Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

Space Marines game end on 5

Dark Angels ends on turn 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C'est la Guerre I reckon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random game length is important.


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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm shocked, sir, shocked!



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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's kind of an example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That evil would be price...hehehe.

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

That evil would be price...hehehe.

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

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

So say we all. Lol.

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

I've had this happen.

One of my recent battles was my Orks vs BA.

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

It didn't


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

Nope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TEXT WALL!

This isn't really about self interest, chaos0xomega.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a good answer to it.

Play better.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

TedNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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



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