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.

Janthkin wrote:Whoa there, Shep - I didn't ask for longer rounds at this point level, merely said that 2:20 isn't long enough for 2000 pt games. I'm fine either way - run 1850 at 2:15, run 2000 at 2:30 (or 2:45 if you can swing it). That extra 150 pts, for my Tyranids, meant another 19 models in the list to setup, move, shoot/run, assault, and for my enemy to kill.

I love my nids, and I do think that foot hordes bring a lot of dynamism to the metagame. It sounded a lot like Mark was leaning a little bit towards possible shrinking the game size a bit. Its good to hear that you'd be just as happy playing at 1850 though. I'm never sure how people weigh in on the game size thing.

Janthkin wrote:1 of my 2 games that didn't finish was against Orks. There were a LOT of models on that table, and we were rolling a lot of dice. It happens. Another game finished a good 20-25 minutes early (against Daemons), and one finished about 2 hours early.

That sounds about right. I played yakface at 1500 with my nids at an RTT event and we couldn't get anything done. I had fun, but basically 20 minutes into the game the entire board was just a number of highly complicated multi-assaults being resolved ad infinitum. With everyone else finishing comfortably in their time limit, except a couple of CC oriented horde players getting matched up, its just a flaw in the time limit method. I suppose its a risk you gamble on when you take that bigger army.

Janthkin wrote:If presented with another 2k tournament with 2:20 rounds, I'll almost certainly choose not to bring Tyranids, and I'd expect Yakface will choose not to bring foot orks; whether that has any significance for the organizers is up to them. As I said, I had fun, and I'm glad I went. Everything past that is either an observation or a suggestion/aspiration for improvement, not a complaint.

The tourney organizers absolutely see significance in that. Mark's only painted army is a big ole massive lumbering ork army, and when he sees missions pop up or time constraints pop up that hinder his favorite army unfairly, he makes a note. And Janthkin not playing nids, or Yakface not playing orks, would be as tragic as Bret Favre not playing for Green Bay.

It is a pretty safe bet that an adjustment will be made, either in time limit or in points size. And i know Mark really wants the feedback and the data, so keep it coming

and also my apologies if the tone was heavy at all in my earlier reply.

Janthkin wrote:

If presented with another 2k tournament with 2:20 rounds, I'll almost certainly choose not to bring Tyranids, and I'd expect Yakface will choose not to bring foot orks; whether that has any significance for the organizers is up to them. As I said, I had fun, and I'm glad I went. Everything past that is either an observation or a suggestion/aspiration for improvement, not a complaint.

It's of great consequence to me because the last thing I want is people not playing what they consider their "best" army because of circumstances like time constraints.

2:20 feels typical to me for a 2000 point game playing at "tournament speed" as opposed to "casual speed". However if it really is shutting our horde players then I probably am going to stay away from 2000 point games because increasing the round length isn't really a practical option. I'm curious what you would consider a proper amount of time for a 1500 point game, since we run the majority of our tournaments at that point level.

Kevin Nash wrote:2:20 feels typical to me for a 2000 point game playing at "tournament speed" as opposed to "casual speed". However if it really is shutting our horde players then I probably am going to stay away from 2000 point games because increasing the round length isn't really a practical option. I'm curious what you would consider a proper amount of time for a 1500 point game, since we run the majority of our tournaments at that point level.

I have no problems with 1:45 for 1500 pt games (though the RTTs I run allow 2 hours; my local group has quite a few novices).

It's a hard calculation, because it's not a linear relationship for points, but rather by model count - if it was linear by points, then 2:20 for 2k would follow naturally from 1:45 for 1500. But, at least in my various builds, that last 500 adds disproportionately more bodies - you still have to have your HQ, Elites, and Heavies at 1500, but that extra 500 pts means more (relatively cheap) Troops for many armies.

I may have to go ahead and make full-on movement trays for Gargoyles, as well as the deployment trays I use for all the other foot troops; it's about the only place left to speed up my horde game.

Great tournament! Had lots of fun and nice tables. Well Organized and good prizes given that there were only 21 people @ $25!

My only comment would be to add "battle points" to the missions. I.E. do Capture and Control, but make kill points secondary for a +1 (any number of secondary / tertiary objectives can be done, this one was just a quick example). I'd just like to see more spread within the standings that is player controlled. I realize the benefits of a straight strength of schedule system, but I find it more satisfying when I am in greater control of the outcome.

Great Job! Looking forward to the next one.

Shep wrote:That sounds about right. I played yakface at 1500 with my nids at an RTT event and we couldn't get anything done. I had fun, but basically 20 minutes into the game the entire board was just a number of highly complicated multi-assaults being resolved ad infinitum. With everyone else finishing comfortably in their time limit, except a couple of CC oriented horde players getting matched up, its just a flaw in the time limit method. I suppose its a risk you gamble on when you take that bigger army.

There's an important point hidden in your statement there - Assault slows the game down, because it is highly interactive, and both players are acting in each assault phase. (Contrast with an IG shooting phase, which will also involve absurd numbers of dice, but happens only once per game turn.)

I'm curious how a jumppack-based BA army would do in that time frame - they have a slightly lower model count, but more complicated wound allocation/reroll dynamics than most foot hordes. All genestealers are created equal, but there are 4-5 wound "buckets" in that BA assault squad w/attached Priest.

The thing that gets a bit annoying for those of us who take the hit and take smaller elite armies is that we end up either waiting around for 45 minutes or when we play against horde armies that the horde player are rushing us even though we only play for about 35-40% of the amount of time.

There is no 100% solution to this sort of thing. I think the best way to look at it is by a bell curve. Drop the first game or two done and the last game or two done and see if everyone else was able to finish their game in a comfortable amount of time. If so, then the game time was probably about right, if not then there needs to be more time.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Kevin Nash, did you keep track of how many games had to be called prematurely due to time? If so, what round they were on? I think that data point should be collected.

Somnicide wrote:The thing that gets a bit annoying for those of us who take the hit and take smaller elite armies is that we end up either waiting around for 45 minutes or when we play against horde armies that the horde player are rushing us even though we only play for about 35-40% of the amount of time.

There is no 100% solution to this sort of thing. I think the best way to look at it is by a bell curve. Drop the first game or two done and the last game or two done and see if everyone else was able to finish their game in a comfortable amount of time. If so, then the game time was probably about right, if not then there needs to be more time.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Kevin Nash, did you keep track of how many games had to be called prematurely due to time? If so, what round they were on? I think that data point should be collected.

I didn't keep a running tally but from memory I'd say approx 1-2 of 10 games went to time each round. So you're looking at roughly 15% of the field, which is a distinct minority.

Normally I'd just come back with "play faster" but Janthkin does have a point that short rounds can be biased against horde armies and I want all types of army variations represented in our tournaments. I don't want someone taking a low model count army just because of time considerations. I absolutely want to see as many tyranid and ork swarm lists as possible, because there is certainly no shortage of MEQ vehicle spam.

I think the easiest way to meet in the middle here is to play smaller games. That way if the elite army players finish their games early, there is still less total waiting around time for the round to finish.

For our RTT's we do 1:45 / 1500 anyway so running a lower point total is nothing new for us. I don't really have to make a firm decision on this for a while but at this point I'm leaning towards 1:45 / 1500 for next years GT as well.

Somnicide wrote:The thing that gets a bit annoying for those of us who take the hit and take smaller elite armies is that we end up either waiting around for 45 minutes or when we play against horde armies that the horde player are rushing us even though we only play for about 35-40% of the amount of time.

Interesting phrasing - are you taking a "hit" for bringing a smaller elite army and/or a fully meched-up army? They're obviously pretty competitive, given the general trend of tournament results since 5e came out. Would you rather be playing a horde army, and just chose not to because of time? If so, that's something TO's should know, too.

For that matter, it's not even a LOT more time that was needed - 10 more minutes (2:30 rounds) would have allowed for a Turn 6 in both games, with potentially significant effect on the outcome of the game; in a tournament that was effectively a single-elimination event, a change in outcome in round 2 or 3 is meaningful.

Part of the question is simply whether slower-playing armies are valuable enough to the metagame that an individual TO wishes to account for it in the schedule. For me, this event was a significant outlier - I've never been time-limited in 40% of my tournament games before, and so I wanted to say something. It sparked some interesting conversation.

There is no 100% solution to this sort of thing. I think the best way to look at it is by a bell curve. Drop the first game or two done and the last game or two done and see if everyone else was able to finish their game in a comfortable amount of time. If so, then the game time was probably about right, if not then there needs to be more time.

Given a large enough data set, that'd be a good approach. Adepticon is going to track that this year; I look forward to their results.

Kevin Nash wrote:For our RTT's we do 1:45 / 1500 anyway so running a lower point total is nothing new for us. I don't really have to make a firm decision on this for a while but at this point I'm leaning towards 1:45 / 1500 for next years GT as well.

This would be awesome, and fairly unique on the circuit. As I recall, you're looking at a dedicated venue next year; with 1:45 rounds, and no late opening/early closing time constraints, you could easily do 4/3 (7 total games), which would be a lot of fun. And lists look so much different at 1500; you have to make some hard choices in what to bring.

Alternatively, something else no one ever seems to do is an escalation tournament - run Day 1 as 4x1500, and Day 2 as 2x2000 (same codex), and see what happens!

Janthkin wrote:

Somnicide wrote:The thing that gets a bit annoying for those of us who take the hit and take smaller elite armies is that we end up either waiting around for 45 minutes or when we play against horde armies that the horde player are rushing us even though we only play for about 35-40% of the amount of time.

Interesting phrasing - are you taking a "hit" for bringing a smaller elite army and/or a fully meched-up army? They're obviously pretty competitive, given the general trend of tournament results since 5e came out. Would you rather be playing a horde army, and just chose not to because of time? If so, that's something TO's should know, too.

No, by taking the hit in this case I am referring to the fact that I have made a conscious decision to take an elite army (bikes, in my case for this tourney) knowing full well that I don't have the excess wounds necessary to weather many losses. I choose to take a hit in numbers to excel in movement. I do get a toughness buff, but the amount of 7+ str stuff really makes that largely irrelevant, which I am okay with. I know what I am getting into.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not attacking horde players - in fact, I have played them in the past and will likely play them again in the future. I think that if you don't have them in the metagame, then there is even less of a need for high rate of fire, lowish strength shooting and then it just becomes even more plasma/melta/missile heavy.

What I am saying is that more data would be great in order to make a solid determination as to what the "best" time is for each round.

edit: the escalation idea is an interesting one. Would you anticipate that the 1500 points be required in the 2000 point lists? So in effect adding 500 extra points? If so, do they submit that list ahead of time or is it effectively a sideboard of gearing up towards the prevalent armies at the tourney (lots of wolves, I need 500 points of plasma vs. lots of foot orks, I need lots of heavy bolters)?

I think one day of 4-5 1,500pt games followed by another day of 3 2k games would be awesome. My only concern is that the game is more inclined to rock/paper/scissor designs at 1,500. Even with this though I'd still prefer it to 1,750-1,850 for the whole tournament. I'm just not a fan of those point values oddly. I don't feel like certain armies can fit well there from 1,500 (like Nids).

Somnicide wrote:the escalation idea is an interesting one. Would you anticipate that the 1500 points be required in the 2000 point lists? So in effect adding 500 extra points? If so, do they submit that list ahead of time or is it effectively a sideboard of gearing up towards the prevalent armies at the tourney (lots of wolves, I need 500 points of plasma vs. lots of foot orks, I need lots of heavy bolters)?

I think the escalation idea could be a new fun way to fun a tourney. However in my opinion, I think you would have to submit your 1500pt, and 2000pt list in before the tourney. I also believe it would be best for it the extra 500pts to be a add on to the 1500pt list. Or else the TO would have to recheck everyone's list again the following day. Other then that, I believe it could be very fun.

Somnicide wrote:No, by taking the hit in this case I am referring to the fact that I have made a conscious decision to take an elite army (bikes, in my case for this tourney) knowing full well that I don't have the excess wounds necessary to weather many losses. I choose to take a hit in numbers to excel in movement. I do get a toughness buff, but the amount of 7+ str stuff really makes that largely irrelevant, which I am okay with. I know what I am getting into.

But how much of your choice was dictated by time constraints? If the answer is "not much," then you made a perfectly reasonable choice based on in-game and metagame considerations, something I *thought* I did as well, until game 2 was called before the end of turn 5.

edit: the escalation idea is an interesting one. Would you anticipate that the 1500 points be required in the 2000 point lists? So in effect adding 500 extra points? If so, do they submit that list ahead of time or is it effectively a sideboard of gearing up towards the prevalent armies at the tourney (lots of wolves, I need 500 points of plasma vs. lots of foot orks, I need lots of heavy bolters)?

No clue. The Adepticon Gladiator this year is using sideboards, but they're fixed before the dice start falling. In order to avoid overly-hindering long-distance players (who probably won't have access to their entire collection), it's probably more fair to require both lists to be turned in before round 1.

If the 2000 pt list isn't required to be a superset of the 1500 pt list, you could seriously screw with your opponent's heads, though; there's a LOT of variety available in some of the different armies.

Hulksmash wrote:I think one day of 4-5 1,500pt games followed by another day of 3 2k games would be awesome. My only concern is that the game is more inclined to rock/paper/scissor designs at 1,500. Even with this though I'd still prefer it to 1,750-1,850 for the whole tournament. I'm just not a fan of those point values oddly. I don't feel like certain armies can fit well there from 1,500 (like Nids).

It can be matchup-dependent, yes. But 40k almost always is, at any point level; ask Reece about his mirror match against Lambadomy, as I bet he'd rather have played against almost any other list there.

I have some interesting 1500 pt 'Nid builds. The problem is mostly that they don't look all that much like my 2k list, so building a 2000 pt list that contained the 1500 would be more challenging; that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Janthkin wrote:

Somnicide wrote:No, by taking the hit in this case I am referring to the fact that I have made a conscious decision to take an elite army (bikes, in my case for this tourney) knowing full well that I don't have the excess wounds necessary to weather many losses. I choose to take a hit in numbers to excel in movement. I do get a toughness buff, but the amount of 7+ str stuff really makes that largely irrelevant, which I am okay with. I know what I am getting into.

But how much of your choice was dictated by time constraints? If the answer is "not much," then you made a perfectly reasonable choice based on in-game and metagame considerations, something I *thought* I did as well, until game 2 was called before the end of turn 5.

the answer for me on this is game time had 0 consideration. I like bikes and was bound and determined to make them win. I have now decided that they don't move fast enough for me so am moving on to dark eldar ;-)

Yes, I am addicted to speed ;-)

@Janth

It's not match up dependence though that is a far greater issue at 1,500. It's that I don't feel the game is 100% balanced at 1,500. It's better than at 1,750-1,850 but not as good as 2k. Basically I've found it to be far more rock/paper/scissor at lower levels as armies can't build the depth they need for truly balanced, take all comers lists.

And I believe it when you say you've got some good 1,500pt lists. I'm an advocate that Nids make their best lists at 2k and 1,500.

I'm in favor of an escalation tournament. Same codex is fine but I wouldn't like 1,500 being part of the 2k. Just submit both early and double check on day two. We're not talking about a Nova or Adepticon sized event. We're talking hopefully 50-70 people.

Hulksmash wrote:@Janth

It's not match up dependence though that is a far greater issue at 1,500. It's that I don't feel the game is 100% balanced at 1,500. It's better than at 1,750-1,850 but not as good as 2k. Basically I've found it to be far more rock/paper/scissor at lower levels as armies can't build the depth they need for truly balanced, take all comers lists.

We may be saying the same thing. Yes, you can't build all the tools into (most) 1500 pt lists. So you have to gamble. If you go light on anti-Land Raider gear, and get the 4 LR BA player, then the matchup got you. And I like that - you simply CAN'T take everything, and a bad matchup means you're going to have to makeup for your list deficiencies via generalship.

I'm in favor of an escalation tournament. Same codex is fine but I wouldn't like 1,500 being part of the 2k. Just submit both early and double check on day two. We're not talking about a Nova or Adepticon sized event. We're talking hopefully 50-70 people.

Next step: let's talk Reece/Italiaplayer/et al into doing the Bay Area event that way.

@Janth

I think we are saying the same thing about the match ups. We just view it differently. I think there are bad enough match-ups at 1,500 to nearly make it unfun though I'm always game for an uphill fight not everyone shares that view.

And I'm all for slapping them around a bit to get them to get that Bay area event up and running

Just wanted to say thanks again to Mark and the crew for running such a great tournament. I don't know that I've ever faced such good opponents consecutively like that. Really made for a fun and challenging weekend.

I thought the venue was nice and the store manager was very hospitable. Not only did he agree to ship an item directly to me, but pitched in 50 cents to ensure I had no out of pocket costs after combining my store credit and the remaining credit Frankie left for me (thanks again, Frankie). Class acts all around.

Looking forward to making it back up for some of your RTT's and of course the big GT next year!

Kevin Nash wrote:

cgage00 wrote:I was goin to show up on Sunday with my army but I was under the impression I couldn't cause I was not in the tourney. But I did get alot of painting done only my new tanks.

Techinically you could have even entered the tourney for day two but you wouldn't have been eligible for any prizes. You could have come out for some ranked play though. Our system can accommodate that (it also accommodates only playing on day 1 as well).

BAH!!! now you tell me!!!!! oh well I got alot of my Iron warriors painted.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

If presented with another 2k tournament with 2:20 rounds, I'll almost certainly choose not to bring Tyranids, and I'd expect Yakface will choose not to bring foot orks; whether that has any significance for the organizers is up to them. As I said, I had fun, and I'm glad I went. Everything past that is either an observation or a suggestion/aspiration for improvement, not a complaint.

It's of great consequence to me because the last thing I want is people not playing what they consider their "best" army because of circumstances like time constraints.

2:20 feels typical to me for a 2000 point game playing at "tournament speed" as opposed to "casual speed". However if it really is shutting our horde players then I probably am going to stay away from 2000 point games because increasing the round length isn't really a practical option. I'm curious what you would consider a proper amount of time for a 1500 point game, since we run the majority of our tournaments at that point level.

Just for data purposes here is how my games shook out this weekend:


Game 1: vs. Mech Dark Eldar. Midway through the bottom of turn 5 when we realized that I had more Kill Points accrued then he could possibly get back from my army he retired, thus finishing the game in time. If the game had needed to be played past turn 5 I'm not sure whether we could have finished turn 6 or not.

Game 2: vs. Mech/Kan Orks. Major time issues. Even though his army was mainly meched up, once most stuff was out by the end of the game, things started to slow down. We realistically finished 4 turns, but being a nice guy I agreed to play a turn 5 even though to do so meant we only moved/shot/assaulted the units that probably mattered towards the final impact of the game. So we officially squeaked out a turn 5 and did not roll for it as we were over time at that point.

Game 3: vs. Mech/Thunderwolf Space Wolves. Opponent retired in turn 5 when he believed he no longer had the ability to capture enough objectives to tie or win. As with game 1, I have doubts that had the game actually been close whether we could have finished out to turn 7 if the rolls had dictated it.

Game 4: vs. Mech Deathguard: We finished the end of turn 5 right as time was called. At that point we rolled the dice just for fun to see if the game would have continued and it did not, so technically this was a 'finished' game although again if a turn 6 and/or 7 had been needed we would not have been able to play this.

Game 5: vs. Thunderwolves/(and a bit of) Mech Space Wolves. Our game was the last one still being played, and I'm pretty sure we were playing in 'overtime' when we yelled out our 'results' in turn 6, which was that it was clear he had won. However, I enjoy playing games to the bitter end even when I know I've lost (just to kill that one damn enemy model that's been giving me a royal pain the whole game, for example). We kept playing for fun after the results had been submitted and it did technically end up going to turn 7. I have no idea what turn we would have been on if our game had been called at the real end of the round.


So were I filling out a sheet of how many games were finished to completion I would have written down:

2 completed (Games 1 & 3).
3 incomplete (Games 2, 4 & 5).

All my games finished early or very early, for what it's worth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I prefer 1500 or 2000, as Hulk said. I don't care for 1750 or 1850, either.

yakface wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

If presented with another 2k tournament with 2:20 rounds, I'll almost certainly choose not to bring Tyranids, and I'd expect Yakface will choose not to bring foot orks; whether that has any significance for the organizers is up to them. As I said, I had fun, and I'm glad I went. Everything past that is either an observation or a suggestion/aspiration for improvement, not a complaint.

It's of great consequence to me because the last thing I want is people not playing what they consider their "best" army because of circumstances like time constraints.

2:20 feels typical to me for a 2000 point game playing at "tournament speed" as opposed to "casual speed". However if it really is shutting our horde players then I probably am going to stay away from 2000 point games because increasing the round length isn't really a practical option. I'm curious what you would consider a proper amount of time for a 1500 point game, since we run the majority of our tournaments at that point level.

Just for data purposes here is how my games shook out this weekend:


Game 1: vs. Mech Dark Eldar. Midway through the bottom of turn 5 when we realized that I had more Kill Points accrued then he could possibly get back from my army he retired, thus finishing the game in time. If the game had needed to be played past turn 5 I'm not sure whether we could have finished turn 6 or not.

Game 2: vs. Mech/Kan Orks. Major time issues. Even though his army was mainly meched up, once most stuff was out by the end of the game, things started to slow down. We realistically finished 4 turns, but being a nice guy I agreed to play a turn 5 even though to do so meant we only moved/shot/assaulted the units that probably mattered towards the final impact of the game. So we officially squeaked out a turn 5 and did not roll for it as we were over time at that point.

Game 3: vs. Mech/Thunderwolf Space Wolves. Opponent retired in turn 5 when he believed he no longer had the ability to capture enough objectives to tie or win. As with game 1, I have doubts that had the game actually been close whether we could have finished out to turn 7 if the rolls had dictated it.

Game 4: vs. Mech Deathguard: We finished the end of turn 5 right as time was called. At that point we rolled the dice just for fun to see if the game would have continued and it did not, so technically this was a 'finished' game although again if a turn 6 and/or 7 had been needed we would not have been able to play this.

Game 5: vs. Thunderwolves/(and a bit of) Mech Space Wolves. Our game was the last one still being played, and I'm pretty sure we were playing in 'overtime' when we yelled out our 'results' in turn 6, which was that it was clear he had won. However, I enjoy playing games to the bitter end even when I know I've lost (just to kill that one damn enemy model that's been giving me a royal pain the whole game, for example). We kept playing for fun after the results had been submitted and it did technically end up going to turn 7. I have no idea what turn we would have been on if our game had been called at the real end of the round.


So were I filling out a sheet of how many games were finished to completion I would have written down:

2 completed (Games 1 & 3).
3 incomplete (Games 2, 4 & 5).

Well it sounds like 2 of your incomplete games were technically complete. Game 5 is a good example of "tournament speed" when you can just scoop because you're aware of the outcome. The game might end early, but it doesn't impact the result.

One of the nice things about our system is that it's a lot more forgiving with end game results. Games can be spoken for in the early turns with no confusing secondary objectives or battle points that carry over from meaningless games that are already decided. You don't always have to play them out to the bitter end (you are of course welcome to for fun if your opponent is interested). I've always wondered how a battle point system is supposed to work when an opponent just concedes.

Either way Yak you are the outlier but between you and Janthkin it's still important to accommodate those playstyles and army construction so long as I don't alienate the rest of the field when doing so. As I said in an earlier post pushing rounds to 2:30 or 2:45 would be even more agonizing for the players piloting elite size armies who finish their games in an hour and it would likely be more agonizing for everyone as the day stretches into 10 hours or more. Rather than do that I'd just assume reducing the point size next time around.

Reecius wrote:All my games finished early or very early, for what it's worth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I prefer 1500 or 2000, as Hulk said. I don't care for 1750 or 1850, either.

Why don't you like 1750 or 1850? How is 1850 worse than 2000?

Reecius wrote:All my games finished early or very early, for what it's worth.

That is what happens when you only use the shooting phase


The problem I had was that my games ended in about an hour so I had a lot of free time every day. Of course that is what happens when you play DE against a couple of 15 missile launcher long fang armies.

Kevin,

I've been thinking about it, and I believe that the Kan Wall I run is perhaps the slowest army I've ever played with because nearly every single model in the army (with a few exceptions) is moving in the movement phase running or shooting in the shooting phase and then assaulting when possible as well. I think only a shooty-based Tyranid build is as labor intensive in every phase of the game. Of course, a shooty-based Boyz army would be even *more* time consuming...for a 'horde' army, I don't actually have that many models for a 2,000 point army.

Obviously you can't factor the time of your rounds for the completely extreme slow player/gigantic army, but I do think for tournaments based around a pure W/L/T mechanic the need for complete games is even *more* important as there are no 'bonus' mission points out there to soften the blow when a player is essentially 'robbed' of a victory by the clock. I think the fact that I didn't end up playing any other true horde or slow players is what allowed me to come (at least really close) to finishing all my games but one...that and the decisive nature of a few of the games. If the games had been more tightly contested in turn 5 or if I had played another horde or slow player then most certainly those games would have been lucky to reach the end of turn 4.

Obviously you make the final call of what the acceptable number of 'unfinished' games in your tourney is. If 15% is the accurate number and that's an acceptable rate to you, then so be it! Like you said, in such a case, the majority of the games are finishing in time, so most people are having a complete gaming experience throughout the day. Obviously the heavy ratio of smaller mech-based armies makes the likelihood of the dual 'horde' match-up less common, but I still can't personally help shake the feeling as I expressed in that other thread that the current trend of point value to time limit helps to funnel the army choice that players do make.

I agree with what Hulksmash said in that other thread, that sure if you added a bunch of time to the rounds or drop the amount of points I don't think we'll suddenly see a giant wash of horde armies enter the fray...the v5 rules have far too many advantages built-in for mech armies for that to really happen. But I *do* know of some people being on the fence about what army to bring to a tournament and actually choosing to go with the more elite/mech style army because they wouldn't have to face the same kind of time pressures during the day, and that is what does personally give me pause.

And again, I don't think the answer is to stop offering 2,000 point tournaments even if you can't find a way to add more time to the rounds. The fact that you *do* offer 1,500 point tournaments at other times gives players a nice change of pace and that's what matters. That means even if some players do get frustrated with the time constraints of one particular 2,000 point tournament they can choose to sit that one out and just come back to one of your other 1,500 pt ones...and that's what is important IMHO. Or maybe sometimes you try mixing in a 1,750 or 1,850 point version of the tournament instead of a 2,000 point one every now and then. I think variety can only be a good thing. Are certain army builds better at certain point values? I'm sure they are! But I think the same is true at every points value. As long as there is variety in the points level being played in tournaments, then it will never feel 'unfair' because (again) players can simply skip any particular tournament playing at a point value they don't like. Hell, I'm even down to play some 1,000 or 1,250 point tournaments every now and then!

As for the optimal round lengths for a 2,000 point army, I personally feel like 2:30 is the minimum requirement to ensure that two horde and/or less experienced players playing against each other at least have a good chance to finish their game. I've never understood the problem with having longer rounds being a bummer to people who finish early. I know in years past I've gotten done with some of my games very quickly, but the fact that you know what time the next round starts means you have the option to either sit around and watch some other games being played OR just go get some food/take a nap in your car/hotel room, etc. In fact, I think one of the ways you can build in some extra playing time is to have longer 'breaks' in between each round and then let games taking a longer amount of time play 'into' the break. Yeah, it can suck not being able to run out and grab some lunch if your game lasts a long time, but I honestly prefer that rather than calling the game on turn 4...but maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I had a great time at the tourney and I did not feel overly constrained by the time, although it would have been nice to have a little bit more time if I had to choose. I really did enjoy being able to completely finish my game 5, even though I had realistically lost the game (at least) a turn earlier. I play 40K now primarily because I enjoy the actual game and winning the game is second to that. I think that's why I like playing smaller point games with longer time limits because it allows me to savor and enjoy the gaming experience more rather than feel like I'm just running through the game to punch-out a W/L result.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't say thanks again for taking the time to run these tournaments. Like almost all TOs, you do a tremendous amount of work for very little (if any) benefit for yourself and I certainly appreciate it.

@Blackmoor

Haha, yeah, very true! And the only units that actually move are tanks, so it is quick.

@Kevin

My reasoning is purely subjective but I think it is shared by a lot of players.

1750 and 1850 don't feel like "complete" armies. They are close enough to 2000 to feel like a full sized game (I think of 2K as a full sized game) but minus key units. I hate making 1750 and 1850 lists because it never feels "right." I always feel like I am playing with less than I need to make a real 2K list.

1500 though, is a different game. I think of it as a different game, make different lists, etc. 1500 feels complete to me.

I know that seems utterly arbitrary, and it probably is, but I think there are other people that feel the same way.

Also, like Yak, I really enjoy 1000 point tournaments on 4x4' tables. You can do real round robin events and they are super fun. A really different game at 1K but definitely a blast!

Take all of my comments as constructive too, please. I loved the event and feel that with just a few very minor changes, you guys will have the best structure on the west coast.

I get what you are saying Reece, but I feel like 1500 is a solid core and that extra 250 lets me introduce "fun" stuff that maybe isn't super lean but I don't get punished overmuch for bringing it - I see 1500 as being one game and 2000 points as a different game like you, but rather than feeling like 1750 (or 1850) are 2000-250 it is more like 1500+250.

Does that make any kind of sense? I obviously need to go to bed.

Yeah, like I said, I am sure I am being totally arbitrary. I am just a steadfast 2K guy, I have always played 2K games since 2nd ed. It feels normal to me because of repetition.

I will still go to an 1850 or 1750 event for sure, I just always feel like I have an arm tied behind my back, but it is all in my head.

I guess I just like 500 point chunks! Haha. 1K, 1.5K, 2K! Those are my favorites.

I like the 1750-1850 point range. As Pat said, you get to have the core of your army, and and something interesting to go with it.

I think that 2000 is a bit high. You do not have to make any hard choices, and you get to have all of your toys. The problem is that some armies toys are better than others.

1500 feels really low to me. It is hard to build an army that has all of the pieces working together, and a good "Take-all-comers" army.

Blackmoor wrote:I like the 1750-1850 point range. As Pat said, you get to have the core of your army, and and something interesting to go with it.

I think that 2000 is a bit high. You do not have to make any hard choices, and you get to have all of your toys. The problem is that some armies toys are better than others.

1500 feels really low to me. It is hard to build an army that has all of the pieces working together, and a good "Take-all-comers" army.

I would have to agree with blackmoor. I believe 2000pts is just to high for me as well. I enjoy playing 1750-1850pts (maybe its because I have become accustomed to it) But I believe thats a nice solid point limit. However, 1500 is always nice too. Either way though, Its always nice to change it up a bit.

I find that 1750-1850 pushes certain armies into builds that just don't work for them. 1,500 normally has every army able to compete but is more prone to match-ups due to it being a core of an army type point limit so you can't build in the same redundency. Meanwhile 2k you can build true, all comers lists. But the middle ground leaves certain codexes unable to cope with others in my opinion. Nids and DE to me feel like they can't quite be all comers at in this range. Eldar and Chaos to a lesser degree is the same thing. Meanwhile most SM Variants and IG do just fine at any point level.

One thing I have noticed about 2000 is that the FO becomes kinda homogenized. Most codecis have to fill up every single slo so everyone has 3 elite, 3 heavy, 3 fast etc.... In smaller games, especially 1500,choices need to be made. Sometimes you can't have every FO slot. You have to choose elite over fast or heavy over elite or such.