board with a single piece of line of sight blocking terrain. The other 4 all had windowed ruins if anything)
Um...good luck. By London GT standards that’s pretty generous. Last year, from what I remember, I think it was four identical sprayed-grey corner ruins and two lumps of polystyrene per table, on every table.
No wait, there were a few actually painted crystal formations randomly thrown in with absolutely no attempt to match the game mats.
Sneggy wrote: I was treating the whole thing as LGT warm up since the tables are a bit of a joke (I played on one board with a single piece of line of sight blocking terrain. The other 4 all had windowed ruins if anything)
Um...good luck. By London GT standards that’s pretty generous. Last year, from what I remember, I think it was four identical sprayed-grey corner ruins and two lumps of polystyrene per table, on every table.
No wait, there were a few actually painted crystal formations randomly thrown in with absolutely no attempt to match the game mats.
LGT has a very detailed rules pack this year that shows exactly whats LOS blocking and whats not. Each board hass predefined scenery in a predefined arrangement. Apperantly they also invested heavily in the actual terrain models.
You can clearly see by be points listed he slow
Played got zero favorite games, had the lowest points killed, and never got past turn 3. The fact he killed almost nothing showed his entire strat was to just slowly move his models on objectives and slow play so his army didn’t die... he wouldnt have if he wasn’t trying to play poorly or cheat his opponent.
Sneggy wrote: I played him at the finals. Firstly for those asking his list:
Warboss on foot, relic choppa and combi skorcha
2 painboyz
2 kff melta
2 weirdboyz with jump.
4x30 boyz.
6 Kustom mega kannons
2 chinorks full of tankbustas.
On slow play. I’d say he was. Basically played two turns then managed to get a mostly theory crafted turn 3 after he refused to play over time despite other tables going well over an hour over and us having 25mins left at that stage. Was adamant we wouldn’t get through turn four no matter what.
He was also currently ahead but would have lost on points if we had continued/likely been tabled by turn 5 if we had gone that far.
General consensus at the event wasn’t brilliant as shown by the applause for third and second and the pretty flat silence for his ‘win’.
Apparently he was the same at heats according to those who played him.
On the event overall, I attended with a beta army and self imposed the limits on myself. One other guy at the event was doing the same. TBH I was treating the whole thing as LGT warm up since the tables are a bit of a joke (I played on one board with a single piece of line of sight blocking terrain. The other 4 all had windowed ruins if anything) and the judging was poor. The ork player and a couple of others were complained about multiple times and ‘warned’ which seemingly had no impact or effect whatsoever.
Feels very much like for GW it’s a big advertisement for the game and having a winner get disqualified or penalised is bad press so they refuse to actually make any calls.
Will say that aside from a couple of people though there were a lot of top chaps around and had a good weekend. Just that game left a sour taste in my mouth.
Next up proper ;0k at the LGT
Sounded to me like he was conceding. If you guys were allowed to start a turn, and continue play after time was over, he had no ground to stand on.
Sucks though, both for you, and that someone like him would win the whole affair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Horde armies don't cause slow play, they just provide a built in excuse. It's harder to play quickly with a high model count army, but it's possible.
100% agree. The ork player on my ATC team has bought movement trays, and can easily get 6 rounds in on standard tournament time, with over 200 models in his list.
As far as I’m concerned toy soldiers is toy soldiers. Registered with rules judges my slow Play concerns with no expectations of any result change or anything but so they could keep an eye and went on with my event. I don’t think it’s ideal he won like that, but it’s done now.
Meatgrinder wrote: LGT has a very detailed rules pack this year that shows exactly whats LOS blocking and whats not. Each board hass predefined scenery in a predefined arrangement. Apperantly they also invested heavily in the actual terrain models.
By their Facebook page, last week (with two weeks to go) the organiser took delivery of a mass load of white polystyrene. So, given that they’ve said similar things in years past, I’ll believe that when I see it!
He has been live streamed twice and having played Vs him alot, he doesn't delay turns. He is just a very competent player and knows his stuff!
From le Reddit.
I'm working from memory here so I may be wrong but I don't think he got past turn 3 (or was it 2?) in his streamed game in the Heat he qualified in either.
Someone with a WarhammerTV subscripting can go check.
Killing 1/2 to 1/3 of everyone else in the top 10 and no fav game score is telling even without people who played him coming forward to confirm.
From listening to details, it does sound like GW didn't want any kind of bad sportsmanship smells, so the judges were disinclined to take action. A ripe situation for dubious play methods to sneak in.
Yeah someone tried the "end the game early" ruse on me at a GT when we had like 25 minutes left and we both had like 3 units to move. Judge told him there's clearly time to do another turn given our situation, and if he refuses to go on then he is conceding. (Of course the next turn took him from barely hanging on to victory to outright losing.)
I wasn't at the event, but I'm hearing a lot of testimony from people that were, and it's really making me want to dismiss his victory as invalid. (For what my opinion matters anyway.)
He has been live streamed twice and having played Vs him alot, he doesn't delay turns. He is just a very competent player and knows his stuff!
From le Reddit.
No doubt he knows his stuff becuase he knows how to slow play a game to death.
Bottom line Is He killed 648pts of the enemies army per game...That is it. Which means that he should have been tabled rather quickly since if you let the enemy shoot you for that long without reducing his numbers your going to have a bad time. And a 5++ 6+++ isn't enough to stay alive vs other armies if you go past turn 2-3. He killed no warlords, he had 1/3 the amount of killed units points as everyone else, and not a single player gave him a point for a good game...if we didn’t have the entire tournament of people call him out I would still look at the data and said he’s a bad player.
I was there. The problem was that when you got to the top tables there were a number of horde lists that were dominating. The final game was Morgan's orks vs. some other chap's nurgle horde list with the plaguecrawlers. Morgan always has the slow play card available to use. Looking at the numbers posted, I can see why people are pre-supposing slow play.
The meta has gone too far the other way with horde. However, this tournament did NOT include the FAQ changes so will be invalid as to how 40k will continue to develop. In that sense the London GT will be more interesting.
Also Max Barton bowed out of the 40kGT and instead did Shadespire. He won that instead (albeit with Shadespire's current OP list lol).
Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...
Fifty wrote: Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...
Slow play over.
But will give additional cover to the cheaters fudging dice with fast-rolling and/or bullying casual attendants with "theory-gaming" through turns for illicit points, skewing the results that way.
Will only work with a "3-strike and you're disqualified rule" or something along those lines for picking up dice too quickly for your opponent to check or rolling for clearly declaring what you're rolling, etc.., etc.
Fifty wrote: Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...
Slow play over.
But will give additional cover to the cheaters fudging dice with fast-rolling and/or bullying casual attendants with "theory-gaming" through turns for illicit points, skewing the results that way.
Will only work with a "3-strike and you're disqualified rule" or something along those lines for picking up dice too quickly for your opponent to check or rolling for clearly declaring what you're rolling, etc.., etc.
This also incentivizes chipmunking games you know you're going to lose and/or to help buddies.
Wilson wrote: My brother played him and while he said he was a nice dude, he did slow play. if they had got past turn 3, he ( my brother) would have racked up more points.
I would add though, that that's just one of the down sides to running a horde army. it naturally takes longer. You can do things to speed up the game of course, but it does take longer.
That's pretty much orks. They can survive 3, maybe 4 turns and then they collapse. If you want to win games in tournament with orks you must keep games in 2-3 turns max. Anything more and you won't HAVE army left to win the game with.
Nidzrule! wrote: I was there. The problem was that when you got to the top tables there were a number of horde lists that were dominating. The final game was Morgan's orks vs. some other chap's nurgle horde list with the plaguecrawlers. Morgan always has the slow play card available to use. Looking at the numbers posted, I can see why people are pre-supposing slow play.
The meta has gone too far the other way with horde. However, this tournament did NOT include the FAQ changes so will be invalid as to how 40k will continue to develop. In that sense the London GT will be more interesting.
Also Max Barton bowed out of the 40kGT and instead did Shadespire. He won that instead (albeit with Shadespire's current OP list lol).
Hordes are fine once you allow people to play a normal game to at least 5 turns. Its ending games at the 3rd that makes hordes seem more durable then they are in objective heavy games. Once the new faq takes effect and chess clocks are implemented in the top tables pure hordes will never see top tables in tournies. Unfortunately chess clocks are now needs becuase of players like this guy and this will hurt players who take balanced lists with horde screens as they are now rushing thier games to not be penalized.
Given the answers so far, maybe the trouble is actually caused by the competitive scene and thus competitive tournaments should be banned from play. Then we won't have to talk about cheating, slow play, and so on.
Competition brings these behaviors, after all. As long as there is something to gain from victory (prestige, prices, ...), human nature makes it so everything justifies the ends for some people.
That or maybe some people are that mad that an Ork army dares to win and thus, it must be the ork player who cheated/use something that isn't called "good play".
I know it’s like beating an old drum over and over, but, hordes can still be used in a chess clock environment. Sure, you need to take moving all the models into account in your list creation and preparation, but it is possible. You also have the added benefit, of each time your opponent has a turn, you have less models to move in the following turn! Having a horde army is used far too liberally and far too often by a lot of players as an excuse. Orks and horde Guard can still totally win events when going to 5 turns, it is just that currently there is no incentive for them to increase their speed of play. However, chess clocks will solve this going forward (and they aren’t as “scary” as some people think).
My problem with this result is 2-fold. Only playing 3 turns and refusing extra when judges allow it, doesn’t not offer a good representation of the game and event overall. Sure, it is all within the boundaries of the set rules, but, if slow play was identified and not acted upon, then it also further indicates the current ingrained issue with event judges and their overall reluctance to actually enforce rules and penalties. This seems to be an ongoing problem across all the big events.
2nd issue, in my view, is apparent issue with scoring. The fact that a player can win an event of this size, and supposedly reputation (but let’s face it, as soon as they announced they weren’t using the beta rules, it became a non-event). If a player can gain 4 points over any other player by just playing half a game each time and only killing 650 points worth of full units, it screams to me that something has gone wrong somewhere. He only won by 2 points due to the “hobby” scoring system, which to me, is not a good way of supplementing the event score, but it’s a discussion for another time and thread.
Unfortunately, winning an end of game/turn objective scoring game is far too heavily stacked in the favour of the horde player, especially when they have access to big blob squads and morale reduction abilities. It doesn’t matter what you do to me in 5 turns of shooting, if I table 6 units of 30 conscripts that ignore morale and have obsec when I sit them on 4 of the 6 objectives from turn 1 onwards. Try as you might, 95% of armies just won’t be able to kill enough in the available turns – and that’s with the horde player just passing their turns after getting to the objectives and not rolling any dice for the other 50-70% of their army.
Time limits will unfortunately always be a thing at events, and a certain percentage of people will always try to do whatever they can to turn it to their advantage. Personally, if I come across this situation there are a couple of things that I can do. If they seem like a decent person I can raise it with them in a friendly way, if not, I can either go to a judge or take out my phone, put it on the table and start a stop watch. It’s a bit blunt, but, people can get the picture pretty quickly that you’re timing them. This can also then be raised with a judge if it gets more and more excessive. The other option is to spend the time they take working on your next turn, and then blast through it quickly and smoothly straight after. It soon becomes apparent to others when you spent a quarter of the time on your turns as your opponent is doing on theirs. It also adds additional pressure to your slow playing opponent as it means they have to risk going even slower.
@Sarouan people don't have an issue with Orks winning events or doing well in them. People just have more issue with the way that some people go about it.
I was at the tournament final and played the guy who won at the heats. He was a good opponenent and you can't fault his character or call him a cheat. Did he play to his armies strengths? Did he know he was aiming for a turn 2 win??? Only he can answer that and has to live with it. I do know that I would have tabled him in 4 or 5 turns but doing so was an impossibility with the whole set up (TIME), which as a player was massively frustrating for me as I knew I should / could win... but couldn't. I even stated at the start of the game i wanted a quick game and made my intentions clear but it just didnt happen due to so much stuff everywhere. As a result I've settled on understanding time as a resource as important as points and as a result it should be distributed evenly like points are. Bring on chess clocks and let's even the playing field.
Also take it easy guys. He won. Well done. It's all moulded plastic and dice at the end of the day. Let the hobby be the winner and buy some sodding chess clocks. Lol
Look I am British so perhaps have beat around the bush about it.
It is very likely that the ork army taken was designed to play to turn 2 or 3 and then swarm the objectives. Win before armies could have the chance to chew through those bodies.
The last mission was killpoints and he was up against another horde army (Nurgle). I have no problem with Morgan and this is not going to change the results. However, the important thing is that this does not occur anywhere else.
This is also taking advantage of the social contract - how do you force the other player to play if he says he wants to stop? You can only rely on the TO to lay down the law and FORCE that to happen (i.e. slowplayer auto concedes). I think a hard line does need to be taken in the future as this is an immensely frustrating way to end a game. I mean Scarecrow20 himself states that he knew that the game was not going to go past turn 3.
Kdash comes up with some good ways to turn the tables on the offending slowplayer. But this is also part of the strategy. You get forced into playing faster and making mistakes because the slowplayer is monopolising time during his turn. Your win condition becomes more than just in-game but can also skew your perception of risk versus reward in carrying out certain actions e.g. you may take on higher risk moves because it might result in more casualties faster rather than sitting back because you KNOW you arent going past turn 3.
David Glaysher (top chap btw) took a horde daemon army and he manage to finish by turn 5 and 6! What's the difference between his army and the ork's in terms of model count?
Extend the time limit or turn 3 game endings will always be common. Finals should have an extension to 3.5+ hours if not longer for a final to make sure the game is completed.
I enjoy death clocks in Warmachine, but it's understandable 40k doesn't have them. I just hate to have a grinding un-finishable game at an event I traveled too and landed a hotel.
Most events have been doing jack-all about the slow play epidemic ever since it really took off part way through 7e. I'm not sure how much it's going to take for the decision makers to realize that we are trying to cram too many points into too little time. Players shouldn't have to give themselves a stroke speed-playing for over two hours just to get a legit game result. They should have time to take a mid-game smoke, hit the bathroom, and have a rules issue involving calling a judge without hitting the time wall. Only the slowest most grindy matchups should get close to the limit.
And events should definitely set aside extra time for finals. Those should be natural finish or concession only.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Sure. The blatantly obvious solution is the same all 40K players everywhere use when they are strapped for time.
Play less points.
Wanna cram 5 games into a weekend? Play 1500 points or even 1000 points. Problem solved.
Nothing blatantly obvious, or right about it.
Did a GT two weeks ago. 5 games, 80 players. 2000 points. Most games went to turn 5 or 6. Even the horde armies. It was just a result of people not being jerks about slow playing.
You just lower it to 1500 points, it's going to be the same results. That won't change a thing.
Fair enough. Just not my experience. Too many games in a strict time-limit tournament format that claim to go to turn 5 or 6 tend to be cheaters theory-hammering/fast-talking illicit points without transparently playing for them in an orderly fashion.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
Also more the fact that no one bothered attending the GT Final because they wern't using the latest FAQ and the terrain/rulespack is terrible. Also judges rulings have been...questionable...throughout every GW heat.
Lets not forget that the ork player slow played almost every game from what I hear and barely got passed turn 2/3, which doesn't seem to be an issue for GW, but has a very big impact . Shows in the fact that he got barely any VPs.
Gratz either way to the winners.
Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?
Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?
99% of tournament games ending turn 2 or turn 3 are not intentionally slow-played for advantages. They just happen to be slow games of 40K.
99% of slow-play accusations are false attempts by sore losers to smear people and or discredit other players.
Slow games of 40K ≠ slow play.
Thus there are 3 different and distinct problems that need to be solved:
1. Speeding up slow games (not slow-playing) as 40K by its nature can be cumbersome and isn't designed for tournament games. More time/lower points would be the obvious solution.
2. Stop the false-accusation-train by cheaters using the slow-play hysteria as a cover to deflect from other, far more common types of cheating.
3. Stop the true, intentional, malicious slow-play that is out there (if rarer than people under 2.) want to make you believe).
As long as people prone to be guilty of No. 2 keep conflating No. 1 and No 3. to muddy the debate, we're not getting anywhere.
I think biggest downer for me (not necessarily proof of slow play but close) was the refusal to play on in a game that ended turn 3 despite ref saying more time was allowed. That stinks as you want to play the game not the tournament and if not slow playing then why not carry on?
However if memory serves me right the tyranid player and the ork player did agree to stop on turn 3 before the ref came over... don't quote me on that one as I wasn't the tyranid player. That s as close to proof I can come up with but your right sir. Rest is pure conjecture.
I personally loved the final gt. Great bunch of blokes to play against who taught me a lot and defo new friends made who I'll see on the tournament circuit in the future. Total hobby win.
Sunny side up, I cited a player that played horde daemons and got at least 5 turns in all his games. He did not have vehicles. He had 4 favourite game votes.
Ork player did not get to past turn 3 in his games. He had zero favourite game votes.
There's a reason why these questions are coming up. This is not going to affect results of the tournament. It's done. But something should be done for the future. Slow play needs to be stopped - less points or more time for each game or more time for the last game. Whatever - but the status quo cannot hold.
Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?
99% of tournament games ending turn 2 or turn 3 are not intentionally slow-played for advantages. They just happen to be slow games of 40K.
99% of slow-play accusations are false attempts by sore losers to smear people and or discredit other players.
Slow games of 40K ≠ slow play.
Thus there are 3 different and distinct problems that need to be solved:
1. Speeding up slow games (not slow-playing) as 40K by its nature can be cumbersome and isn't designed for tournament games. More time/lower points would be the obvious solution.
2. Stop the false-accusation-train by cheaters using the slow-play hysteria as a cover to deflect from other, far more common types of cheating.
3. Stop the true, intentional, malicious slow-play that is out there (if rarer than people under 2.) want to make you believe).
As long as people prone to be guilty of No. 2 keep conflating No. 1 and No 3. to muddy the debate, we're not getting anywhere.
I agree. For example, I was at LVO this year and last year as well. In most cases my games never made it beyond turn 3, with two exceptions.
From my perspective, it had little to do with slow-play (though to be clear there are cases it does happen) and more to do with poor organization. Often times it would take upwards of 25-30 minutes, with two cases that took almost 45 minutes to get pairings. By the time we got to our tables and were set up, an hour or more had passed out of a three hour game time. Why they simply do not produce pairings the day before and post them for the first day's game is beyond me. The second problem was that the applications that these tournaments rely on are not yet at the level they need to be at to be useful. Time could be saved by posting them on large screens using projectors or the like.
The next problem was set up and space, because many of these events have hundreds of people attending, space is extremely limited, models of course are quite delicate and the time it takes to unpack, organize, deploy, play and then repack can be stressful.
I personally think that these tournaments should have caps for the number of people, and instead the event should be organized with many multiple styles of tournament for people to play in.
I FULLY agree with lower points, and I feel that 1500 to 1600 is much more doable in the current environment and would also cut down on some of the other issues, such as spam.
I played the dark angels guy. He was spot on player
From memory he had....
He had 3 dark talons... flyers
3 squads of scouts
Belile (excuse spelling)
Loads if bikes with plasma. Think 2 x 3 and 1 x 6
Tank to give - 1 hut bubble
Dude on a landspeeder with sword twin assault n heavy bolter
Landspeeder with twin assault and heavy bolter
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
-Game is designed to go 5-6 turns each player unless someone gets tabled or someone concedes.
-Tournaments are limiting rounds(games) to 2.5 hours and expect players to complete a game within that 2.5 hours (totally doable for experienced players).
-Player(s) are being accused of building lists and slow playing so they can maximize points gained in the first few turns before they would normally lose outside of the 2.5 hour limit.
I think it just goes against the spirit of the game if true (certainly looks true though). Some players are not bringing good Warhammer 40,000 lists to compete in a tournament, they are bringing good tournament lists to exploit/bend the rules into their favor based off the rules set by the TO. Its like tournaments are creating its own sub game with 40k as its skin/costume and contestants are going to build a list around that.
This is why arguments like chess clocks and changes to the rounds time limit etc keep coming up.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
You can easily just flip this argument around and say why are you punishing elite army players and forcing them to sit and do nothing for over half a round, despite paying the same in tickets and lodging, because a horde player feels entitled to more than half the round time.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
When I'm playing my orks, the biggest time sink has always been disembarking from transports and resolving combat. Since movement no longer requires you to space everything exactly 2" apart (even for screening eyeballing it is enough), you can move blobs of 30 models pretty fast, and I'm not even using movement trays.
Nidzrule! wrote: David Glaysher (top chap btw) took a horde daemon army and he manage to finish by turn 5 and 6! What's the difference between his army and the ork's in terms of model count?
Not model count related but maybe what needs to be looked is what those models are. Orks have tons of BS5+ not that amazing shooting that takes time to resolve while amounting to odd wound here and there generally(sometimes I don't even bother shooting but that's putting unfair handicap game is not designed...If you want to go that way guns should be removed from models and reflected in point costs). Did that daemon army have primarily no-guns models? Or no-h2h but shoot instead? Hell shooty horde plays generally faster than choppy horde and even more faster than choppy horde that shoots also. Also daemons might be better killing stuff than orks anyway which fastens up. Orks tend to...Well soak up firepower and sit around but actually killing stuff is tricky. Slow so hard to get anywhere and their main form of attacks is pile of S4 -0 D1 attacks.
Orks also have the da jump which basically involves moving one 30+ model squad twice a turn. Plus possible charge move. That takes time as well.
Model count does not tell all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
Scenarios say 5 turns with possibly up to longer. Game is designed without time limit. If you put in time limit that forces to play less than scenario rules you are automatically altering game from intended.
Game(as in warhammer 40k) ASSUMES minimum 5 turns with 6 or 7 possibility.
To clarify on paul dennetts dark angels army list:
Sammael on speeder
2 talonmaster one has heavenfall blade
1x8 black knights
2x3 bikes one unit is flamer, other is grav
3x5 scouts
3 dark talons
1 darkshroud.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.
Think of it differently.
Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?
Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.
As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.
2.5 hour mark is exactly the middle of turn 3 for an ork horde. Orks fall apart after turn 3 and it's clearly seen in regular 4+ hour games. But tourneys have time limit and we get what you see there.
Not only you have to move and plan for a lot of bodies but also you got to roll a ton of dice. 6+ saves followed up by 6+ fnp. Than 100+ attacks if you actually reach something. That's how this army is designed to be.
I dont think we can have an army archetype in a tournament setting which basically has an advantage because it takes too long to play out the turns when the game is designed to go to turn 5 plus.
The point is that whether there was intentional slow play or the army itself plays slowly - this has resulted in 5 game wins which will frustrate the other player.
The reality is that there were others that played horde armies that went to 5 turns plus. David was not the only one. I know another horde ork player Jonathan Jones who did so too except for his last game, which was not driven by him but by his opponent.
Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.
We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.
Kirasu wrote: Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.
We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.
Competition isn't for everyone, after all.
Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.
Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.
Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.
Kirasu wrote: Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.
We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.
Competition isn't for everyone, after all.
Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.
Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.
Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.
Are you asking if its fair that each player gets the exact same amount of time? Yes, it's fair. What is unfair is one player getting 30 minutes and the slow player getting 2 hours as they are an equal participant in the tournament game. Like I said, if you can't play your army in the allotted time then it should be on you to figure it out or pick a different army to be competitive with. They make all sorts of game aides like movement trays for 40k nowadays since cover doesn't really matter for huge units.
In fact it's pretty wild to even have to explain that one player getting more time is unfair.
Kirasu wrote: Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.
We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.
Competition isn't for everyone, after all.
Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.
Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.
Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.
That's how I do it too. I feel like that I need to take the harder bitz of depression making out of my army the larger it is.
Have you thought abut picking up your missed hits leaving the hits for the other player to see? Probably take a little longer. Would for me anyway.
While I do think both players should get equal time during a game what happens to the left over time from the player with the much smaller army? Does that just float off to feed the golden throne ?
Kirasu wrote: Are you asking if its fair that each player gets the exact same amount of time? Yes, it's fair. What is unfair is one player getting 30 minutes and the slow player getting 2 hours as they are an equal participant in the tournament game. Like I said, if you can't play your army in the allotted time then it should be on you to figure it out or pick a different army to be competitive with. They make all sorts of game aides like movement trays for 40k nowadays since cover doesn't really matter for huge units.
In fact it's pretty wild to even have to explain that one player getting more time is unfair.
Fault lies at the GW for making slowest edition and tournament organizers for not making tournament rules that allow ALL armies to play rather than some armies doomed from the start.
Tournament organizers are still on mindset it's 7th ed. It's not. It's 8th ed. Which takes longer to play. And which GW then sneaked up army size upgrade so that you need more models and units to fill up tournament sizes.
When do tournament organizers realize that? Or at least be honest and just ban orks if you make rule sets that make it impossible to be anything but slow forfeit.
I'm finishing entire games with my orks in the same time some armies took to generate their psychic powers in 7th...
Also, without wanting to attack you tneva82, didn't you just start playing orks a few months ago? You might not be a benchmark for playing orks at a competitive speed.
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG
so... No.
You don't deserve more time then another player.
Just like a GK player doesn't get a bonus 500 points cause his codex is gak.
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG
so... No.
35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman
It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.
As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG
so... No.
35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman
It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.
As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.
If you think its not unreasonable to expect someone to play all his turns in 12 minutes while I take over 2 hours then there is no point having this discussion as you are clearly delusional.
I hope the ork player's signed up and got his army ready for that. I want to see how many VPs and KPs he's going to score. This thread has been good for putting slow play out there so it hopefully wont happen again.
I hope the ork player's signed up and got his army ready for that. I want to see how many VPs and KPs he's going to score. This thread has been good for putting slow play out there so it hopefully wont happen again.
And a few months back we had the LVO with slow play to the point where they put a judge with a timer next to the final table.
And in a few months from now we will have the next tournament with slow play.
That argument has no back bone what so ever.
You could even argue that in my turn 1 when I go first I get first blood with my shooting and then decided for 2hours 30 what to charge.... woo hoo. I win. Sorry ref... I'm just a total half wit at the charge phase mate so don't punish me.
Seriously?
2 guys...
1 board... ( sounds wrong that... Sorry... lol)
Everything is split regardless of choice. That way no one can moan. Can't move orks fast enough??? Tough luck. Can move orks fast enough??? Welcome aboard. Seriously. Stop over complicating it with minute details that have no place in the real word of fantasy space toys
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean the argument about breaking no rules.
Sorry for the no quote
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG
so... No.
35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman
It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.
As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.
If you think its not unreasonable to expect someone to play all his turns in 12 minutes while I take over 2 hours then there is no point having this discussion as you are clearly delusional.
So you're saying that some armies need more time to handle their models than others? That the time allotted may not be enough to allow a player to play all of their turns?
Welcome to the world of hordes.
Don't give people crap about "hordes take too long to play", or "that guy was slow playing the ENTIRE time", if you agree that the "12 minutes to play all their turns" isn't enough; hey, they just need to not slow play their turns, right? [And to be clear, I'm not calling you out specifically - just making points about tournament armies, time allotments, and balance between the two.]
All I did was balance the maximum time of the round (150 minutes) between both players equally; by model count. A player with twice as many models still has the same amount of phases, rules, and rolls that need to be processed per model, thus equating twice as much time required.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.
Think of it differently.
Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?
Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.
As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.
I don't view time as a competitive "resource" that each player gets an equal share of. I view time as a parameter of the game like table dimensions, nobody is entitled to it. Contending against a large slow moving horde army should just another factor in building a list.
r_squared wrote: It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?
I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.
Just a thought.
I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.
Think of it differently.
Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?
Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.
As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.
I don't view time as a competitive "resource" that each player gets an equal share of. I view time as a parameter of the game like table dimensions, nobody is entitled to it. Contending against a large slow moving horde army should just another factor in building a list.
How do you content against a large slow moving horde army in time management when building your list?
More guns doesn't do it because I apparently don't get the time to use them.
And viewing time as parameters but contending someone else deserves more of it because of their army is weird.
Does a Horde army get a 2 foot board extension to fit their army that I'm not allowed to move into?
axisofentropy wrote: Chess clocks are happening this year and they're going to make a lot of arguments in this thread moot. Start practicing with one now.
to be fair I thought this was only on top 16 tables in ITC only. Not exactly discouraging slow play.
gungo wrote: This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!
Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.
People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.
It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.
Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?
Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.
While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.
Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.
As I said Gratz on him for being the worst case scenario and for being the one of the reasons tournaments are changing the rules to discourage his type of abusive play. However the majority here are not salty that we lost since the majority never played on this tournament. Majority here are salty becuase crappy players such him are the reason we all need to start using chess clocks to prevent abusive players such as him and I play orks and guard which are the two main horde armies. So crappy players such as this guy does effect me and everyone else playing horde.
Scarecrow20 wrote: I think the ynnari player is the real winner. Ynnari are well fluffy and not a horde. Lol
I know this is a sarcastic comment but I just want to bring up the LVO semi final again where a Ynnari player slowplayed to prevent his opponent's CC army from having the time it needed to try to win, aswell as force errors as the other player speeds up to compensate.
Ordana wrote: How do you content against a large slow moving horde army in time management when building your list?
More guns doesn't do it because I apparently don't get the time to use them.
And viewing time as parameters but contending someone else deserves more of it because of their army is weird.
Does a Horde army get a 2 foot board extension to fit their army that I'm not allowed to move into?
That's for the list builder to figure out. I have to figure out how to get my Orks past the turn 4 downfall that seems to plague them. Also, that comment again presupposes that horde armies should lose and the more elite armies should have their god given right to crump you in later turns. Sometimes in real wars, they become slogged down wars of attrition, e.g. WWI. It's part the war and war gaming.
As to your second comment, I would agree with you if all armies in the game were equal. They are not. Some simply require more time than others. That is part of the game. Also, horde armies can utilize more of the board. Nobody calls surrounding transports, strategically chaining units, or blocking deep strike to be unfair.
Jidmah wrote: I'm finishing entire games with my orks in the same time some armies took to generate their psychic powers in 7th...
Also, without wanting to attack you tneva82, didn't you just start playing orks a few months ago? You might not be a benchmark for playing orks at a competitive speed.
Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.
I don't view time as a competitive "resource" that each player gets an equal share of. I view time as a parameter of the game like table dimensions, nobody is entitled to it. Contending against a large slow moving horde army should just another factor in building a list.
So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.
40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.
THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.
That's for the list builder to figure out. I have to figure out how to get my Orks past the turn 4 downfall that seems to plague them. Also, that comment again presupposes that horde armies should lose and the more elite armies should have their god given right to crump you in later turns. Sometimes in real wars, they become slogged down wars of attrition, e.g. WWI. It's part the war and war gaming.
As to your second comment, I would agree with you if all armies in the game were equal. They are not. Some simply require more time than others. That is part of the game. Also, horde armies can utilize more of the board. Nobody calls surrounding transports, strategically chaining units, or blocking deep strike to be unfair.
No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.
Some of what is being said sounds like saying logging out of an online-match to deprive your opponent of a win and maintain your ranking should be regarded as fair-play.
Ideally both players should be able to complete their turns, alternatively the onus needs to be on both players to bring a list that can compete within a set time-limit.
Orks likely are not a good tournament winning army, but that needs to resolved by better balancing, not by removing the opponent's ability to respond outside of the game with what is essentially unaccommodated lag.
Jidmah wrote: I'm finishing entire games with my orks in the same time some armies took to generate their psychic powers in 7th...
Also, without wanting to attack you tneva82, didn't you just start playing orks a few months ago? You might not be a benchmark for playing orks at a competitive speed.
Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.
What exactly is taking you longer than previous editions? My games are almost taking half the time they used to, even if I run the tide. I really can't understand how you need more time to play a game of 8th, everything that you have to do now you also had to do in 7th, plus much more (like the huge timekiller mob rule).
tneva82 wrote: Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.
So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.
40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.
THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.
No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.
I think you're being a bit alarmist, hordes can absolutely finish games under the current rules (both book missions and ITC). IMO it's the players, not the armies, that slow down the game. And in this GT case, it has clearly been the player causing a problem, his army size is just an excuse. For a different example, I believe the LVO had an average of 3 to 4 turns completed across all tables or something, it was abysmal, and this included all variety of army size. Everyone is playing slow, I reckon most people don't even realise how long they are taking to deploy.
I played a 186 model Ork army, with movement trays, competitively for 6 months in 8th. I finish most of my games in 2.5 hours, I'd say 80-90%. I've even played horde mirror, 400 models on the table, and finished just fine. When I don't finish a game thanks to time, it's always thanks to a rules lawyer, and has nothing to do with my opponents army size.
I would personally recommend you focus on your own play speed if you're having trouble ending games with Orks. I attend tournaments with full intention to complete my games with a horde, and while I am more mindful of time than your average player, finishing games is a very realistic goal for me.
Movement became faster but there are a lot of auras you got to keep in mind. The amount of dice rolled has increased significantly. Previously, a marine shooting a bolter at an ork would roll a die to hit and to wound. Now he rolls a die to hit, re-rolls it, rolls a die to wound, re-rolls it, ork rolls 6+ armor. Pretty time consuming.
In 7th edition 1500 pt games took my ork horde around 4 hours to complete. In 8th they take the same or slightly more.
I think 40k is a game designed to go for at least five turns, with a mix of armies up to and including horde armies. Absolutely no time limit is included in 40k, and at no point is it ‘unfair’ if an army with ten units takes longer to move and shoot than an army with five units. Of course it will. By the rules of 40k that’s absolutely fine (and common sense).
I’d also suggest that a normal game of 40k should include a bit of time for looking at rulebooks, explaining armies, going to the toilet, etc etc. While I think tournaments should encourage people to play efficiently, realistically the majority of people at tournaments are not hardcore tournament players and often have new units or armies they’d completed just for this event. So saying that everyone should just play hard and fast won’t work.
The reason we have all this arguing about people taking up ‘my time’ and suggestions of chess clocks is because THERE ISNT ENOUGH TIME TO PLAY THIS GAME SIZE IN A TOURNAMENT TO START WITH.
Take a load of players with reasonable sized armies they’re vaguely familiar with, including hordes. Let them play at their own pace. If those games tend to take longer than 2.5 hours decrease points size until they all finish in time. If that means 1000pt tournaments, great.
tneva82 wrote: Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.
So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.
40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.
THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.
No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.
I think you're being a bit alarmist, hordes can absolutely finish games under the current rules (both book missions and ITC). IMO it's the players, not the armies, that slow down the game. And in this GT case, it has clearly been the player causing a problem, his army size is just an excuse. For a different example, I believe the LVO had an average of 3 to 4 turns completed across all tables or something, it was abysmal, and this included all variety of army size. Everyone is playing slow, I reckon most people don't even realise how long they are taking to deploy.
I played a 186 model Ork army, with movement trays, competitively for 6 months in 8th. I finish most of my games in 2.5 hours, I'd say 80-90%. I've even played horde mirror, 400 models on the table, and finished just fine. When I don't finish a game thanks to time, it's always thanks to a rules lawyer, and has nothing to do with my opponents army size.
I would personally recommend you focus on your own play speed if you're having trouble ending games with Orks. I attend tournaments with full intention to complete my games with a horde, and while I am more mindful of time than your average player, finishing games is a very realistic goal for me.
This guy has it right. Horde armies can play complete games in tournaments but you've got to put the effort in. The players that routinely don't finish with hordes are inexperienced, lazy, or slowing game down on purpose. I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game. If one of us didn't want to go beyond T3 it would have been very easy to slow the game down ...
Just a small observation but is 8th edition really faster?
One of the biggest time sinks I used to find with newer players (pre no deepstrike T1 beta rule) was deployment, followed by turn 1.
At the moment I don't think tournament rules actually reward being durable enough to make it to turn 4+ to make people play that way.
While I get the idea of chess clocks, I'm sure somepeople will find ways to game it.
I know that 2K can be finished in time but really would making games 1.5k really be that bad, as it would ease some of the time pressure.
I get that it can make games a bit more rock paper scissors. But 3 LOW is already very much there anyway.
ruminator wrote: I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.
4 turns is not a full game though.
I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.
Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.
ruminator wrote: I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.
4 turns is not a full game though.
I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.
Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.
With the reductions in the codex, maybe its even worth looking at 1850 again?
There is nothing stopping two players who know their armies playing out a 2k game in around 2.5 hours.
Maybe being pushed for time to finish of turn 5 or 6 is one thing but "Oh its taking me 45 minutes to play out my 1st and 2nd turns, and mysteriously we have run out of time mid way through turn 3" is down to the player.
ruminator wrote: I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.
4 turns is not a full game though.
I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.
Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.
Ah, but I was seriously running out of models by then so conceded at beginning of T5 - we had time to play as my turn would not have taken very long at all and I was not catching up!
If I wanted to slow play I can do that as easily at 1750 as I can at 2000 ...
axisofentropy wrote: Did I hear correctly that GW is or is thinking about shrinking their tournaments to 1750?
I sure hope not. 8th edition seems to take like half the time of 7th for the vast majority of people I see at tournaments like NOVA so I'm not sure that fixes anything. Lowering it to 1750 just unfairly hurts elite armies in a system that already unfairly favors horde armies.
GW: To speed up the game we are going to streamline the game, we are going to take away blast weapons and Twin LInked weapons!
Reality: Instead we're going to add in a bunch of effects and auras as well as weapons you have to measure effective distance for and we are going to give entire armies easy access to rerolling every hit and wound in the game. We are also going to increase tournament size to 2,000 to compensate for price hikes
How exactly did 8th get faster?? I mean combining run with movement was nice, but what else really became faster?
Ah, but I was seriously running out of models by then so conceded at beginning of T5 - we had time to play as my turn would not have taken very long at all and I was not catching up!
If I wanted to slow play I can do that as easily at 1750 as I can at 2000 ...
Oh I agree don't think dropping points will stop slow play. You need chess clocks for that.
But dropping points will add more slack, to ensure that a very high percentage of games finish the full game length regardless of match up, army style, and pressure (like top table final game with prizes on the line). Currently, even without slow play their isn't enough slack in the system. So we either need to increase time or reduce points. So what If that means 50% of games finish in 2 hours if it means 99% of games go the full 5-7 turns.
ruminator wrote: I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.
4 turns is not a full game though.
I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.
Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.
With the reductions in the codex, maybe its even worth looking at 1850 again?
Even with the reduction that the codex's brought over the index, points are still significantly higher then they were in 7th edition. My 1850 7th ed tournament army still comes out to around 2100 points now.
2000 is a fair shake, and all in all still represents smaller forces then we used to play with. Other folks have summed it up. The more "streamlined" system is mired in the myriad of gray area's the "simpler" rules have resulted in, as well as the massive amount of rerolls that everyone understandably injects into their army, plus the myriad of strategems, and the like.
That being said, when folks are not playing like donkey caves, customarily getting to turn 5 or 6 is not difficult, no matter the army. We just need to make it not socially acceptable to slow play. I think we're on the way towards it, but we as the players need to work harder. Force tournament organizers to address the issue, and the like.
Hopefully that's the start of other tournaments following suit, but I doubt it.
I think we can all agree 8th isn't really any faster than 7th. The removal of blast templates or debates about facings on vehicles have simply been replaced by more time spent thinking about stratagems and rerolling every single dice due to a variety of aura effects. I think dropping points or chess clocks are the only real answers at this point, possibly both. I'd personally go for chess clocks at 1750 and see how that turns out. We'd also need TOs to actually enforce rules around slow play too though, and that's another element that needs looking at but I think you need something like chess clocks to make that task easier.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see whether other tournaments follow suit.
I don't think it will stop slow play, but it might make it even more obvious? If games not finishing becomes an uncommon occurance then it's much easier to single out slow play.
Adding slack by reducing points also makes hordes and other armies, that just by their very nature/number of models play more slowly, still viable to bring to a tournament.
SemperMortis wrote: How exactly did 8th get faster?? I mean combining run with movement was nice, but what else really became faster?
- Rolling warlord traits
- Rolling psychic powers
- Psychic phase
- Resolving rules that do random amounts of damage (MW instead of d6 S4 AP- hits that get allocated randomly)
- Movement no longer requires you to measure every single model to be 2" from each other model
- Movement of vehicles is faster since facings don't matter
- Moral done once, no pinning or fallback movement
- No more rolling for reserves, no more scattering deep strikers and setting them up in rings
- No more tank shocks, just charge and roll some attacks
- No more damage tables
- No more rolling for stomps or strength D weapons
- No more initiative in combat, you roll the entire unit at once just like when shooting
- No more issuing, refusing or fighting challenges
- No more measuring to remove casualties
- No more ICs joining or leaving units
To be fair, things that are slower now:
- Stratagems and rolling to get CP back
- Screening against deep strikes and consolidate moves
- Deny the witch: you need to position your psykers, you can deny more things.
- More auras to measure to. There have always been auras in the game though (KFF, Azrael, Pedro Kantor, SM Warlord traits, etc), but I think they have become more relevant to the game. No one cared about those ld bubbles.
- Alternating deployment, people are reacting to each of the enemy's units instead of a completed deployment
- Alternating combat, against people thinking an reacting to the results of previous combats, used stratagems, etc
- No more sweeping advances. Not saying that's a bad thing, but in previous edition few units survived more than one or two turns of losing combat, while now a blob of conscripts can weather a knight stomping on them for multiple turns.
- More armor saves and FNP rolls. S8 AP 3 would have outright killed an apothecarius in 7th, S8 AP-2 D3 still allows for 5+ armor and three 5+ FNP rolls.
I don't think there are that much more re-rolls than before. In 7th it felt like everyone and their dog somehow got twin-linked or master crafted weapons. There were plenty of sources or re-rolls: auras, doctrines, warlord traits, formations, etc.
Still, I think we lost much more baggage than we gained. I can easily finish a 1500 points game of orks or death guard within 3 hours, including deployment. That was not possible in any previous edition.
While writing this, it came to me that there is something that really needs to go away to speed up games: Pile-in moves. Just add them onto the charge range or something. Moving your models 2d6 to then move them another 3" a few minutes later is one of the biggest time sink for me when charging with a unit of boyz or pox walkers.
How did it get faster? you still manifest, you still roll, but now there are more denials.
Jidmah wrote: - Resolving rules that do random amounts of damage (MW instead of d6 S4 AP- hits that get allocated randomly)
How often did this really happen though? And a lot of those rules still exist in a different format. The only benefit I see is we have player choice allocation instead of random.
Jidmah wrote: - Movement no longer requires you to measure every single model to be 2" from each other model
No instead we have to measure to make sure we are in range of auras or bubbles and we have to ensure that units are spread apart far enough to stop deep striking (9' rule) and other things like piling into multiple combats.
Jidmah wrote: - Movement of vehicles is faster since facings don't matter
Again, this is minor and maybe took 5-10 seconds off a game in general. But then you also get the added bonus of everything being able to hurt those vehicles so now they have to position them differently. Still I'll give you this.
Jidmah wrote: - Moral done once, no pinning or fallback movement
Completely agree with this.
Jidmah wrote: - No more rolling for reserves, no more scattering deep strikers and setting them up in rings
Again, now you are spacing units to deny these.
Jidmah wrote: - No more tank shocks, just charge and roll some attacks
This became slower actually because its just another CC engagement with overwatch, charge dice, rolls to hit, to wound, saves and then counter attacks.
Nope, now everything can wound everything, and you better believe I have had to sit there and watch opponents blasting 20-30 S4 shots at a T8 vehicle in the hopes of denting it. So, and then we still have to roll to explode so again I would argue this got slower or stayed the same
Jidmah wrote: - No more rolling for stomps or strength D weapons
Ironically this is true but wrong in a different way, now we have to make 15 6+++ FNP saves against multi wound dmg weapons that used to be destroyer. A wonderful example would be a warlord taking a Plasma shot and having to roll invulns and then several FNP for each shot.
Jidmah wrote: - No more initiative in combat, you roll the entire unit at once just like when shooting
Still the same amount of dice, still have to roll different weapons at different times so almost no effect. How often did you have models with the same weapon and different initiatives?
Jidmah wrote: - No more issuing, refusing or fighting challenges
Very true I'll give you this one completely.
Jidmah wrote: - No more measuring to remove casualties
True, but more important in placing models then actually measuring, still a good point.
Jidmah wrote: - No more ICs joining or leaving units
This I won't give you, because now you don't get to hide a warlord in a unit of infantry or whatever and have to place all your models accordingly to provide him with cover and to ensure that those units are within range of his aura to benefit from it to the maximum.
To add to that,
Last edition 1500pts was the average, now its 2,000. This isn't as big of a deal since prices went up but I would argue that the average prices didn't go up 33% so games are slower because there are more units. Those units are no more durable then before on average but require a lot more rolls to be made for saves. Shooting requires more random D6s and D3s then ever before Ala Blast weapons going away and this has caused the game to be slower on average. More units get to make armor saves now because of the change to AP, this is a good benefit in a lot of cases but not so in others. Me rolling 20 6+ armor saves against bolters and then a 6+++ FNP doesn't make the game faster. TL was not as prevalent as you make it seem and now its everywhere. I have yet to go against a SM player where multiple entire units were rerolling hits, wounds or some combination there of. We also added new mechanics for healing units, now Docs can resurrect models and give them benefits and they can heal characters and all sorts of wonderful things, while a benefit, this does in fact slow the game more.
I could keep going but I have to get my kids to school, my point is that for every mechanic they streamlined or removed they added at least 1 new mechanic that slows the game down. Army size and all the rerolls are by far the easiest example. My SM opponent with 40 models in the shooting phase should never take longer then my 180+ Model movement phase.
The game is faster. even tournaments who record how long games last show this. Late 7th was bad and we almost never saw a game go to 5/6th turns. Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.
gungo wrote: Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.
Firstly 4 turns isn't a game of 40k even if it is better than last edition. But what percentage of games does "regularly" mean? Even if 70% of games are making turn 4, that's still a failure in my eyes. Shouldn't 99% of tournament games be going the full 5-7 turns outside of tabling/conceding? That way slow play becomes really obvious. If all games go 5-7 turns, then when a game goes 3 turns you know someone was slow playing. Right now it's not obvious as most games don't even make turn 5, let alone turns 6-7.
I tend to avoid tournament 40k because I simply don't enjoy the events, but I do tend to play a lot of organized play/competitive events for other games. In all of the other games I routinely play, it's rare for a game to go to time. I can't actually remember the last game of Star Wars Armada that went to time. For context, I've played in tournaments all the way up to FFG's North American Championship, so it's not like my local meta just happens to be fast.
Is it just not a 40k tournament community priority that the overwhelming majority of games should go to time? I'm genuinely trying to understand. From a relative outsider's perspective, it sounds like the tournament scene either need to cut points or increase round limits.
gungo wrote: Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.
Firstly 4 turns isn't a game of 40k even if it is better than last edition. But what percentage of games does "regularly" mean? Even if 70% of games are making turn 4, that's still a failure in my eyes. Shouldn't 99% of tournament games be going the full 5-7 turns outside of tabling/conceding? That way slow play becomes really obvious. If all games go 5-7 turns, then when a game goes 3 turns you know someone was slow playing. Right now it's not obvious as most games don't even make turn 5, let alone turns 6-7.
Agree wholeheartedly. Do we have any actual metrics on how many games aren't fully completing?
Both players get 1pt is they begin turn 5, win or lose.
If a game ends on the first players turn of turn 3 the game gets fifteen minutes of extra time with the opponent getting immediate turn start. Judges can be on hand to help the player speed up as needed and get through to crucial turn portions..
If second half of turn three isnt given enough time to play, the player can ask or a guaranteed fifteen minutes.
I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.
And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.
Marmatag wrote: I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.
And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.
I would still like to see 1500 become the standard for major events, forcing players to pick and choose rather than bringing all of the toys is good in my opinion. This is where a player's skill shines rather than the player who can buy the most cans of vanilla spam.
But, ITC missions are quite dynamic and entertaining. So you are 100% correct on that.
gungo wrote: Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.
Firstly 4 turns isn't a game of 40k even if it is better than last edition. But what percentage of games does "regularly" mean? Even if 70% of games are making turn 4, that's still a failure in my eyes. Shouldn't 99% of tournament games be going the full 5-7 turns outside of tabling/conceding? That way slow play becomes really obvious. If all games go 5-7 turns, then when a game goes 3 turns you know someone was slow playing. Right now it's not obvious as most games don't even make turn 5, let alone turns 6-7.
I would say 90% of tournament games do make it to turn 4-5.. not making it past turn 3 is literally a handful of people getting called out for slow playing. Turn 6+ happens but not often and you are correct it’s a point/time limit issue. Turn 6+ rarely matters as the game is usually decided by that point. I’m not saying the game can’t be streamlined further or point limits decreased to 1500 but none of this prevents intentional slow playing.
Personally I think pairing and table assignments should be quicker and be posted with 15min before the next round begins. So players can start setting up before the first turn begins. I realize this is basically immediately after the last round ends. I also think setup time can be made quicker by having preset objectives locations, assigned table sides, and making the set up app randomly determine who sets up first. That way as soon as that player gets there he sets up his models. You alternate deployment then roll for first turn and play. That basically cuts out all the wasted time in pregame. Part of the problem is a 2:45 game has about 30min set up time before first turn begins for some armies!
You never played 7th against tzeench daemons, did you? I remember games where people were rolling powers for more than 15 minutes because every unit was generating 1-4 powers from multiple disciplines.
How did it get faster? you still manifest, you still roll, but now there are more denials.
Same as above. Each power is only cast once, most armies are limited to 6 powers plus smite, with half of those being junk anyways. In 7th multiple units cast multiple powers from multiple disciplines.
Of course, all that didn't bring masses of psykers didn't bring any at all. Still, you can fit ten psychic phases from 8th edition into one 7th edition phase of an eldar/daemon/gk/ts player. A TS army is faster at casting all their powers than they were at counting their power-levels in previous editions.
Jidmah wrote: - Resolving rules that do random amounts of damage (MW instead of d6 S4 AP- hits that get allocated randomly)
How often did this really happen though? And a lot of those rules still exist in a different format. The only benefit I see is we have player choice allocation instead of random.
Every single time an ork unit failed a moral or pinning check, for example. Also every other witchfire, exploding objectives, terrain rules, vehicle explosions and more.
A single trukk explosion could result in dozens of dice being rolles just to resolve it. Assuming you roll average for every roll, a melta destroying a trukk full of boyz would result in 20+ dice to be rolled until the explosion was resolved.
Jidmah wrote: - Movement no longer requires you to measure every single model to be 2" from each other model
No instead we have to measure to make sure we are in range of auras or bubbles and we have to ensure that units are spread apart far enough to stop deep striking (9' rule) and other things like piling into multiple combats.
One model needs to within range of an aura, there is no need to measure to every model. Blocking deep strikers is done by only a few units of your army, in 7th every single one of your orks needed to be 2" from every single other ork.
Jidmah wrote: - No more rolling for reserves, no more scattering deep strikers and setting them up in rings
Again, now you are spacing units to deny these.
The only reason I own gretchin is because their job in 5th, 6th and 7th was to create 12" bubble around the rear armor of my battlewagons so no melta could hit them after deep striking/drop podding, little has changed.
In any case, the point was that deep striking a unit takes a lot less time, you just plonk down the unit like you would deploy it normally, instead of putting down a model, scattering it, and then creating rings around until you realize in your second layer that you actually mishapped, removed all the models from the table, roll on the mishap table and then have your opponent set them up in rings somewhere else.
Jidmah wrote: - No more tank shocks, just charge and roll some attacks
This became slower actually because its just another CC engagement with overwatch, charge dice, rolls to hit, to wound, saves and then counter attacks.
No amound of dice rolls are going to be slower than repositioning an entire unit because a wave serpent decided to do a belly-flow into the middle of it and the moral checks for all the units hit by the tank shock.
Nope, now everything can wound everything, and you better believe I have had to sit there and watch opponents blasting 20-30 S4 shots at a T8 vehicle in the hopes of denting it. So, and then we still have to roll to explode so again I would argue this got slower or stayed the same
You rolled the damage table for every single pen. Now you roll explodes once per vehicle.
Jidmah wrote: - No more rolling for stomps or strength D weapons
Ironically this is true but wrong in a different way, now we have to make 15 6+++ FNP saves against multi wound dmg weapons that used to be destroyer. A wonderful example would be a warlord taking a Plasma shot and having to roll invulns and then several FNP for each shot.
You might want to read the FAQ, GW fixed that.
Jidmah wrote: - No more initiative in combat, you roll the entire unit at once just like when shooting
Still the same amount of dice, still have to roll different weapons at different times so almost no effect. How often did you have models with the same weapon and different initiatives?
In 7th, if you had a unit of boyz with a warboss inside and a nob with BC, you had to roll at I3, I2 and I1. It got worse when units with initiative-reducing abilities were involved, especially when only single models were affected. You can now just pick different colored dice for each type of weapon and roll them all at once.
Jidmah wrote: - No more ICs joining or leaving units
This I won't give you, because now you don't get to hide a warlord in a unit of infantry or whatever and have to place all your models accordingly to provide him with cover and to ensure that those units are within range of his aura to benefit from it to the maximum.
You had to do that for every single character in every unit in 7th. If you put your warboss in front of your boyz mob, your enemy could just shoot him dead, just like in 8th. Except you don't have to do it for squad leaders any more and you can remove casualties from the back. Any character that can be shot in 8th could have been shot in 7th as well.
Meanwhile, you no longer need to worry whether you are leaving or joining units nearby.
Last edition 1500pts was the average, now its 2,000. This isn't as big of a deal since prices went up but I would argue that the average prices didn't go up 33% so games are slower because there are more units.
This is 100% unrelated to 8th edition. Here 2000 was average and there were some people who wanted to move to 2500 with 8th but people stayed with 2k in the end.
Shooting requires more random D6s and D3s then ever before Ala Blast weapons going away and this has caused the game to be slower on average.
Every blast weapon required you to roll 2d6+scatter dice and then count models. Templates required you to find a way to hit as many models as possible/cover as much of a vehicle as possible. And then there was the whole mess of barrage weapons. Under no condition any of them were faster than rolling a d6 for shots or even hits.
TL was not as prevalent as you make it seem and now its everywhere. I have yet to go against a SM player where multiple entire units were rerolling hits, wounds or some combination there of.
I literally flipped open the 7th edition SM codex and found three sources or re-rolling hits or wounds affecting multiple units before even getting to the first unit entry or looking at formations. Note that a lot of re-rolls were hidden behind USR, like preferred enemy, armorbane or monster hunter.
We also added new mechanics for healing units, now Docs can resurrect models and give them benefits and they can heal characters and all sorts of wonderful things, while a benefit, this does in fact slow the game more.
That's what - one additional dice roll and adjusting a wound counter or setting down a model? You're basically complaining about GW adding a new unit to the game. Docs can't resurrect models, by the way.
my point is that for every mechanic they streamlined or removed they added at least 1 new mechanic that slows the game down. Army size and all the rerolls are by far the easiest example.
Yeah, but data disagrees with you. Neither re-rolls nor army sizes have increased massively. It just appears that way because most cheap bodies are good and elite units have become junk. Almost every army from 7th is more points in 8th.
My SM opponent with 40 models in the shooting phase should never take longer then my 180+ Model movement phase.
I'm not sure what he is doing, but I assure you that not a single shooting army I have faced in 8th has taken longer to shoot than for me to move green tide orks.
Marmatag wrote: I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.
And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.
Progressive scoring doesn't help because those 120 boys will get to objectives first or at the same time but in greater number, so still outscore their opponent who can't clear them off of the objectives to outscore them in time.
Maelstrom games tho, as random as they are, probably hurt Hordes more. Since there are more objectives to claim, so the horde player can't swarm them all, and more ways to score points outside of just objectives.
ITC does this aswell with their, flawed tho I find their influence on army lists, secondary objectives. Where a killy list simply outscores on secondaries what the Horde gains on objective camping.
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.
Thats an excuse..
And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.
Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..
There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.
I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match. IMHO thats cheating.
I agree with you, but don't blame it on the army.
I'm pretty sure that I could have taken exactly the same list to at least turn 4 every game, probably turn 5 depending on how much combat is happening.
Also note that orks are pretty mono-build currently. You can't really field a vastly different list from the index without throwing the game.
I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
The issue is the kill count. Sure assaulting with big mobs, moving, rolling 100~ dice a time and then consolidating takes time.
But given he killed so little, no warlord etc its not obvious this ever happened. It shouldn't take you 40~ minutes a turn to just blob up on objectives.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
The "cheating" is that they guy intentionally ended the game early. In casual game this basically amounts to moving all your orks up to the objectives, telling your opponent "good game, I win" at the end of turn 3 and packing up.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.
Thats an excuse..
And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.
Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..
There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.
I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.
'
I have a tournament coming up soon, I am playing orkz and I will be playing the same list as I did last time which has almost TWICE as many orkz as this guy used. I generally get to turn 4 without a problem, my only time crunch happens when my opponents are playing a slow army, are rule bickering, or demanding I measure EVERY SINGLE MODEL.
My last tournament I won in the last game against the top ranked guy in our area and he was pissed. He wasn't mad at me for slow playing (game finished in 4 turns) he was mad because I brought a horde army against his Lascannon Spam army and go figure, he wasn't able to remove enough of my models before I crashed into his lines and liquidated a solid 40-50% of his army in 2 turns.
Now, my point is that slow playing is a gakky move, and this guy slow played. But to blame Ork players in general is just silly. "STOP BRINGING HORDES!" I will gladly stop, as soon as GW gives me a unit worth taking besides boyz. I have 35 warbikes, 12 koptas a bunch of trukkz and wagonz, 15 different Walkers all waiting to be played but I can't because GW couldn't be bothered to make decent rules for 8th edition for Orkz. Our options are Boyz spam, Stormboyz spam and we used to have Kommando spam but that is dead now as well.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
Half the people complaining like myself are ork or horde players no one is sad that an ork player won. Way to dismiss our point.
What you apologists seem to dismiss is this guy not only deliberately slow played and kill nothing to win. He intentionally declined 4th turns when the judge allowed it becuase he didn’t want to lose. So even in games where he had time for another turn he intentionally and deliberately showed his only tactic was to slow play and end by turn 3. The guy is a piece of crap. This is why no one enjoyed a game with him and he recieved not a single sportsman/best game vote. There is no presumption by anyone the data speaks for itself.. no warlord, low kills, no game last turn 3 (many 2), refusing 4 turns and arguing not enough time for it even after the judge says you have plenty of time, and not a single sportsman point compared to everyone else in the top 25 who had multiple.. the data overwhelming shows no one liked this guys play and showed he deliberately slow play tactic.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
I agree with you, but don't blame it on the army.
I'm pretty sure that I could have taken exactly the same list to at least turn 4 every game, probably turn 5 depending on how much combat is happening.
Also note that orks are pretty mono-build currently. You can't really field a vastly different list from the index without throwing the game.
zedsdead wrote: im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.
Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.
He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.
No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.
Thats an excuse..
And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.
Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..
There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.
I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.
'
I have a tournament coming up soon, I am playing orkz and I will be playing the same list as I did last time which has almost TWICE as many orkz as this guy used. I generally get to turn 4 without a problem, my only time crunch happens when my opponents are playing a slow army, are rule bickering, or demanding I measure EVERY SINGLE MODEL.
My last tournament I won in the last game against the top ranked guy in our area and he was pissed. He wasn't mad at me for slow playing (game finished in 4 turns) he was mad because I brought a horde army against his Lascannon Spam army and go figure, he wasn't able to remove enough of my models before I crashed into his lines and liquidated a solid 40-50% of his army in 2 turns.
Now, my point is that slow playing is a gakky move, and this guy slow played. But to blame Ork players in general is just silly. "STOP BRINGING HORDES!" I will gladly stop, as soon as GW gives me a unit worth taking besides boyz. I have 35 warbikes, 12 koptas a bunch of trukkz and wagonz, 15 different Walkers all waiting to be played but I can't because GW couldn't be bothered to make decent rules for 8th edition for Orkz. Our options are Boyz spam, Stormboyz spam and we used to have Kommando spam but that is dead now as well.
I think your opponent get pissed because his LC army wasnt effective is lame. You won fair and square.. i have no issue with you, your Army or your win..congrats.
I have no issue with Horde armies as well.. I play Horde AM. If im in the mood or the Tournament allows 3 or more hrs of time or depending on the Mission pack ... maybe ill take them.
However .. if i know im not capable of getting in games that go past the midway point of turns in my games. Im not only cheating myself..but im cheating my opponents.
Why would anyone be upset that an Ork army won the tournament?
I realise there are a few forum warriors who tend to be "I decided to collect Space Marines back in 2000, and I hate Chaos, I hate their models, their players, everything about them, hate hate hate" (and vice versa) but they are pretty few and far between.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
Wow... so you dont agree with people. You call them snowflakes. Jerk Move on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I dont see much rumour mongering .. other than calling out a guy winning a Tournament and never going past turn 3.
I dont agree with that.. and others dont as well... doesnt make us a special girl.. shame on you in all honesty for name calling.
You dont.. ill leave it at that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: No one is upset that an ork army won the tournament.
Tyel wrote: Why would anyone be upset that an Ork army won the tournament?
I realise there are a few forum warriors who tend to be "I decided to collect Space Marines back in 2000, and I hate Chaos, I hate their models, their players, everything about them, hate hate hate" (and vice versa) but they are pretty few and far between.
People are upset that someone won a tournament by deliberate slow play and not completing more than 3 turns once in the whole event. One of their opponents confirmed they had a chance to play a 4th turn in one round but were quite adamant they weren't going to do that.
All the stuff about time limits stop people playing Orks is just smokescreen. Plenty of tourney players can get 4-5 turns in with ork lists no problem, but if they didn't want to it's easy to slowplay them to 2-3 turns and win by no contest as we saw here.
One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.
Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.
Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)
warhead01 wrote: One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.
Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.
Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)
Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.
warhead01 wrote: One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.
Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.
Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)
Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.
That's what I don't get about this though. If I am packing my units onto objectives and just sitting there my turns after the first one or two should be very quick because I am not really moving anything just rolling a few shots, saves and picking up the read. Any close combat is where the majority of my time will be spent. But if my plan is to pack objectives, I can't think I would want to charge very much. haha.
I would love to read a bunch of reports on this Ork players games to get a better picture of what happened.
warhead01 wrote: One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.
Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.
Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)
Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.
That's what I don't get about this though. If I am packing my units onto objectives and just sitting there my turns after the first one or two should be very quick because I am not really moving anything just rolling a few shots, saves and picking up the read. Any close combat is where the majority of my time will be spent. But if my plan is to pack objectives, I can't think I would want to charge very much. haha.
I would love to read a bunch of reports on this Ork players games to get a better picture of what happened.
He played his army to their strengths, and the rules weaknesses. As a result, he won - people are salty at that.
I think all Ork players would rather have a fighting chance with their army and have real rules and points costs for their army, and not have to fall back to playing the game in this manner; in a general sense - but Orkz 'iz kunnin, and can manage to win even when the entire system is against them [Ork Index, Fall Back rules, BS5+, etc, etc].
And to all the people complaining "but he didn't play the next round when the judge offered it to him!" - that's on the judge for that one; he was given a legal opportunity to not play the next round, and he took it. Most likely because taking the extra round might cost him the game - don't get mad that he played the rules legally, get mad that the judge didn't enforce +1 turn, since there was extra time.
This is a tournament. There will be gak plays, players, and rulings you don't agree with. If you came to a tournament to prove you're the best, stop fething complaining and play the game by its rules. If you came for "fun" and to play against new people, then why the feth do you care so much about the win? Just concede the game and move on. It's not like you're there to win, right?
Oh wait - you are. Everyone's there to win. Stop getting salty when your opponent plays the rules in a legal manner, and comes out on top as a result of it.
fe40k wrote: He played his army to their strengths, and the rules weaknesses. As a result, he won - people are salty at that.
I think all Ork players would rather have a fighting chance with their army and have real rules and points costs for their army, and not have to fall back to playing the game in this manner; in a general sense - but Orkz 'iz kunnin, and can manage to win even when the entire system is against them [Ork Index, Fall Back rules, BS5+, etc, etc].
And to all the people complaining "but he didn't play the next round when the judge offered it to him!" - that's on the judge for that one; he was given a legal opportunity to not play the next round, and he took it. Most likely because taking the extra round might cost him the game - don't get mad that he played the rules legally, get mad that the judge didn't enforce +1 turn, since there was extra time.
This is a tournament. There will be gak plays, players, and rulings you don't agree with. If you came to a tournament to prove you're the best, stop fething complaining and play the game by its rules. If you came for "fun" and to play against new people, then why the feth do you care so much about the win? Just concede the game and move on. It's not like you're there to win, right?
Oh wait - you are. Everyone's there to win. Stop getting salty when your opponent plays the rules in a legal manner, and comes out on top as a result of it.
If you're arguing that he deliberately played slowly to merely exploit the legal rules of the game, then if the tournament has any rules at all about slow-playing, he broke the rules. This was not a legal and fair way to win.
On the other hand, if you're arguing that he deliberately CHOSE a slow army, and then played at normal speed, then you could argue that it's legal and the rules writers' fault, but you can't argue that it wasn't bad sportsmanship. Even if this was a legal way to win the game, the majority of the player base would say that it isn't in the spirit of the game, breaks the social contract between players, and is exploiting a rules loophole to win unfairly, even if it's technically within the rules.
By this definition, old RAW tricks like refusing to let Wraithlords shoot as they have no eyes would be 'playing to the rules' weaknesses' and totally fair.
If we accept that, because he won by bad sportsmanship, then it's completely fair for players to be salty about it and try and figure out how to change things in the future.
I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.
That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.
So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.
The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.
r_squared wrote: I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.
That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.
So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.
So the answer is that you must bring an army capable of tabling a horde army by turn 3??
Tournaments need rounded/balanced lists to combat a multitude of armies. Saying they should have accounted for specifically "deleting" a full squad of boyz per turn would just leave them susceptible to the next table that is running more tanks and high toughness models -- when really, the game should just be played longer than 3 turns, you know, because 5-6 turns is what is expected and factored into the gameplay mechanics....
r_squared wrote: I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.
That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.
So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.
So the answer is that you must bring an army capable of tabling a horde army by turn 3??
Tournaments need rounded/balanced lists to combat a multitude of armies. Saying they should have accounted for specifically "deleting" a full squad of boyz per turn would just leave them susceptible to the next table that is running more tanks and high toughness models -- when really, the game should just be played longer than 3 turns, you know, because 5-6 turns is what is expected and factored into the gameplay mechanics....
It's almost like skew lists are a thing this edition. It's almost like that's a problem people have been citing from the beginning of the edition, thanks to detachments.
It's almost like TAC lists can't build a list that's strong enough to actually take all comers, since a 50/50 split of anti-infantry/anti-tank isn't strong enough to take 100/0 or a 0/100 split of infantry/armor.
No one cares about orks winning or list building.... seriously.... why are people so blind???
Only thing that matters is a crap tactic with boring games with 0 votes for gaming won the gt. Massive shame.
And playing 2 or 3 turns does matter... some armies are just charging at that point. Some are just chewing through the fat of the horde... it takes numbers guys!!!
Wise up people defending the ork player (mc slowplay) as there isn't one.
He has his trophy but with the holistic view and all the possible armies you can face then 5 turns are defo needed to see who the victor is... not who manages to clock watch well....!!!!
To site a main point yet again....
Turn1.... I get first blood.
I go for a drink n a massive poo
I think What To charge n stuff for 2 hours!.
I win.
Total joke but same as what won by just less masked. ( id probably get more kill points than him though lol)
Marmatag wrote: I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.
And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.
I would still like to see 1500 become the standard for major events, forcing players to pick and choose rather than bringing all of the toys is good in my opinion. This is where a player's skill shines rather than the player who can buy the most cans of vanilla spam.
But, ITC missions are quite dynamic and entertaining. So you are 100% correct on that.
I was there and I had over 100 models. I finished every game with 30 minutes to an hour to spare and all my games went to turn 7! Except the game I played on Stream because we started late and had to be briefed before we began.
I never spoke to or watched the ork player. I just wasn't interested. But I did notice he was always the last person playing in the hall every round.
GW have recently made their GT 1750 points, coincidence? I think not.
r_squared wrote: I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.
That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.
So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.
So the answer is that you must bring an army capable of tabling a horde army by turn 3??
Tournaments need rounded/balanced lists to combat a multitude of armies. Saying they should have accounted for specifically "deleting" a full squad of boyz per turn would just leave them susceptible to the next table that is running more tanks and high toughness models -- when really, the game should just be played longer than 3 turns, you know, because 5-6 turns is what is expected and factored into the gameplay mechanics....
It's almost like skew lists are a thing this edition. It's almost like that's a problem people have been citing from the beginning of the edition, thanks to detachments.
It's almost like TAC lists can't build a list that's strong enough to actually take all comers, since a 50/50 split of anti-infantry/anti-tank isn't strong enough to take 100/0 or a 0/100 split of infantry/armor.
Oh wait, it is like that.
This is wrong. Credible discussion has focused around all lists having trouble handling hordes. TAC lists can absolutely take enough to handle virtually any other kind of skew list we've seen so far. Hordes have been and remain a problem since the beginning.
7th actually had much more problems in terms of skew lists (all AV13+, all indirect artillery fire with screens, Psychic Deathstars, e.t.c.).
Detachments have nothing to do with why hordes are problematic. Hordes are problematic because we don't yet have enough accessible volume of fire to deal with them and because horde players play way too slowly by and large whether it's intentional or not.
My FLGS is going to be switching to 1750 to increase likelihood of finishing turn 5. So I hope this really catches on. Personally I wouldn't mind getting back down to 1,500 but 1,750 is a step in the right direction.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
Wow... so you dont agree with people. You call them snowflakes. Jerk Move on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I dont see much rumour mongering .. other than calling out a guy winning a Tournament and never going past turn 3.
I dont agree with that.. and others dont as well... doesnt make us a special girl.. shame on you in all honesty for name calling.
You dont.. ill leave it at that.
You saying I'm a jerk? You're all accusing this guy of out right cheating when currently I have seen no evidence to suggest this was the case! You're dragging his name through the dirt and all you have is rumours and people (who weren't even there!) claiming things they don't even know about. We have no idea if he slow played. It could be people so used to auto winning in 40k that they don't understand it when a guy actually stops to think about his next move... it's clear the guy was playing for objectives and had some really tough decisions to make and so probably took a bit of time to make them (this is what I have been told by people who were actually at the game watching). So before you accuses me of beings the jerk I think you should all stop you witch hunt and realise the damage you are doing to this guys reputation based on pure rumours and responses from the people who lost.
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
Wow... so you dont agree with people. You call them snowflakes. Jerk Move on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I dont see much rumour mongering .. other than calling out a guy winning a Tournament and never going past turn 3.
I dont agree with that.. and others dont as well... doesnt make us a special girl.. shame on you in all honesty for name calling.
You dont.. ill leave it at that.
You saying I'm a jerk? You're all accusing this guy of out right cheating when currently I have seen no evidence to suggest this was the case! You're dragging his name through the dirt and all you have is rumours and people (who weren't even there!) claiming things they don't even know about. We have no idea if he slow played. It could be people so used to auto winning in 40k that they don't understand it when a guy actually stops to think about his next move... it's clear the guy was playing for objectives and had some really tough decisions to make and so probably took a bit of time to make them (this is what I have been told by people who were actually at the game watching). So before you accuses me of beings the jerk I think you should all stop you witch hunt and realise the damage you are doing to this guys reputation based on pure rumours and responses from the people who lost.
This is exsactly what is happening right now.
As far as I'm concerned if you are using more time than your opponent and the game is only going to 3 turns then spending any time "stops to think about his next move... it's clear the guy was playing for objectives and had some really tough decisions to make and so probably took a bit of time to make them " is unacceptable. The nice thing about chess clock play is you don't have to feel bad about going into the tank over a decision. Why do the players accept games regularly going 3 turns? Is that what they want? I'm puzzled because I don't understand how tournies in which you often only get 1/2 a game survive?
r_squared wrote: I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.
The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".
Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.
I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.
Wow... so you dont agree with people. You call them snowflakes. Jerk Move on your part.
The facts speak for themselves. I dont see much rumour mongering .. other than calling out a guy winning a Tournament and never going past turn 3.
I dont agree with that.. and others dont as well... doesnt make us a special girl.. shame on you in all honesty for name calling.
You dont.. ill leave it at that.
You saying I'm a jerk? You're all accusing this guy of out right cheating when currently I have seen no evidence to suggest this was the case! You're dragging his name through the dirt and all you have is rumours and people (who weren't even there!) claiming things they don't even know about. We have no idea if he slow played. It could be people so used to auto winning in 40k that they don't understand it when a guy actually stops to think about his next move... it's clear the guy was playing for objectives and had some really tough decisions to make and so probably took a bit of time to make them (this is what I have been told by people who were actually at the game watching). So before you accuses me of beings the jerk I think you should all stop you witch hunt and realise the damage you are doing to this guys reputation based on pure rumours and responses from the people who lost.
This is exsactly what is happening right now.
I never called you a jerk... I said you calling people names was a jerk move. Calling people snowflakes and special girls... Check. Screaming about " witch hunts"... Check. Yea I know your kind.... I'm not going to engage.
We organized a tournament at 1500, with a boatload of scenery and LoS terrain (that was in March, before the big Faq). It worked pretty well as solution to a lot of skewed list (not all of them, but quite a few...)
Happy to see that GW is catching up.
Scarecrow20 wrote: No one cares about orks winning or list building.... seriously.... why are people so blind???
Only thing that matters is a crap tactic with boring games with 0 votes for gaming won the gt. Massive shame.
And playing 2 or 3 turns does matter... some armies are just charging at that point. Some are just chewing through the fat of the horde... it takes numbers guys!!!
Wise up people defending the ork player (mc slowplay) as there isn't one.
He has his trophy but with the holistic view and all the possible armies you can face then 5 turns are defo needed to see who the victor is... not who manages to clock watch well....!!!!
To site a main point yet again....
Turn1.... I get first blood.
I go for a drink n a massive poo
I think What To charge n stuff for 2 hours!.
I win.
Total joke but same as what won by just less masked. ( id probably get more kill points than him though lol)
Ding ding ding !..... we have a winner
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cybtroll wrote: We organized a tournament at 1500, with a boatload of scenery and LoS terrain (that was in March, before the big Faq). It worked pretty well as solution to a lot of skewed list (not all of them, but quite a few...)
Happy to see that GW is catching up.
I dont necessarily agree with this assesment... However if your going to try to reduce play time by reducing points. Yea 1500 would be the point where i think it could make a difference. 1850, 1750 nah..
Think about it. What is a GK,SM,BA,DA,Cust,Nec,Tau,Chaos MeQ, ect Player going to remove to make a difference in game time play ? A dread ? Big tank ? These armies already bring smaller more elite units to the table.
I found that the vast majority of games were ending naturally at the London GT this weekend just gone. There were some games that got timed out in each round (one of mine did for example) but these were definitely in the minority and low count.
Going back to Orks for a minute, my game 1 ended early on turn 4. The table next to me was Orks vs Sisters of Battle and Custodes. When the 30 minutes left call came the Imperial player turned to me and just said “turn 2….”. They didn’t even get to finish turn 2 in the end. The Ork player took over 1.5 hours on his first turn alone, and I could see in other games why. Even when he was taking his saving throws everything was “um and erred” about. The Ork player then tried to “math hammer” the rest of the game out, to which he got countered with Custode math hammer being better than Ork math hammer – and the fact that the game was over, so it meant it was over. The Ork player lost as a result of this.
This is something that horde players certainly need to start to look at cutting out.
However, other Ork players seemed to be naturally finishing their games, often with 30-60 mins to spare – depending on matchup.
People need to get excuses such as “too many points”, “not enough time”, “too many models” out of their heads. Unfortunately, when at events, you have to look at the overall picture.
Yes, some armies are slower to play and some matchups even more so. But when 90-95% of tables are finishing on time – often early, the standard excuses don’t hold much weight. This was a 365 man event, so there were literally hundreds more “completed” games than “timed out” games.
Kdash wrote: I found that the vast majority of games were ending naturally at the London GT this weekend just gone. There were some games that got timed out in each round (one of mine did for example) but these were definitely in the minority and low count.
Going back to Orks for a minute, my game 1 ended early on turn 4. The table next to me was Orks vs Sisters of Battle and Custodes. When the 30 minutes left call came the Imperial player turned to me and just said “turn 2….”. They didn’t even get to finish turn 2 in the end. The Ork player took over 1.5 hours on his first turn alone, and I could see in other games why. Even when he was taking his saving throws everything was “um and erred” about. The Ork player then tried to “math hammer” the rest of the game out, to which he got countered with Custode math hammer being better than Ork math hammer – and the fact that the game was over, so it meant it was over. The Ork player lost as a result of this.
This is something that horde players certainly need to start to look at cutting out.
However, other Ork players seemed to be naturally finishing their games, often with 30-60 mins to spare – depending on matchup.
People need to get excuses such as “too many points”, “not enough time”, “too many models” out of their heads. Unfortunately, when at events, you have to look at the overall picture.
Yes, some armies are slower to play and some matchups even more so. But when 90-95% of tables are finishing on time – often early, the standard excuses don’t hold much weight. This was a 365 man event, so there were literally hundreds more “completed” games than “timed out” games.
I was that sisters player! It was ridiculous, a 3 hour game and I played for under half an hour of it. Even told him to do 10 minute turns after turn one and tried to time it but he couldnt even move half his boyz in that time.
Should have brought my chess clock but figured people wouldn't try to slow play me. Lesson learned!
The funny thing is, my other army is a 210 boy tide, so I know it's not hard to get a game done in 3 hours.
If you can't finish your first turn in under half an hour, play better.
I would suggest that it's very easy to finish your turn in 30 minutes, when you only have a handful of models and units, only need to shuffle around in your bubble to get Los, cast some psychic buffs and shoot.
Much harder if you play a more tactically demanding army that has a hand in every phase and must actually get across the table, slowly, to engage the enemy in combat (itself a much tougher proposition), is likely to die by the bucket load, has a handful of index strategems, still hasn't had a codex, has enemies and strategies designed to deliberately counter your only strategy, has virtually no re-rolls, few buffs, and requires careful handling to win. If you can't beat that, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not as good a player as you think you are.
How hard would it be to chuck in some anti-horde shooting? Most armies can put out a bucket load, but if all you do is setup to counter big stuff, don't be surprised if people come at you with lists that love ops with Lascannons and plasma.
It's all to easy to whinge about slow play when all you have to do is shuffle about, kill stuff and try and dash for objectives at the end. If you're used to playing on easy mode, and come up against something different, then that's when you find out how good you are.
As an aside, what on earth are you lot going to be like when orks do finally get a codex, and it turns out to be half decent? Write a letter of complaint to GW that all the orks are ruining your tournaments? Ork players have been up against it for years, and their players know how to use kunnin to win, in the rules. They're also, by and large, much less salty when they lose. With a decent codex you may see orks stomping tournaments a lot more, especially if you don't pack in some anti horde elements and refuse to deal with it.
Anyway, this guy won fair and square in the end, and if he didn't, he'd have been booted out.
r_squared wrote: I would suggest that it's very easy to finish your turn in 30 minutes, when you only have a handful of models and units, only need to shuffle around in your bubble to get Los, cast some psychic buffs and shoot.
Much harder if you play a more tactically demanding army that has a hand in every phase and must actually get across the table, slowly, to engage the enemy in combat (itself a much tougher proposition), is likely to die by the bucket load, has a handful of index strategems, still hasn't had a codex, has enemies and strategies designed to deliberately counter your only strategy, has virtually no re-rolls, few buffs, and requires careful handling to win. If you can't beat that, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not as good a player as you think you are.
How hard would it be to chuck in some anti-horde shooting? Most armies can put out a bucket load, but if all you do is setup to counter big stuff, don't be surprised if people come at you with lists that love ops with Lascannons and plasma.
It's all to easy to whinge about slow play when all you have to do is shuffle about, kill stuff and try and dash for objectives at the end. If you're used to playing on easy mode, and come up against something different, then that's when you find out how good you are.
As an aside, what on earth are you lot going to be like when orks do finally get a codex, and it turns out to be half decent? Write a letter of complaint to GW that all the orks are ruining your tournaments? Ork players have been up against it for years, and their players know how to use kunnin to win, in the rules. They're also, by and large, much less salty when they lose. With a decent codex you may see orks stomping tournaments a lot more, especially if you don't pack in some anti horde elements and refuse to deal with it.
Anyway, this guy won fair and square in the end, and if he didn't, he'd have been booted out.
Just my two cents.
I've met 3 competitive ork players this edition, and none of them have any issue playing in an acceptable time limit. None of them "average" 600 points of kill per game. You cannot pin this on the army.
r_squared wrote: I would suggest that it's very easy to finish your turn in 30 minutes, when you only have a handful of models and units, only need to shuffle around in your bubble to get Los, cast some psychic buffs and shoot.
Much harder if you play a more tactically demanding army that has a hand in every phase and must actually get across the table, slowly, to engage the enemy in combat (itself a much tougher proposition), is likely to die by the bucket load, has a handful of index strategems, still hasn't had a codex, has enemies and strategies designed to deliberately counter your only strategy, has virtually no re-rolls, few buffs, and requires careful handling to win. If you can't beat that, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not as good a player as you think you are.
Nonsense. Earlier this year I had a game where I fielded 4000 points of orks. We had limited time per turn so we could get the game finished in one afternoon. We had 45 minutes for the first two turns, 30 minutes for all following turns. When time was up, you finished your current phase, but after that were not allowed to make any active decisions during the rest of your turn (no charging, shooting, casting powers or moving, no selecting units to fight). The three most expensive units in my army were a unit of 4 rokkit kanz, 15 lootaz and Ghazgkhull Thrakka himself, so no super-heavies or big blobs of nobz/MANz to move a lot of points in little time.
It took me 20 minutes to deploy everything without sweat and my first turn was 50 minutes, second turn was 40 minutes and all other turns were finished in less than 20 due to large portions of the army being dead (you should have seen the other guy). Most of an ork army is not going to be shooting or charging during the first turn, so what the heck are those people doing taking 1.5 hours? I literally played two turns with twice the army in the same time.
If you can't manage to finish a turn playing 2000 points of orks within 45 minutes, you are a slow player and need to learn to speed up.
Buy movement trays. Get a combat gauge to speed up pile ins, spacing and combat. Get a 9" stick to measure deep strikes and KFF. Get a 6" stick to measure auras. Learn to fast-roll dice. Practice setting up models after Da Jump. Know every single rule in your army - you should never need to check a single ork statline during a match. Take notes for things you keep forgetting. Bookmark your index. Know when to use stratagems, if you start to mathhammer DakkaDakkaDakka for lootaz in the middle of a game, you're doing it wrong. - or - Stay out of timed events. Don't waste people's time.
How hard would it be to chuck in some anti-horde shooting? Most armies can put out a bucket load, but if all you do is setup to counter big stuff, don't be surprised if people come at you with lists that love ops with Lascannons and plasma.
So, you are suggesting that every army should be able to delete 210 boyz in the first three turns? Don't you think that even if that was possible, it would be kind of a problem for the game?
It's all to easy to whinge about slow play when all you have to do is shuffle about, kill stuff and try and dash for objectives at the end. If you're used to playing on easy mode, and come up against something different, then that's when you find out how good you are.
I'm an ork player. I'm perfectly aware how much less time it takes to play any army that's not a melee focused horde. Literally nothing about that is related to the skill needed to operate the army.
As an aside, what on earth are you lot going to be like when orks do finally get a codex, and it turns out to be half decent?
Hopefully I'll no longer be playing green tide.
Write a letter of complaint to GW that all the orks are ruining your tournaments? Ork players have been up against it for years, and their players know how to use kunnin to win, in the rules.
The enemy player might as well kill one of your units and then leave the table for the rest of the round because he scored first blood, leaving you to sit there for 2.5h. That's "kunnin", right?
With a decent codex you may see orks stomping tournaments a lot more, especially if you don't pack in some anti horde elements and refuse to deal with it.
Funny how hordes are all over the tournament scene. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Anyway, this guy won fair and square in the end, and if he didn't, he'd have been booted out.
You mean like the guy who helped his opponent set up his terminators and then claimed he was no longer able to move? He won, alright, but there was nothing fair about it.
I've met 3 competitive ork players this edition, and none of them have any issue playing in an acceptable time limit. None of them "average" 600 points of kill per game. You cannot pin this on the army.
I agree . and i have played against enough horde Ork and AM armies to know that its usually not the Army but the player.
r_squared wrote: I would suggest that it's very easy to finish your turn in 30 minutes, when you only have a handful of models and units, only need to shuffle around in your bubble to get Los, cast some psychic buffs and shoot.
Much harder if you play a more tactically demanding army that has a hand in every phase and must actually get across the table, slowly, to engage the enemy in combat (itself a much tougher proposition), is likely to die by the bucket load, has a handful of index strategems, still hasn't had a codex, has enemies and strategies designed to deliberately counter your only strategy, has virtually no re-rolls, few buffs, and requires careful handling to win. If you can't beat that, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not as good a player as you think you are.
Nonsense. Earlier this year I had a game where I fielded 4000 points of orks. We had limited time per turn so we could get the game finished in one afternoon. We had 45 minutes for the first two turns, 30 minutes for all following turns.
When time was up, you finished your current phase, but after that were not allowed to make any active decisions during the rest of your turn (no charging, shooting, casting powers or moving, no selecting units to fight). The three most expensive units in my army were a unit of 4 rokkit kanz, 15 lootaz and Ghazgkhull Thrakka himself, so no super-heavies or big blobs of nobz/MANz to move a lot of points in little time.
It took me 20 minutes to deploy everything without sweat and my first turn was 50 minutes, second turn was 40 minutes and all other turns were finished in less than 20 due to large portions of the army being dead (you should have seen the other guy).
Most of an ork army is not going to be shooting or charging during the first turn, so what the heck are those people doing taking 1.5 hours? I literally played two turns with twice the army in the same time.
If you can't manage to finish a turn playing 2000 points of orks within 45 minutes, you are a slow player and need to learn to speed up.
Buy movement trays. Get a combat gauge to speed up pile ins, spacing and combat. Get a 9" stick to measure deep strikes and KFF. Get a 6" stick to measure auras. Learn to fast-roll dice. Practice setting up models after Da Jump. Know every single rule in your army - you should never need to check a single ork statline during a match. Take notes for things you keep forgetting. Bookmark your index. Know when to use stratagems, if you start to mathhammer DakkaDakkaDakka for lootaz in the middle of a game, you're doing it wrong.
- or -
Stay out of timed events. Don't waste people's time.
How hard would it be to chuck in some anti-horde shooting? Most armies can put out a bucket load, but if all you do is setup to counter big stuff, don't be surprised if people come at you with lists that love ops with Lascannons and plasma.
So, you are suggesting that every army should be able to delete 210 boyz in the first three turns? Don't you think that even if that was possible, it would be kind of a problem for the game?
It's all to easy to whinge about slow play when all you have to do is shuffle about, kill stuff and try and dash for objectives at the end. If you're used to playing on easy mode, and come up against something different, then that's when you find out how good you are.
I'm an ork player. I'm perfectly aware how much less time it takes to play any army that's not a melee focused horde. Literally nothing about that is related to the skill needed to operate the army.
As an aside, what on earth are you lot going to be like when orks do finally get a codex, and it turns out to be half decent?
Hopefully I'll no longer be playing green tide.
Write a letter of complaint to GW that all the orks are ruining your tournaments? Ork players have been up against it for years, and their players know how to use kunnin to win, in the rules.
The enemy player might as well kill one of your units and then leave the table for the rest of the round because he scored first blood, leaving you to sit there for 2.5h. That's "kunnin", right?
With a decent codex you may see orks stomping tournaments a lot more, especially if you don't pack in some anti horde elements and refuse to deal with it.
Funny how hordes are all over the tournament scene. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Anyway, this guy won fair and square in the end, and if he didn't, he'd have been booted out.
You mean like the guy who helped his opponent set up his terminators and then claimed he was no longer able to move?
He won, alright, but there was nothing fair about it.
I think you're exaggerating slightly for effect with some of this. For a start, I never said anyone should be able to kill 210 orks in 3 turns, I've only mentioned killing a blob of 30 a turn. This guy took 120 Boyz I believe, meaning any tac army that had considered how to deal with hordes could have crippled this guys ability to objective camp.
Anyone can use techniques to speed up play, I used to play tournaments in 7th with the green tide and used many of the techniques you suggest, and some games finished after 5 turns, some finished earlier, but I wasn't obligated too play like that.
It's also entirely possible that the reason this guy was umming and aahing before playing his moves is because orks require a lot more thought to play than a custodes list. As you are well aware, orks are much less forgiving than most other armies out there, especially these souped up, re-roll factories.
I think theres just a little too much malice being thrown at this guy, and a resistance for others to look at how they play the game. Many have set up their elite soup to take out other elite soup, and are salty that a mono army horde list is able to beat that because "it's not fair".
Like I said, build some anti horde into your list and this problem is solved, simply you cannot objective camp if you have no Boyz left to do it with,
If his deployment and first turn take up about an hour and a half then your ability to kill a unit a turn really won't help in the game going the full distance.
Arguably custodes movement is more crucial as every model lost or not performing has a far greater impact on the list. You make a less than optimal move with a boyz squad and lose a few more bodies, doesn't really change what you were doing.
120 models is no big deal, I do that with my Nids regularly. I know AM players with similar model counts who can play a full game in the time limit. He only played 2-3 turns because he only wanted to play 2-3 turns as any more would have likely cost him the win. He just runs onto objectives, gets shot twice and polishes his dice until times up.
Stop ignoring players who can and do play full games with horde lists, this shows it can be done and players who regularly don't are either inexperienced, too lazy to get faster or deliberately slow playing. The importance here is regularly - a slow game once in a while is different to playing 5 on the trot that don't go to the end. As the player here is evidently a veteran, you can discount the first option.
r_squared wrote: I think you're exaggerating slightly for effect with some of this. For a start, I never said anyone should be able to kill 210 orks in 3 turns, I've only mentioned killing a blob of 30 a turn. This guy took 120 Boyz I believe, meaning any tac army that had considered how to deal with hordes could have crippled this guys ability to objective camp.
He also had pain boyz and KFFs. Killing a unit of 30 boyz protected by those in one turn takes 121 BS3+ S5-7 shots. That's ten twin assault cannons, 15 twin scatter lasers or 60 warbikes. Most armies, including orks, simply cannot do that.
As you are well aware, orks are much less forgiving than most other armies out there, especially these souped up, re-roll factories.
Which is not related to the ork army at all, but solely to its low power level. If you operated a kan wall in 5th, an army that plays very similar to current competitive lists, you could basically do whatever and still face-roll your opponent to death. There really aren't a lot of decisions to make in his army. Since there is no cover in 8th, all you need to do when moving is keep boyz in buff range, shoot tank bustas at targets that are most dangerous to your game plan (anti-horde!) and KMK don't even move. The only thing that really needs decision making is what unit to jump where. Even if he thought five minutes about each jump, he wouldn't have taken as long as he did.
I think theres just a little too much malice being thrown at this guy, and a resistance for others to look at how they play the game. Many have set up their elite soup to take out other elite soup, and are salty that a mono army horde list is able to beat that because "it's not fair".
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Multiple people have already stated that other orks with higher model counts, as well as a nurgle horde player had no issue finishing their games.
The issue is not orks or hordes. The issue is player exploiting tournament rules to avoid getting wiped out. A Grey Knight player could do the exact same thing.
Like I said, build some anti horde into your list and this problem is solved, simply you cannot objective camp if you have no Boyz left to do it with,
Proven to be false above. Enemy armies have plenty anti-horde to fight them - just not in 3 turns. If the game had gone to turn 4, the guy would have lost the tyranid game he walked away from, because he obviously brought enough anti-horde to kill him in 4 turns.
r_squared wrote: I think you're exaggerating slightly for effect with some of this. For a start, I never said anyone should be able to kill 210 orks in 3 turns, I've only mentioned killing a blob of 30 a turn. This guy took 120 Boyz I believe, meaning any tac army that had considered how to deal with hordes could have crippled this guys ability to objective camp.
He also had pain boyz and KFFs. Killing a unit of 30 boyz protected by those in one turn takes 121 BS3+ S5-7 shots. That's ten twin assault cannons, 15 twin scatter lasers or 60 warbikes. Most armies, including orks, simply cannot do that.
Did you factor in morale? An opponent doesn't have to kill all 30 dead, just enough to wipe out any chance of passing morale. At strength 4 you need about 100 shots to kill enough to make a morale check devastating to the unit, that has both an invulnerable save and a kff. At strength 5 that drops to 70 shots. If he doesn't have those buffs, then strength 4 shots drop down to about 50 shots, and strength 5 down to about 40 shots. That's much more manageable for an army that can focus fire a unit a turn.
Those kffs would need to be covering pretty much everywhere, and how many PainBoyz did he have? One for each blob? In a perfect storm it would take an overwhelming amount of firepower to kill those Boyz, but most of the time they may not have that cover, and a focused attack will finish them off, or render them useless very quickly.
r_squared wrote: As you are well aware, orks are much less forgiving than most other armies out there, especially these souped up, re-roll factories.
Which is not related to the ork army at all, but solely to its low power level. If you operated a kan wall in 5th, an army that plays very similar to current competitive lists, you could basically do whatever and still face-roll your opponent to death.
There really aren't a lot of decisions to make in his army. Since there is no cover in 8th, all you need to do when moving is keep boyz in buff range, shoot tank bustas at targets that are most dangerous to your game plan (anti-horde!) and KMK don't even move. The only thing that really needs decision making is what unit to jump where. Even if he thought five minutes about each jump, he wouldn't have taken as long as he did.
I think you're doing Ork players a diservice here. Keeping an army as large and fragile as orks within their buff zones can be tricky, and keeping tankbustas alive long enough to get in range and be of use is an art form.
Tonight I took my admech list out for an airing and absolutely destroyed my raven guard opponent, whilst moving my army no more than 12" in total. My biggest decision was which of the many useful strategems and punchy shooting I would use to obliterate his units with. Had I taken my orks, it would have been a very different game, and I would have to engage my brain a considerable amount more to achieve the same effect.
I may not be as good a player as you, but I know my ork army quite well now, and every time I throw it down, I have to think very hard about every single move I make, because a mis-step at any stage will lose me the game. With my ad-mech, I just have to screen, stay out of assault, shoot his most threatening units, and grab some objectives. It is 40k in easy mode.
I think theres just a little too much malice being thrown at this guy, and a resistance for others to look at how they play the game. Many have set up their elite soup to take out other elite soup, and are salty that a mono army horde list is able to beat that because "it's not fair".
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Multiple people have already stated that other orks with higher model counts, as well as a nurgle horde player had no issue finishing their games.
The issue is not orks or hordes. The issue is player exploiting tournament rules to avoid getting wiped out. A Grey Knight player could do the exact same thing.
What is wrong with exploiting the rules to win? This is supposed to be a competitive tournament, not a fething tea party. Dress it up however you like but the simple answer is this guy did not break any rules, he played the game as it is laid out and he won. People on here are salty because they don't like how he won, well, I'm afraid that tough gak really. Is it fair that other armies get all sorts of lovely bonuses whilst orks still have an index? Yes it is, because those are the rules as of the moment. Did this guy whinge that he only had an index army? No he didn't, he worked out a way to beat his opponents, and he did so fair and square.
I'd suggest that if you don't like this, then maybe the top level tournament scene is not for you, it's certainly not for me. However, there will always be people who will play to the rules as written and win.
Like I said, build some anti horde into your list and this problem is solved, simply you cannot objective camp if you have no Boyz left to do it with,
Proven to be false above. Enemy armies have plenty anti-horde to fight them - just not in 3 turns. If the game had gone to turn 4, the guy would have lost the tyranid game he walked away from, because he obviously brought enough anti-horde to kill him in 4 turns.
Again, not his problem. He wanted to win, there was nothing in the rules forcing him to play the game on his opponents terms, so why should he?
fe40k wrote: And to all the people complaining "but he didn't play the next round when the judge offered it to him!" - that's on the judge for that one; he was given a legal opportunity to not play the next round, and he took it. Most likely because taking the extra round might cost him the game - don't get mad that he played the rules legally, get mad that the judge didn't enforce +1 turn, since there was extra time.
The expectation - and this should be detailed in the rules pack (I haven't looked to check) - is that unless one player is tabled or concedes, the game continues to the end of the round, with some sort of process then in place to ensure each player has completed the same number of terms.
If a judge told this guy they could start playing turn 4, and he refused, the judge should have taken it as the Ork player conceding. No ifs, buts or maybes - play the game, or concede defeat.
r_squared wrote: Did you factor in morale? An opponent doesn't have to kill all 30 dead, just enough to wipe out any chance of passing morale. At strength 4 you need about 100 shots to kill enough to make a morale check devastating to the unit, that has both an invulnerable save and a kff. At strength 5 that drops to 70 shots. If he doesn't have those buffs, then strength 4 shots drop down to about 50 shots, and strength 5 down to about 40 shots. That's much more manageable for an army that can focus fire a unit a turn.
100 shots are 18.52 casualties, let's round that to 19. With ld 30 you borrowed from the mob you are next to, you have 11 boyz left. If no mob is nearby, but his warboss is, you have 8-10 boyz left. If the mob is on its own for some reason but he spends 2CP (which he should) he has 11 boyz left. Worst case 8 boyz are plenty to hold an objective. So, yes, I factored in moral. Since he had so much time to think everything over, there is no reason to lose more than d3 boyz to morale.
Those kffs would need to be covering pretty much everywhere, and how many PainBoyz did he have? One for each blob? In a perfect storm it would take an overwhelming amount of firepower to kill those Boyz, but most of the time they may not have that cover, and a focused attack will finish them off, or render them useless very quickly.
Four mobs of boyz, two KFF, two pain boyz. There is no reason outside of playing error not to have both auras on all mobs for the first two turns.
I think you're doing Ork players a diservice here. Keeping an army as large and fragile as orks within their buff zones can be tricky,
No it's not. All buffs but KFF can be conga-lined to. KFF is a huge area and either you decide to leave that area or you decide to stay in it. Everything else just sitting down models within 9".
and keeping tankbustas alive long enough to get in range and be of use is an art form.
Art? Hardly. Put them out of LOS or assume they will get shot. Anything else is your opponent's choice. And since they just shoot 24" from inside their transport, any rhino with melee troops inside is more difficult to operate.
Tonight I took my admech list out for an airing and absolutely destroyed my raven guard opponent, whilst moving my army no more than 12" in total. My biggest decision was which of the many useful strategems and punchy shooting I would use to obliterate his units with. Had I taken my orks, it would have been a very different game, and I would have to engage my brain a considerable amount more to achieve the same effect. I may not be as good a player as you, but I know my ork army quite well now, and every time I throw it down, I have to think very hard about every single move I make, because a mis-step at any stage will lose me the game. With my ad-mech, I just have to screen, stay out of assault, shoot his most threatening units, and grab some objectives. It is 40k in easy mode.
I'll tell you from playing orks at a time when they didn't suck as bad as they do now: Just move everything forward, assault everything you can, shoot the choppy, chop the shooty. The most difficult part of 5th edition was keeping leaf blower's manticores from shooting with by shooting them with your lootas and deff koptas (boy does that sound silly in 8th). The only reason orks feel so difficult to play now is because they lack the power to just table the enemy like your ad mech did. If you could just move everything towards that same raven guard opponent and kill whatever you need, there would be a lot less thinking involved.
What is wrong with exploiting the rules to win?
Game rules? No. Event rules? Yes.
This is supposed to be a competitive tournament, not a fething tea party. Dress it up however you like but the simple answer is this guy did not break any rules, he played the game as it is laid out and he won. People on here are salty because they don't like how he won, well, I'm afraid that tough gak really.
So you also think that bribing every one of your opponent to concede would be ok as well? Because there are no rules against that either. Before you cry about false analogies - this was an actual problem in MtG tournaments. People would just talk to their four opponent and offer them some part of the prize - since most of them had no chance at placing high, many agreed, resulting in some people going 4-0 and winning the tournament with every match being conceded to them. Though I give to you that he still won the thing, but not fair and square at all. It's the fault of the TO's really. He should just have been DQ'ed after being told multiple times to play faster.
Is it fair that other armies get all sorts of lovely bonuses whilst orks still have an index?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes it is, because those are the rules as of the moment. Did this guy whinge that he only had an index army? No he didn't, he worked out a way to beat his opponents, and he did so fair and square.
You are mixing tournament and game rules. Tournament rules are not a rule set to find holes in. Tournament rules are not to be exploited or used to your advantage. Tournament rules are meant to reign people in that would not behave properly otherwise. People that exploit loop holes in event rules are toxic to the community and need to be removed.
I'd suggest that if you don't like this, then maybe the top level tournament scene is not for you, it's certainly not for me. However, there will always be people who will play to the rules as written and win.
MC Slowplay is looking for a partner that enjoys long leisurely walks on a beach and also 40k games which last for hours but need not see a natural conclusion. After all, the best things in life are to be savoured in all its relaxed sweetness.
People who care about winning in a sporting way or believe that Orks can be played efficiently need not apply. Please do not spoil MC Slowplay's groove.
r_squared wrote: Did you factor in morale? An opponent doesn't have to kill all 30 dead, just enough to wipe out any chance of passing morale. At strength 4 you need about 100 shots to kill enough to make a morale check devastating to the unit, that has both an invulnerable save and a kff. At strength 5 that drops to 70 shots. If he doesn't have those buffs, then strength 4 shots drop down to about 50 shots, and strength 5 down to about 40 shots. That's much more manageable for an army that can focus fire a unit a turn.
100 shots are 18.52 casualties, let's round that to 19. With ld 30 you borrowed from the mob you are next to, you have 11 boyz left. If no mob is nearby, but his warboss is, you have 8-10 boyz left. If the mob is on its own for some reason but he spends 2CP (which he should) he has 11 boyz left.
Worst case 8 boyz are plenty to hold an objective.
So, yes, I factored in moral. Since he had so much time to think everything over, there is no reason to lose more than d3 boyz to morale.
There's a lot of "what ifs" there but as you admit, after one round of shooting there "may" be some Boyz left on an objective, but in this game 8 Boyz on an objective will not be there in the next round.
r_squared wrote: Those kffs would need to be covering pretty much everywhere, and how many PainBoyz did he have? One for each blob? In a perfect storm it would take an overwhelming amount of firepower to kill those Boyz, but most of the time they may not have that cover, and a focused attack will finish them off, or render them useless very quickly.
Four mobs of boyz, two KFF, two pain boyz. There is no reason outside of playing error not to have both auras on all mobs for the first two turns.
Player error for such large blobs is still eminently possible here, and single mistakes are very costly as the maths shows. A single misplaced boy can remove the protections afforded for the entire mob. That in itself will slow things down as you ensure that every move complies with the stringent buff requirements.
r_squared wrote: I think you're doing Ork players a diservice here. Keeping an army as large and fragile as orks within their buff zones can be tricky,
No it's not. All buffs but KFF can be conga-lined to. KFF is a huge area and either you decide to leave that area or you decide to stay in it. Everything else just sitting down models within 9".
30 Boyz, even squashed together is also a huge area, scenery and objective spread means that you're only going to enjoy that protection some of the time. Any decent opponent will ensure they can exploit the least protected mob. You make it sound so easy, and it's very much not so at all. Again, you're doing all or players a disservice by belittling the effort they have to put in to ensure that the limited amounts of protections we enjoy can continue to be used.
r_squared wrote: and keeping tankbustas alive long enough to get in range and be of use is an art form.
Art? Hardly. Put them out of LOS or assume they will get shot. Anything else is your opponent's choice. And since they just shoot 24" from inside their transport, any rhino with melee troops inside is more difficult to operate.
My tankbustas in their trucks are a high priority threat to my opponents and are immediately targeted by any anti tank to reveal the delicious squishy insides. My Neutron lasers would wipe out tankbustas the second they popped anywhere near LOS. Why waste good lascannon and plasma shots on boyz? Every army can deal with trucks simply and quickly meaning that these small mobz of vulnerable bustas will most likely get splattered well before they get within 24".
r_squared wrote: This is supposed to be a competitive tournament, not a fething tea party. Dress it up however you like but the simple answer is this guy did not break any rules, he played the game as it is laid out and he won. People on here are salty because they don't like how he won, well, I'm afraid that tough gak really.
So you also think that bribing every one of your opponent to concede would be ok as well? Because there are no rules against that either.
Before you cry about false analogies - this was an actual problem in MtG tournaments. People would just talk to their four opponent and offer them some part of the prize - since most of them had no chance at placing high, many agreed, resulting in some people going 4-0 and winning the tournament with every match being conceded to them.
Though I give to you that he still won the thing, but not fair and square at all. It's the fault of the TO's really. He should just have been DQ'ed after being told multiple times to play faster.
But here's the thing, maybe they should, but perhaps they didn't because he didn't actually deliberately slow play? There's lots of accusations, and many are determined to demonise him for some how"stealing" his victories by not playing fair, but the TO's let him carry on, and if they felt he was doing something wrong then they would have called him on it.
r_squared wrote: Yes it is, because those are the rules as of the moment. Did this guy whinge that he only had an index army? No he didn't, he worked out a way to beat his opponents, and he did so fair and square.
You are mixing tournament and game rules. Tournament rules are not a rule set to find holes in. Tournament rules are not to be exploited or used to your advantage. Tournament rules are meant to reign people in that would not behave properly otherwise.
People that exploit loop holes in event rules are toxic to the community and need to be removed.
What loop hole did he exploit? He played the game as per the rules. it's tough for orks to kill their opponents as combat is a tricky beast to master, especially so if they have to use those melee focussed troops to grab objectives rather than getting stuck in so it's no surprise that he didn't kill more than a third of his opponents. Also slay the warlord is a tough ask for orks now. Most warlords are very effectively buried buff machines, and we have very few tools that can deal with that sort of thing. Even warbosses are a poor reflection of their previous terrifying might. There have been times when I've even considered leaving mine at home if it wasn't for waaagh!
Besides, you know how difficult this edition is for orks at the moment, yet here you are attempting to belittle and denigrate a small victory that's been achieved, which showcases exactly what orks have become. We are reduced to tactics like this and playing to the rules with mono builds. You should be thanking this guy for showcasing how much work is needed to sort the army out to ensure that it is properly handled.
r_squared wrote: I'd suggest that if you don't like this, then maybe the top level tournament scene is not for you, it's certainly not for me. However, there will always be people who will play to the rules as written and win.
Event rules are not part of the game. Play the game to win.
I think sportsmanship is vital, I don't use rules exploits ever, but I find this sort of dog piling distasteful. Especially because it's a weaker codex army that has been historically nerfed horribly going up against soup and re-roll filth. The fact that he turned up to a tournament at all with a mono army index list should demonstrate that he was probably the most sporting plater there.
R_squared.
Are you for real.
Like seriously..... Your either mc slow play pretending not to be or your are deluded.
We're you there.... did you play him... did you see him play. Cos I did all 3!
You are wrong in so many ways and he obviously to every one with half an ounce of 40k knowledge ruined the game for everyone of his opponents.
He still won as I said before but he went about it terribly.
Scarecrow20 wrote: R_squared.
Are you for real.
Like seriously..... Your either mc slow play pretending not to be or your are deluded.
We're you there.... did you play him... did you see him play. Cos I did all 3!
You are wrong in so many ways and he obviously to every one with half an ounce of 40k knowledge ruined the game for everyone of his opponents.
He still won as I said before but he went about it terribly.
Did you read my post, or are you just reacting to the fact that I'm not immediately condemning this guy? My last post was talking with Jidmah about the state of the army, and the difficulties involved in playing it.
Besides, this was your first post on the subject, what changed in the interim?
Scarecrow20 wrote: I was at the tournament final and played the guy who won at the heats. He was a good opponenent and you can't fault his character or call him a cheat. Did he play to his armies strengths? Did he know he was aiming for a turn 2 win??? Only he can answer that and has to live with it. I do know that I would have tabled him in 4 or 5 turns but doing so was an impossibility with the whole set up (TIME), which as a player was massively frustrating for me as I knew I should / could win... but couldn't. I even stated at the start of the game i wanted a quick game and made my intentions clear but it just didnt happen due to so much stuff everywhere. As a result I've settled on understanding time as a resource as important as points and as a result it should be distributed evenly like points are. Bring on chess clocks and let's even the playing field.
Also take it easy guys. He won. Well done. It's all moulded plastic and dice at the end of the day. Let the hobby be the winner and buy some sodding chess clocks. Lol
Did you factor in morale? An opponent doesn't have to kill all 30 dead, just enough to wipe out any chance of passing morale. At strength 4 you need about 100 shots to kill enough to make a morale check devastating to the unit, that has both an invulnerable save and a kff. At strength 5 that drops to 70 shots. If he doesn't have those buffs, then strength 4 shots drop down to about 50 shots, and strength 5 down to about 40 shots. That's much more manageable for an army that can focus fire a unit a turn.
Until he has killed 2-3 units even if he kills 20 those orks aren't going anywhere. 20+d6 vs LD30. Yey. What a big deal. To have 50-50 chance whether you fail morale you need to kill 27 of them...Even chance to lose something is 25 casualties followed by 6.
Only units that actually care about morale are da jumped ones. Apart from that don't think I have failed morale with ork boyz. Grots yes as I don't have runtherds for 10 strong squads but once I get more grots the 30 grot squads will be only failing for 1-3 extra casualties. Regular boyz and first 2-3 turns morale isn't issue for an orks. Even da jump squads tend to die fully before losing stuff to morale.
Those kffs would need to be covering pretty much everywhere, and how many PainBoyz did he have? One for each blob? In a perfect storm it would take an overwhelming amount of firepower to kill those Boyz, but most of the time they may not have that cover, and a focused attack will finish them off, or render them useless very quickly.
1 painboy can cover 3 units minimum easily just like 1 warboss allows advance+charge for 3 minimum easily.
And btw if you play 2-3 turn game you aren't anymore playing 40k.
I am wondering, did that Ork play have any Key units that if destroyed/removed would have cost him his game?
I've seen some of what was in his list but can't recall the whole thing and beyond buffing a few units I haven't a clue what he did on the tables.
I wish there were battle reports covering this guys 5 games to see just what his opponents were doing or not doing.
One thing that is interesting to me is the difference in the way people play in the UK and the US.
r_squared wrote: There's a lot of "what ifs" there but as you admit, after one round of shooting there "may" be some Boyz left on an objective,
No "what ifs". As a matter of fact, 100 shots of S4 will not kill any more than 3 boyz through morale. There are 8-11 boyz left of that mob, period. There is no way to lose even a single additional boy to morale unless you chose not to spend those two CP because you feel like you need less boyz to win the game.
but in this game 8 Boyz on an objective will not be there in the next round.
Sure, if those 100 shots kill them, they will not be. However, you will lose some shots to overkill and the second unit of orks you start shooting will have 19 boyz left. You kill those during your third turn and the ork player still has 60 ork boyz securing objectives.
Then one of two things happen:
- The game goes to time and you lose
- You keep playing for two more turns and the ork player runs out of boyz
Jidmah wrote: Player error for such large blobs is still eminently possible here, and single mistakes are very costly as the maths shows. A single misplaced boy can remove the protections afforded for the entire mob. That in itself will slow things down as you ensure that every move complies with the stringent buff requirements.
Take a 9" measuring stick. Hold it in base contact with KFF mek. Place every boy in contact with that stick. It's not rocket science
The only "error" involved here is failing to measure 9" properly. There is no chance or thinking involved with having all orks of one mob within your KFF.
Jidmah wrote: 30 Boyz, even squashed together is also a huge area,
No, they are not? A mob of boyz is 5x6 = 30 square inch. The area of a big mek's kff is about 300 square inch (pi x (9+.0.78)²). It's literally ten times larger.
scenery and objective spread means that you're only going to enjoy that protection some of the time.
Like, for the first two turns?
Any decent opponent will ensure they can exploit the least protected mob.
You have one buff character per two mobs each. There is no reason to have a single mob protected less than another.
You make it sound so easy, and it's very much not so at all.
It is, very much so. If you said it's difficult to have three or four mobs inside a KFF, I'd agree. But two mobs? Give me a break.
Again, you're doing all or players a disservice by belittling the effort they have to put in to ensure that the limited amounts of protections we enjoy can continue to be used.
Sorry for not handing out pats on the back for being able to measure properly. Green tide is not a difficult army to play, no matter how much you keep telling yourself that.
My tankbustas in their trucks are a high priority threat to my opponents and are immediately targeted by any anti tank to reveal the delicious squishy insides. My Neutron lasers would wipe out tankbustas the second they popped anywhere near LOS. Why waste good lascannon and plasma shots on boyz? Every army can deal with trucks simply and quickly meaning that these small mobz of vulnerable bustas will most likely get splattered well before they get within 24".
My point exactly. There is no effort involved on your side besides keeping them out LOS. Depending on terrain, this may take some time to check if you are truly out of LOS, but there is not a lot of thinking or or decision making involved there. Put them out of LOS or they die.
Did he break any of those rules?
You said exploit, not break. No moving goal posts.
But here's the thing, maybe they should, but perhaps they didn't because he didn't actually deliberately slow play? There's lots of accusations, and many are determined to demonise him for some how"stealing" his victories by not playing fair, but the TO's let him carry on, and if they felt he was doing something wrong then they would have called him on it.
Go read page 1. He was identified as a slow player and called out on it. He refused to play a turn despite being told to do so. I think it's quite clear that exploiting time was part of his game, which is an unsporting thing to do. The one thing that went wrong was that the judges didn't follow up on their warnings.
Also note slow play gets punished in other games that are much more successful than WH40k, whether it's deliberate or not. The only difference is that deliberate slow play is punished a lot harder.
Since you dodged the question, I ask you again: Do you think bribing your opponent is ok?
What loop hole did he exploit? He played the game as per the rules. it's tough for orks to kill their opponents as combat is a tricky beast to master, especially so if they have to use those melee focussed troops to grab objectives rather than getting stuck in so it's no surprise that he didn't kill more than a third of his opponents. Also slay the warlord is a tough ask for orks now. Most warlords are very effectively buried buff machines, and we have very few tools that can deal with that sort of thing. Even warbosses are a poor reflection of their previous terrifying might. There have been times when I've even considered leaving mine at home if it wasn't for waaagh!
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
Especially as an ork player, you should aim to be the most sporting guy in the room.
You should be thanking this guy for showcasing how much work is needed to sort the army out to ensure that it is properly handled.
No, sorry. Instead, i will thank any of my opponents that manage to finishing their game on time.
Especially because it's a weaker codex army that has been historically nerfed horribly going up against soup and re-roll filth.
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
The fact that he turned up to a tournament at all with a mono army index list should demonstrate that he was probably the most sporting plater there.
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
You don't get a free pass for being an unsporting jerk because you brought a weak army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warhead01 wrote: I am wondering, did that Ork play have any Key units that if destroyed/removed would have cost him his game?
The army he played is just his version of a green tide. You defeat it by killing most or all of the boyz, which is usually doable over 5 turns.
The KMK and tank bustaz are there to destroy stuff that can take objectives or kill boyz well. Even if you destroy all of them, as long as he has enough boyz at the end of the game, he has a chance to win.
The biggest linchpins are probably the characters, but without snipers there is little you can do about them.
warhead01 wrote: I am wondering, did that Ork play have any Key units that if destroyed/removed would have cost him his game?
I've seen some of what was in his list but can't recall the whole thing and beyond buffing a few units I haven't a clue what he did on the tables.
I wish there were battle reports covering this guys 5 games to see just what his opponents were doing or not doing.
One thing that is interesting to me is the difference in the way people play in the UK and the US.
Pain boys and forcefield buffs orks to make them tougher. 120 dudes sit on objectives and hope the game ends before they die.
That is literally the strategy, there is no big secret or hidden way to do it.
You can kill the Big guns/tank busta's shooting you but then your not killing boys. You can try to assassinate the characters but then you still need to kill the boys.
If you can kill the boys quick enough you can pass him on objectives. But you won't because your not getting past turn 3.
The list isnt doing great in the US because ITC missions give little points for objectives and lots for secondaries which he won't score.
Christ you're tiresome. I didn't want to bore the gak out of everyone by dissecting every single line of your post, I prefer to have a reasonable and mature discussion without resorting to name calling, but as you're accusing me of acting like a jerk, feth it I will.
r_squared wrote: There's a lot of "what ifs" there but as you admit, after one round of shooting there "may" be some Boyz left on an objective,
No "what ifs". As a matter of fact, 100 shots of S4 will not kill any more than 3 boyz through morale. There are 8-11 boyz left of that mob, period. There is no way to lose even a single additional boy to morale unless you chose not to spend those two CP because you feel like you need less boyz to win the game.
What if you don't have those 2 command points? Or are saving them as they are your only source of re-rolls? As I said in the next line, those handful of orks will not last long, especially if they're holding an objective.
but in this game 8 Boyz on an objective will not be there in the next round.
Sure, if those 100 shots kill them, they will not be. However, you will lose some shots to overkill and the second unit of orks you start shooting will have 19 boyz left. You kill those during your third turn and the ork player still has 60 ork boyz securing objectives.
Then one of two things happen:
- The game goes to time and you lose
- You keep playing for two more turns and the ork player runs out of boyz
Split fire? Assault? Psychic powers and mortal wounds? Those boys left will only need a handful to go down as with a ld of 6 they're almost certainly going to run. You've focused only on shooting, but there plenty of ways to shift those Boyz and carry on hammering some more.
r_squared wrote: Player error for such large blobs is still eminently possible here, and single mistakes are very costly as the maths shows. A single misplaced boy can remove the protections afforded for the entire mob. That in itself will slow things down as you ensure that every move complies with the stringent buff requirements.
Take a 9" measuring stick. Hold it in base contact with KFF mek. Place every boy in contact with that stick. It's not rocket science
The only "error" involved here is failing to measure 9" properly. There is no chance or thinking involved with having all orks of one mob within your KFF.
Unless you're playing on a snooker table, of course there is. Positioning to keep pain boy buffs, reach your warlord, grab an objective, prepare for shoota fire, stay outside one inch of your opponent the variables go on . I'm actually staring to wonder if you've actually put orks on the table, or is it all about the math hammer?
r_squared wrote: 30 Boyz, even squashed together is also a huge area,
No, they are not? A mob of boyz is 5x6 = 30 square inch. The area of a big mek's kff is about 300 square inch (pi x (9+.0.78)²). It's literally ten times larger.
Again, maths over reality. We have plenty of scenery when we play in my club, and it certainly makes for challenging games and movement.
r_squared wrote: scenery and objective spread means that you're only going to enjoy that protection some of the time.
Like, for the first two turns?
If you're lucky, and it very much depends on what objectives you pull. Moving an entire unwieldy horde as some sort of super-massive death star is pretty much impossible on any sort of real table.
Again, you're doing all or players a disservice by belittling the effort they have to put in to ensure that the limited amounts of protections we enjoy can continue to be used.
Sorry for not handing out pats on the back for being able to measure properly. Green tide is not a difficult army to play, no matter how much you keep telling yourself that.
I'm arguing that it is more difficult than many other armies currently. Are you suggesting that playing virtually any other codex army versus an index army, considering some don't even play all phases and certainly don't have to advance out of their castles is somehow as complicated as playing orks? Because if you are, I disagree.
My tankbustas in their trucks are a high priority threat to my opponents and are immediately targeted by any anti tank to reveal the delicious squishy insides. My Neutron lasers would wipe out tankbustas the second they popped anywhere near LOS. Why waste good lascannon and plasma shots on boyz? Every army can deal with trucks simply and quickly meaning that these small mobz of vulnerable bustas will most likely get splattered well before they get within 24".
My point exactly. There is no effort involved on your side besides keeping them out LOS. Depending on terrain, this may take some time to check if you are truly out of LOS, but there is not a lot of thinking or or decision making involved there. Put them out of LOS or they die.
So, your answer is to hide my expensive and squishy anti-armour unit out of sight for the whole game? Have a word with yourself. How are they going to be useful tucked away all of the game?
But here's the thing, maybe they should, but perhaps they didn't because he didn't actually deliberately slow play? There's lots of accusations, and many are determined to demonise him for some how"stealing" his victories by not playing fair, but the TO's let him carry on, and if they felt he was doing something wrong then they would have called him on it.
Go read page 1. He was identified as a slow player and called out on it. He refused to play a turn despite being told to do so. I think it's quite clear that exploiting time was part of his game, which is an unsporting thing to do. The one thing that went wrong was that the judges didn't follow up on their warnings.
Also note slow play gets punished in other games that are much more successful than WH40k, whether it's deliberate or not. The only difference is that deliberate slow play is punished a lot harder.
Since you dodged the question, I ask you again: Do you think bribing your opponent is ok?
I ignored that, because it's a bloody stupid question. If he'd bribed an opponent then it's relevant, but he didn't so I'm not going to start arguing hypothetical bs that you're just making up.
I also suggest you go read page one. There are accusations and suppositions from a handful of posters on this forum, but feth all else that positively identifies him as a slow player by the TOs in such a way that he should be sanctioned. Admittedly my page one only contains the first 30 posts.
What loop hole did he exploit? He played the game as per the rules. it's tough for orks to kill their opponents as combat is a tricky beast to master, especially so if they have to use those melee focussed troops to grab objectives rather than getting stuck in so it's no surprise that he didn't kill more than a third of his opponents. Also slay the warlord is a tough ask for orks now. Most warlords are very effectively buried buff machines, and we have very few tools that can deal with that sort of thing. Even warbosses are a poor reflection of their previous terrifying might. There have been times when I've even considered leaving mine at home if it wasn't for waaagh!
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
Especially as an ork player, you should aim to be the most sporting guy in the room.
I'm not trying to justify jerk behaviour, I'm explaining that it might be reasonable that the current state of the ork index, and the required mental and physical effort required could explain what maybe considered to be deliberate slow play.
I always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt, I don't rules lawyer, and play to the spirit of the game, in a mildly competitive way. I'm lucky that my club is made up of largely very sporting guys, and we all enjoy playing each other.
Especially because it's a weaker codex army that has been historically nerfed horribly going up against soup and re-roll filth.
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
I'm not, I'm saying that there maybe reasons for the "slow" play, and also that playing to the strengths of your army in a purely competitive environment is acceptable.
r_squared wrote: The fact that he turned up to a tournament at all with a mono army index list should demonstrate that he was probably the most sporting plater there.
Stop trying to justify toxic behavior with playing an ork army.
You don't get a free pass for being an unsporting jerk because you brought a weak army.
There were people commenting that actually he was a decent guy, and not being deliberately unsporting, but thats been drowned out in the wave of righteous indignation and dog piling.
Anyway, thats all I have to say on the matter now because I'm only repeating myself here and I'm on leave tomorrow and am flying out with my family who I haven't seen for months. Have a pleasant week.
Tyel wrote: Lots of people play Orks (madness, but there you go).
They don't go to tournaments and then take up 2+ hours to play out their 2-3 turns.
And none of those players win
Per Blood of Kittens, orks have more Top 3 placings then the following factions. (as of May 9th)
Tau
Death Guard
Sisters of Battle
Non-UM Codex Marines
Grey Knights
Craftworld Eldar
Blood Angels
Genestealers
Assassinorum
Mechanicus
Knights
Space Wolves
Custodes
Dark Angels
Tyel wrote: Lots of people play Orks (madness, but there you go).
They don't go to tournaments and then take up 2+ hours to play out their 2-3 turns.
And none of those players win
Per Blood of Kittens, orks have more Top 3 placings then the following factions. (as of May 9th)
Tau
Death Guard
Sisters of Battle
Non-UM Codex Marines
Grey Knights
Craftworld Eldar
Blood Angels
Genestealers
Assassinorum
Mechanicus
Knights
Space Wolves
Custodes
Dark Angels
Top 3 in what though? 8-16 person local tournaments? because in real events like LVO orkz aren't even finishing in the top 50.
Well, they took 3rd place at the March Madness 5 Major Tournament. 1st place at the Wet Coast GT. 2nd at the Rampager GT. Warzone Atlanta, which had 110 participants, it took 2nd.
Just a sampling of the wins, so yeah, orks are placing high, in big events. Just because no one brought them to LVO doesn't mean they aren't capable of competing to a high level.
What if you don't have those 2 command points? Or are saving them as they are your only source of re-rolls? As I said in the next line, those handful of orks will not last long, especially if they're holding an objective.
Ork army is quaranteed to have 8 CP's minimum. 3 turn game. 3xmorale CP=6. That's more than enough. In 2-3 turn game that ork army is aiming to play CP's aren't going to run out. Especially as he doesn't really need CP for rerolls when he for example isn't planning of killing anything so rerolling to help kill stuff isn't worth it. Holding troops alive is.
Though then again to get even chance of morale casualties require 25 casualties minimum against LD30.
Split fire? Assault? Psychic powers and mortal wounds? Those boys left will only need a handful to go down as with a ld of 6 they're almost certainly going to run. You've focused only on shooting, but there plenty of ways to shift those Boyz and carry on hammering some more.
LD6? Boyz have LD30. Especially in 2-3 turn game. IF you don't have LD30 you have played it piss poorly.
The pain boy is a modest buff from a weak character highly susceptible to sniper fire.
Of course snipers not being generally that useful means you are unlikely to run against one as not many go to tournament list tailoring against orks who are never winning tournament without slow playing 2-3 turn games.
So, your answer is to hide my expensive and squishy anti-armour unit out of sight for the whole game? Have a word with yourself. How are they going to be useful tucked away all of the game?
OF course in 2-3 turn game they are only really needed for that 1 round.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Lots of people play Orks (madness, but there you go).
They don't go to tournaments and then take up 2+ hours to play out their 2-3 turns.
Yes. And that's why they get blown out of table on turns 4-5 and thus don't win tournaments.
Well made gun line will easily wipe floor with ~150-170 ork infantry in 4 turns. It's easily seen pattern where ork can hold up for about 3 turns maybe even leading on objectives and then running out of boyz(and generally not killing much of enemy) just collapses.
Nonsense. Earlier this year I had a game where I fielded 4000 points of orks. We had limited time per turn so we could get the game finished in one afternoon. We had 45 minutes for the first two turns, 30 minutes for all following turns.
When time was up, you finished your current phase, but after that were not allowed to make any active decisions during the rest of your turn (no charging, shooting, casting powers or moving, no selecting units to fight)
))
