What is the best way to make sure that more tournament games come to their natural conclusion?

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.

**Dozer Blades**

In regards to pre-measurement I don't care if it was Jesus across the table... if they are standing around contemplating for more than say two minutes I will get a judge and put a stop to crap like that. There is also classic stuff like the guy with ONE drop pod who walks around and around the table for over 15 minutes deciding where to place it.

It's TOTALLY not about satisfying some competitive win/loss obsessed group that has a different viewpoint than you.

QFT!

**schadenfreude**

People are posting subjective experience instead of objective data because there is no available objective data.

When players turn in their score cards and sportsmanship the tie the game finished should be recorded with the battle points and sportsmanship. Include 3 questions.

Exact time the game finished.

Turn the game finished.

Did the game conclude.

Objective data can then be analyzed by TOs and the player base to determine if there is enough time for the round at the point value played.

It's also good for diagnosing who the slowest players are and informing them in a non judgmental way that they are playing too slow and need to find a way to speed up their game.

**MVBrandt**

Phazael wrote:
Misinformation is a strong word, but this is what I observed and feel free to correct this somewhat anecdotal data. The flyers in the top ten were generally either Helldrakes or FMCs, both things that are pretty resistant to FW anti-air units, or capable of hovering in cover to gain some resistance. In fact, Helldrake bitching was the primary topic of conversation among 40k players that weekend. And with good reason, as there were more of those than the Cron fliers that all the pro-FW people were moaning and groaning about on dakka in the lead up to BAO. That's not really pertinent to the discussion, however, so I don't want to derail the topic nitpicking what was otherwise the top 40k event of the pacific time zone.

But no, not many TOs collect that sort of data and fewer still make it available for public consumption. Again, not being critical, just seriously asking if you are ok with a 40% incomplete rate on tournament games. That's really the main question I would like to hear you (and MVB) comment on in more detail. I know in the little 10-20 man things I run I have started awarding a point for completing games to at least turn five, so I have an idea of what the completion percentage is like, and its not very good, though it has steadily improved. In the three RTTs I have run since tracking this information, 72 out of the 134 games reached at least turn five, which means that at best I am seeing something like a 60%ish completion rate this year (ironically close to your large event). I saw dramatic improvements in the RTTs where I dumped random objectives and kept to the simpler book missions (like nearly all games completed in those RTTs) with preset terrain. The one constant is that the horde staller guys never seem to get past turn three and armies using lots of psychers (new elder especially) slow the game to a crawl.

I would really like to see Brandt's information on this topic, as its the most directly comparable to BAO in terms of game logistics and general format.

Our completion percentage as far as people REPORTED on their scoresheets was very high, on the order of somewhere between 85-90% I think. I didn't think Reece's comment about more diversity than NOVA meant anything, because Eldar/Tau weren't out for the event he's quoting; meaningless comparison, so I thought he was just saying it to say it.

My opinion is people at the least felt rushed, and plenty of players didn't finish at least a game or two it seems like. If 85-90% of games finished, that doesn't mean 85-90% of players finished all their games. Some miserably low % even may not have finished ALL their games, and that's annoying even if the net game-by-game completion % was more akin to AdeptiCon's than BAO's.

Personally I am already on record either here or elsewhere saying we're going to try to add more functional time for players, including 15-minute lead from when pairings go up to when the actual clock starts. We'll look at points changes as well, and that's really too soon / tbd at this point.

**Blackmoor**

Reecius wrote:

Even when you remove the games that didn't finish due to inexperience from the mix, it is a large portion of games. We recognize that. However, as we run additional events this year, we are seeing that with adequate spacing between tables and informing the players of the time limits better, games flow right along and our completion ratio has gone way up.

Why do games not finishing due to inexperience not count to you?

I played one of them in the first round of the BAO and ended up in a tie because my game only lasted 4 turns. If you are not getting in the full game it does not matter why

**RiTides**

schadenfreude wrote:
When players turn in their score cards and sportsmanship the tie the game finished should be recorded with the battle points and sportsmanship. Include 3 questions.

Exact time the game finished.

Turn the game finished.

Did the game conclude.

Objective data can then be analyzed by TOs and the player base to determine if there is enough time for the round at the point value played.

It's also good for diagnosing who the slowest players are and informing them in a non judgmental way that they are playing too slow and need to find a way to speed up their game.

This would be awesome, imo!

Also thanks to the TOs posting here (Reecius, MVBrandt and muwhe being the big ones, but all the TOs!) for taking an interest and sharing your thoughts / data, it is truly appreciated

**Dozer Blades**

"Why do games not finishing due to inexperience not count to you?

I played one of them in the first round of the BAO and ended up in a tie because my game only lasted 4 turns. If you are not getting in the full game it does not matter why."

I agree 100 percent. I had a game a year ago in a major event where my opponent said he hadn't played in a long time. He had a solid list in my opinion. As the game progressed he played slower and slower. It only went four turns and I would have most likely won if it had gone one more turn but ended as a draw.

**Phazael**

The other thing is in large scale tournaments you basically HAVE to adhere to a very strict time schedule, especially with as many rounds as the bigger ones have been cramming in. RTTs can slop around a little bit and extend the round a little here and there, but the monster ones with 4 games packed into a single day pretty much have no wiggle room. I think once the numbers climb to BAO and Nova levels, you really need a judge or two just roaming the hall and prodding the lethargic guys.

**Evil Lamp 6**

Phazael wrote:
The other thing is in large scale tournaments you basically HAVE to adhere to a very strict time schedule, especially with as many rounds as the bigger ones have been cramming in. RTTs can slop around a little bit and extend the round a little here and there, but the monster ones with 4 games packed into a single day pretty much have no wiggle room. I think once the numbers climb to BAO and Nova levels, you really need a judge or two just roaming the hall and prodding the lethargic guys.

Tasers for the TO's then for slow players?

**derek**

RiTides wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
When players turn in their score cards and sportsmanship the tie the game finished should be recorded with the battle points and sportsmanship. Include 3 questions.

Exact time the game finished.

Turn the game finished.

Did the game conclude.

Objective data can then be analyzed by TOs and the player base to determine if there is enough time for the round at the point value played.

It's also good for diagnosing who the slowest players are and informing them in a non judgmental way that they are playing too slow and need to find a way to speed up their game.

This would be awesome, imo!

Also thanks to the TOs posting here (Reecius, MVBrandt and muwhe being the big ones, but all the TOs!) for taking an interest and sharing your thoughts / data, it is truly appreciated

When we made score cards for last weekend's local con, I actually updated them to include a question on whether the game timed out or not. From my subjective observation of the tournament in progress, the newer players were going to time (we had one that Round 1 was about their 4th game of 40k, and one younger player that had never played with 1850 in a tournament before), and the more experienced ones were finishing within the round time alloted. I don't think the top table ever timed out. I don't have the objective data yet, because I wasn't the one running the tournament software, but I'll make sure to get it soon. It wasn't a large event, but it's a start.

Because of fatigue, both player and TO, we're probably going to look at lowering points for next year, and with that the round time as well. It'll be fun once I get the objective data to see if the % changes from year to year with this.

**RiTides**

That's great, Derek, thanks for adding in the question!

**derek**

Got access to the timeouts info today. Over 25 games, six didn't finish. Of those six, the two new players accounted for four of them. 6/25 is roughly 1/4th of the games, but if I remove the games played by players with less than 10 games under their belt, it's a much better 2/25. I know one of the time outs posts here, so I'll see if I can't have him pop in to explain what went on.

**Blackmoor**

derek wrote:
Got access to the timeouts info today. Over 25 games, six didn't finish. Of those six, the two new players accounted for four of them. 6/25 is roughly 1/4th of the games, but if I remove the games played by players with less than 10 games under their belt, it's a much better 2/25. I know one of the time outs posts here, so I'll see if I can't have him pop in to explain what went on.

Can you give some more information on those numbers?

How many points?
How long where the rounds?
How many players?
How many Demons, Tau, and Eldar players?

Thanks!

**scuddman**

I always thought points inflation was ridiculous. Troops over time have been getting cheaper, not more expensive...more points just means you can take all the crazy destructive toys.
I hear this bullcrap about how the game isn't balanced at low point...uh...it's way better balanced at 1500 than it is at 2000 or 2500. You see way more spam at 2500 because you have the points for 3 land raiders or 3 whatever.

At 1500, you have to make some tough choices when designing your army.

**Dozer Blades**

I played a game yesterday with six psykers in my army. All were either level 2 or 3. We timed it out... Under two minutes to roll for all the spells.

**Breng77**

scuddman wrote:
I always thought points inflation was ridiculous. Troops over time have been getting cheaper, not more expensive...more points just means you can take all the crazy destructive toys.
I hear this bullcrap about how the game isn't balanced at low point...uh...it's way better balanced at 1500 than it is at 2000 or 2500. You see way more spam at 2500 because you have the points for 3 land raiders or 3 whatever.

At 1500, you have to make some tough choices when designing your army.

You say that but some armies need to make much tougher choices than others. Armies with Good troops really benefit from lower points than do armies with meh troops. I also still disagree with the you see more spam at higher points argument. You will see just as much at lower points, but it will be more focused on armies that can spam good things with troops

Cron Flyers
Serpent Spam

etc.

**Tomb King**

I would lean towards increasing the time of the games. 6th Edition has so many rules that require multiple things to be done in a turn that normally were not an issue.

An easy example:
Crisis suits, riptides, and/or jetbikes can now move 3 times in one turn.

Move, run/turbo, assault moves. All of which require thought on where to place those models. Add this to the fact that some people have multiple of these.

**derek**

Blackmoor wrote:
derek wrote:
Got access to the timeouts info today. Over 25 games, six didn't finish. Of those six, the two new players accounted for four of them. 6/25 is roughly 1/4th of the games, but if I remove the games played by players with less than 10 games under their belt, it's a much better 2/25. I know one of the time outs posts here, so I'll see if I can't have him pop in to explain what went on.

Can you give some more information on those numbers?

How many points?
How long where the rounds?
How many players?
How many Demons, Tau, and Eldar players?

Thanks!

Sure, I'd posted the time and points in the other thread, but forgot to repost it here. It was an 1850 point tournament, with 2.5 hour rounds, with a free 15 minutes of set up with your game starting the moment you were set up (so no waiting for an official start).

We had 10 players. Of that field, 2 were demons (both without allies), and one was Eldar (again no allies) . The Eldar player never timed out. Of the Demon players, only one had a game time out. There were two Tyranid players. One timed out once, the other timed out twice (new player). There were two IG, with one of those (who was allied with Space Wolves) timing out three times (this was also a newer player). The timeouts that didn't happen amongst newer players was Tyranids against CSM/Necrons, and Space Wolves (no allies) against Demons.

**Phazael**

This might seem like a stupid suggestion, but putting a cap on total number of units (in larger points) is likely away to shut down a lot of time outs (plus making it harder to stall). Of course you are cutting out a few builds in that instance, though not many of those climb above 12 KP. Its generally the MSU spam lists, particularly with assault elements, that eat clock.

This kind of dove tails with my point about inexperienced players (and intentional slow players) causing issues with larger armies. I do not think it is unreasonable to tell people with >15 KP in a list that they are being held to a higher standard for completing their games. It still requires some proactive work by event organizers, though, which I think any solution to this issue is going to ultimately need. I don't think its fair to eat a loss at an event because Timmy NidNewb decided it was a good weekend to try out Tervi-spam and its really the TOs job to nip that in the bud, when possible.

**Target**

Phazael wrote:
This might seem like a stupid suggestion, but putting a cap on total number of units (in larger points) is likely away to shut down a lot of time outs (plus making it harder to stall). Of course you are cutting out a few builds in that instance, though not many of those climb above 12 KP. Its generally the MSU spam lists, particularly with assault elements, that eat clock.

This kind of dove tails with my point about inexperienced players (and intentional slow players) causing issues with larger armies. I do not think it is unreasonable to tell people with >15 KP in a list that they are being held to a higher standard for completing their games. It still requires some proactive work by event organizers, though, which I think any solution to this issue is going to ultimately need. I don't think its fair to eat a loss at an event because Timmy NidNewb decided it was a good weekend to try out Tervi-spam and its really the TOs job to nip that in the bud, when possible.

This is silly.

You can have "Timmy Nidnewb" make a tervigon spam list with only 10 KP, that blooms into 20, how would you handle this, tell him he can't spawn? Or alright, I'll run a low KP list - blob guard. Or my list with 120 kroot, 3 riptides, and 3 skyrays - no worries, all low KP guys!

There isn't any miracle cure or catch all or composition requirement that will fix this. The game currently takes longer than it used to, and armies (esp. basic troops) have went down in cost. More models + slightly slower system + no change in time limits = games aren't finishing. Lower the points values or extend round times, those are the only two real solutions from an organizers perspective. All players need to practice and become quicker with their armies, yes, but from a TO perspective if you're concerned your games aren't finishing "players need to play faster" isn't a solution (I've seen one or two guys in this thread mention that essentially).

**Phazael**

You are pummeling a strawman here. The basic principle is that someone who is a newer playing a high kill point Army is likely doing a disservice to other players by creating negative experience for everyone they play. Aside from Seer council list, its always the high unit count lists that create the issues. It was a very basic idea I tossed out for discussion, but I think one tervigon generally equates to three actual units in play, so a triple tervy list with ten kp is really more like a sixteen kp army, in terms of speed of play. Probably worse since it is likely to have several cc elements.

This isn't meant as a hard and fast rule but more of a guideline on how to narrow down which players are likely to cause a problem with time

**Breng77**

Phazael wrote:
You are pummeling a strawman here. The basic principle is that someone who is a newer playing a high kill point Army is likely doing a disservice to other players by creating negative experience for everyone they play. Aside from Seer council list, its always the high unit count lists that create the issues. It was a very basic idea I tossed out for discussion, but I think one tervigon generally equates to three actual units in play, so a triple tervy list with ten kp is really more like a sixteen kp army, in terms of speed of play. Probably worse since it is likely to have several cc elements.

This isn't meant as a hard and fast rule but more of a guideline on how to narrow down which players are likely to cause a problem with time

Except that it is not true at all, it is high model count not high unit count armies that take a long time to play, or armies that have units that do a lot (cast psychic powers, move, shoot, Run, assault, JSJ...)

I could make a really high unit count army (say Razor Spam, or Cron Flyers) that plays very quickly for instance

Cotaez

6 x 3 acolytes in Razorbacks
3 x 5 Purifiers in Razorbacks
3 x 5 Purgation in Razorbacks

Company Command Squad in Chimera
2 x Vets in Chimera

31 KPs and Probably plays much faster than many armies out there as I'm only moving 15 Models most turns, usually only during 1 Phase, I have 6 units that really don't contribute much to the game at all. I'm casting Max 2 powers each turn during movement (more other times but not that often)
5th Ed had lots of vehicle spam, which also helped make the game faster. If I need to measure and move 180+ models each turn, that is far slower than moving 15 models.

**Lansirill**

Phazael wrote:
You are pummeling a strawman here. The basic principle is that someone who is a newer playing a high kill point Army is likely doing a disservice to other players by creating negative experience for everyone they play. Aside from Seer council list, its always the high unit count lists that create the issues. It was a very basic idea I tossed out for discussion, but I think one tervigon generally equates to three actual units in play, so a triple tervy list with ten kp is really more like a sixteen kp army, in terms of speed of play. Probably worse since it is likely to have several cc elements.

This isn't meant as a hard and fast rule but more of a guideline on how to narrow down which players are likely to cause a problem with time

It sounds like you're suggesting making some sort of use of comp. Not so much as a hard requirement or score (so you could play a low comp army with no penalty to your standings), but as a guideline for TOs to keep an eye on certain matches and make sure the games aren't being dragged out. It doesn't address what the TO is going to do about someone playing slow (intentionally or not,) but it may not be a bad way to help a TO know where to look.

As far as lower points or longer rounds go, as an exceptionally casual occasional tournament player I'd rather see lower point games than longer rounds. These things tend to eat up most if not all of the day, and have relatively sparse breaks (a lot of the 30 minutes will get eaten by dealing with my score sheet, getting my army organized back on its tray, grabbing a bathroom break, etc... if I get 10 minutes to actually relax it's an exception.) Making the rounds longer is just going to make that worse. As a more casual player, I don't see a problem with going down to 1500 points (or, heck, even 1000 but that's unlikely.) Sure it's going to change which armies and which builds are competitive, but so what? At 1850 some builds are better than others, at 1500 you'll have the same thing. At least at 1500 points you have a slightly shorter, more relaxed game, with more time to BS with your opponent and enjoy the game.

Has anyone given some evidence that the game doesn't work at 1500 points?

**Breng77**

Here is the thing though with longer rounds. In my experience with 3 hour rounds most players finish early. So if most players are finishing games with 15 to 30 min left in the round, then spend 5-10 min scoring the round, and then have 30 min post round. You end up with longer breaks on average. Furthermore, with shorter rounds more games run into the break (finishing the final turn) and eat into your break time.

As for lowering points...I don't find it effects time as much as people claim. Droping from 2k to 1850 or 1750 does not reduce the time it takes to play the game significantly, 1500 helps but not by as much as you would expect.

Let me put it this way. Say we accept that 1500 points is say 15 min shorter than 2k or 1850. And our standard round is 2.5 hours. So say 2k is running just over, and 1500 is finishing 7 turns. Then if I add half an hour (still keeping breaks at 30 min) and then most people are finishing in 2.75 hours I then most players have a longer break.