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.

I think one of our local tournaments (run by GW) has decided for next year to turn our 3 games one day event into a 2 game per day, 2 day event. They decided it would be better to have longer game time and allow more time to banter with your opponent. And as an extra plus give more time to talk to new folk.
Since in Belfast gamers done see much of each other

BoW- John

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kaotik wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:If I have understood the last post, it is unfair to ask someone to speed up at all?

The context is of some WAAC TFG rushing his opponent so he can notch a Massacre, rather than merely a Victory.

Not like that could EVER mean the difference in advancing or not....right?

To which, I say, SO WHAT?

My opponent is NOT entitled to a better score at my expense if I am playing a legal, approved army at a reasonable pace. It that takes him out of the running, I really could care less.

My point is if the person has the materials needed, knows ways to make things faster, and does not need to stop for book/rules checks for the simplest things then the WOULD finish in a reasonable amount of time. This would not even be an issue in games that went to turn 4-5 where things just took longer due to armies. I am talking games like my first round that got to turn 3 because the guy took 5 minutes to decide where to deploy each pod. And about 30 or more minutes to deploy. He was playing BA Drop Pod army which should NOT take anywhere near the time he was taking. Overall I think he used 1:45 of the 2.5 hours where I used about 45 minutes. If your game ends a turn early so be it, but if one guy causes it to end three turns early that's BS, plain and simple.

If you play your army at a reasonable speed and it just happens to be slow then the comments on slow players does not apply to you. The clock I mentioned that is needed should mean nothing unless the game does not reach the halfway mark. That sound about right?

@JohnHwangDD

I think you have mentioned in the past that you don't do tournaments? With your attitude towards slow play, I can see why you don't. I totally disagree with your notion that someone who is trying for a massacre at a tourney where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points, labels said player as a WAAC TFG. This is the diffference between a tournament minded person and a casual gamer minded person, which I believe you to be the latter.

When you go to a tourney you must leave the casual relaxed "play at my own pace" attittude at the door. When your playing a relaxing game with no time limts, you must leave the "hurry up, we have limited time" attitude at the door. That's the difference that players like you don't seem to get.


GG

Actually I'm in agreement with JohnnyH on this one. If I am playing in a reasonable speed, your desire to go faster is, at best, irrelevant to me. At worst it will make me slow down because you're being a butthead.

If however we're near the end and we need to rush to finish a complete a full turn, and you've not been a butt head then I would indeed rush.

Kaotik wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kaotik wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The context is of some WAAC TFG rushing his opponent so he can notch a Massacre, rather than merely a Victory.

Not like that could EVER mean the difference in advancing or not....right?

To which, I say, SO WHAT?

My point is if the person has the materials needed, knows ways to make things faster, and does not need to stop for book/rules checks for the simplest things then the WOULD finish in a reasonable amount of time.

He was playing BA Drop Pod army which should NOT take anywhere near the time he was taking. Overall I think he used 1:45 of the 2.5 hours where I used about 45 minutes.

If you play your army at a reasonable speed and it just happens to be slow then the comments on slow players does not apply to you. The clock I mentioned that is needed should mean nothing unless the game does not reach the halfway mark. That sound about right?

As an ex-tournament player, I will come prepared to play, knowing the rules, knowing my army, etc. so I think I'd be able to finish in a reasonable amount of time. If somebody is rushing me, it's just going to cost them their sports score, because I don't appreciate that.

If he's stalling, call a Judge - that's why they're there. Stalling is a form a cheating, and Judges can impose full match losses for that kind of thing. But if you're going to suck it up, that's on you.

You can clock me, but I wouldn't care about that - I won't be rushed.
____

generalgrog wrote:@JohnHwangDD

I think you have mentioned in the past that you don't do tournaments?

I totally disagree with your notion that someone who is trying for a massacre at a tourney where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points, labels said player as a WAAC TFG.

When you go to a tourney you must leave the casual relaxed "play at my own pace" attittude at the door. When your playing a relaxing game with no time limts, you must leave the "hurry up, we have limited time" attitude at the door. That's the difference that players like you don't seem to get.

As above, I've played tournaments in the past, and won more than my fair share of games.

Um, by definition, "someone who is trying for a massacre where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points" *is* a WAAC player. If they're there simply to get massacre / max battle, then how is that not WAAC?

Does the tournament rules say I need to rush my play? No. Then I'm not going to do so. I'll play at my own pace, and let them play at theirs. It's not like I'm going to go grab a beer or chat up the guy at the next table over.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Um, by definition, "someone who is trying for a massacre where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points" *is* a WAAC player. If they're there simply to get massacre / max battle, then how is that not WAAC?

Does the tournament rules say I need to rush my play? No. Then I'm not going to do so. I'll play at my own pace, and let them play at theirs. It's not like I'm going to go grab a beer or chat up the guy at the next table over.

I think we are defining WAAC differently. Trying to get max battle points/massacre to me is just trying to win a tourney. To me a WAAC player is someone that bends rules to their advantage (I.E. rules lawyers), cheats, etc. The "all costs" factor being willing to cheat. Much different than someone trying to squeeze as many points out of a round as they can. We are almost getting into semantics here.

If by the consequences of your slow play I don't get full points in our game and thus costing my chance to win a tourney..... YOU are the bad guy(you too Frazz :-) ).... not me. You owe your opponent a full game that's all I'm saying.

GG

Yeah, tho winning at tourney is more than battle points. That's why they also score sports, comp, theme, and/or paint. If the only focus is on battle, then that's WAAC.

Don't blame me for the TO not allotting enough time. Place the blame where it belongs - on the TO for wanting too many points in too little time.

generalgrog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Um, by definition, "someone who is trying for a massacre where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points" *is* a WAAC player. If they're there simply to get massacre / max battle, then how is that not WAAC?

Does the tournament rules say I need to rush my play? No. Then I'm not going to do so. I'll play at my own pace, and let them play at theirs. It's not like I'm going to go grab a beer or chat up the guy at the next table over.

I think we are defining WAAC differently. Trying to get max battle points/massacre to me is just trying to win a tourney. To me a WAAC player is someone that bends rules to their advantage (I.E. rules lawyers), cheats, etc. The "all costs" factor being willing to cheat. Much different than someone trying to squeeze as many points out of a round as they can. We are almost getting into semantics here.

If by the consequences of your slow play I don't get full points in our game and thus costing my chance to win a tourney..... YOU are the bad guy(you too Frazz :-) ).... not me. You owe your opponent a full game that's all I'm saying.

GG

I owe no one anything.
In a tournament my requirements are to abide by the rules a set down by the TO. Thats it. I do not have to facilitate your winning the tournament. in fact a goal of my is to utterly defeat you doign that by beating you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Don't blame me for the TO not allotting enough time. Place the blame where it belongs - on the TO for wanting too many points in too little time.

So you take no repsonsibility for signing up to said TO's tourney who, as you put it, "wanted too many points in too little time"? IMO if you sign up for a tourney, knowing the time limits you are just as responsible as the TO.

GG

None at all.

The TO allowed my army, and I'm going to play it.

If time limits mean that we both play fewer turns, so be it.

That's not my responsibility.
____

If the TO wants to ensure that all games finish within the allotted time, then they should allow more time or limit armies to fewer points.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:
I owe no one anything.
In a tournament my requirements are to abide by the rules a set down by the TO. Thats it. I do not have to facilitate your winning the tournament. in fact a goal of my is to utterly defeat you doign that by beating you.

It's only sporting to allow your opponent a full game..... if possible. It has nothing to do with you "facilitating" the tourney outcome. In fact if you play slower than you are able, as part of some meta tourney tactic, to deny your oponent battle points (I'm not saying you do this Frazz), thats no different than slow playing as part of your current game strategy.

GG

Quite frankly, if I had the time, I'm now wanting to play infantry hordes for Draw, simply to see how much time could be burned by normal play without having to stall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:None at all.

The TO allowed my army, and I'm going to play it.

If time limits mean that we both play fewer turns, so be it.

That's not my responsibility.
____

If the TO wants to ensure that all games finish within the allotted time, then they should allow more time or limit armies to fewer points.

I think your being disingenuous now.

You signed up to the tourney, you therefore have given tacit approval of the format. Now it is incumbant upon you, the player, to make a good faith attempt to get a full game in.

GG

Lowering the points doesn't matter. It could be a 500 point tourney and by how anyone supporting slow play is talking, you don't even owe your opponent a full game then, so why should you rush? There need to be round time limits or people need to be courteous and fit in a full game. I'm not going to say you owe anyone anything, but it's just as rude s being a rules lawyer to not try to get a full game in. Yay for relative social etiquette.

Myself , was a horde type player . And you know , its not always fair how im treated even if the guy was TFG.

When i used to move my gaunts 1 by 1 , the guy would be like " hey i'll go to the store and buy a pizza " or just do the yawn and streatch motion.

I realize its boring for them to wait , so i just PUSHED the squad as a whole to speed up time , despite they are falling off or in risk of damaged.

Then the guy went on the next lvl of complaints and asked me about unit coherency and if i didnt move them too far.


*screams

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Lowering the points doesn't matter. It could be a 500 point tourney and by how anyone supporting slow play is talking, you don't even owe your opponent a full game then, so why should you rush? There need to be round time limits or people need to be courteous and fit in a full game. I'm not going to say you owe anyone anything, but it's just as rude s being a rules lawyer to not try to get a full game in. Yay for relative social etiquette.

on the flipside, its just as rude to attempt to rush your opponent, so we are at rudeness empass.

generalgrog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:None at all.

The TO allowed my army, and I'm going to play it.

If time limits mean that we both play fewer turns, so be it.

That's not my responsibility.
____

If the TO wants to ensure that all games finish within the allotted time, then they should allow more time or limit armies to fewer points.

I think your being disingenuous now.

You signed up to the tourney, you therefore have given tacit approval of the format. Now it is incumbant upon you, the player, to make a good faith attempt to get a full game in.

I'll play at a reasonable pace. If that allows for a full game, great. If not, I don't care.

It is NOT incumbent upon me to rush my play.

If my opponent wants to make an issue of it, well, he's free to concede the game at any time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:None at all.

The TO allowed my army, and I'm going to play it.

If time limits mean that we both play fewer turns, so be it.

That's not my responsibility.
____

If the TO wants to ensure that all games finish within the allotted time, then they should allow more time or limit armies to fewer points.

I think your being disingenuous now.

You signed up to the tourney, you therefore have given tacit approval of the format. Now it is incumbant upon you, the player, to make a good faith attempt to get a full game in.

I'll play at a reasonable pace. If that allows for a full game, great. If not, I don't care.

It is NOT incumbent upon me to rush my play.

If my opponent wants to make an issue of it, well, he's free to concede the game at any time.

QFT.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Um, by definition, "someone who is trying for a massacre where the idea is to get a massacre/max battle points" *is* a WAAC player. If they're there simply to get massacre / max battle, then how is that not WAAC?

You've made a logical jump here.

You went from "trying for a massacre, where the idea is to get massacre/max..." to "there simply to get massacre".

I play every game in every tournament I attend with the goal of getting a massacre and max points. That doesn't mean I have that aim above all other aims (I also aim to enjoy myself, I aim to have pleasant games, I aim not to be considered TFG, and I aim to win best painted as well...). If the goal of the tournament is to score the most battle points, it does not logically follow that in order to pursue that goal, you must forgo all other goals. One can still aim to score massacres while being a decent human being, and that's the difference.

To be a WAAC player, you have to be willing to sacrifice everything (including being a decent human being) in the pursuit of your massacres. Most people go to tournaments with the goal of winning their games, relatively few of those are willing to sacrifice everything to get there.

Does the tournament rules say I need to rush my play? No. Then I'm not going to do so.

Although some tournament rules do say that you should play at a pace that will result in you finishing X turns in Y amount of time. If that pace is one that you considered rushed, then in fact the tournament rules do say you need to rush. What's different here is each individual's definition of rush. I don't play 'ard boyz, because 2500 points in 2 hours is not enjoyable for me - I consider that rushed. I'll happily play 1750 in 2 hours though.

Redbeard pretty much is echoing my views, but is more eloquent than I.

Kudos to you RedBeard

GG

JohnHwangDD wrote:Quite frankly, if I had the time, I'm now wanting to play infantry hordes for Draw, simply to see how much time could be burned by normal play without having to stall.

Really?

You want to go to a tournament with the goal of playing as slowly as legally possible so that you can get a draw?

That sounds like a pretty good working definition of TFG.

Or, you know, he wants to see if people are really squeezed for time or that the people claiming tournament rules are unfair to horde armies are simply slow players themselves.

But hey, by all mean, try to impute JohnHwangDD with the worst possible motives, as it reflects well on your own character.

I would like to play a few games against JohnHwangDD so that we can see exactly how much longer a swarm army takes to finish it's turns.

I see no reason why an experienced horde player couldn't finish just as fast as I could. You would have to factor in the loss of tactics as a horde player as well, and that may be the reason most games seem to go just fine as long as no one stalls on purpose just to waste time.

Horde armies have the advantage of a ridiculous amount of shooting/assault power.

Small armies (Eldar for instance) have the advantage of speed/tanks/advanced weaponry...sort of. SM would probably be a better army to test it with.

IG footsloggers VS SM rhino spam

-or-

Ork footsloggers VS Eldar speedy list

Those would be a good place to start.

I play a fairly hordy Nid list.
Tyrant Unit
2 Carnifex's
28 Genestealers
7 Warriors
Lictor
36 Gaunts.

77 Models total. Not an "Insane" Horde, but not very elite either. I can play quickly, and still do well. "I play a Horde" is a fairly thin excuse for slow play. Admitedly, you will take longer, but it is not an instant "I can take 2 hours out of the 2 1/2 hour game" ticket.

Nurglitch wrote:Or, you know, he wants to see if people are really squeezed for time or that the people claiming tournament rules are unfair to horde armies are simply slow players themselves.

But hey, by all mean, try to impute JohnHwangDD with the worst possible motives, as it reflects well on your own character.

You mean motives like playing in a tournament as slow as legally possible with the intent to draw?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If he said I want to play in a tournament with a horde army to find out if it can be done in a reasonable time that would be one thing.

But taking an army to a tournament with the intent to play as slow as possible and the goal of getting draws seem like dubious motives.

Perhaps you didn't read the quote

Quite frankly, if I had the time, I'm now wanting to play infantry hordes for Draw, simply to see how much time could be burned by normal play without having to stall.

He flat out states that he just simply wants to see how much time can be burned by normal play and that he plans on trying to draw, not to find out if people are really squeezed for time or if tournies are unfair to horde players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JohnHwangDD

If that was not the intent of your post I apologize.

However, because of the way you wrote your post, it seemed of dubious intent to me.

Contrary to popular belief, there are tactics in 40k, chiefly in terms of decision-making and timing. With a horde, the number of decisions is compounded because you typically need to coordinate actions across several units to achieve the same impact / effect as with a smaller, more elite set of units. Further, sequencing grows in a combinatorial fashion with the number of options.

Playing for Draw means that I don't need to try to optimize every single game decision (and further optimize the sequence of every single action and/or potential action in-game) like I would if I were trying for maximum battle points and scenario points.

Playing for maximum Win definitely takes more time, even for an experienced player who's familiar with the ins and outs of his army.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
With a horde, the number of decisions is compounded because you typically need to coordinate actions across several units to achieve the same impact / effect as with a smaller, more elite set of units. Further, sequencing grows in a combinatorial fashion with the number of options.

I'm going to call BS on this. I've played hordes and I've played elite armies, both successfully, and the decision making process is considerably more involved the smaller your army is, because you cannot afford to make mistakes. The land-raider based Emperor's Children army that I took to Chicago's GT last year had as few as four units on the table at times, but because of that, you're required to consider every ramification of where you move those four units.

Contrasting that with armies like Guard or Orks, and you're taking up so much space, that the smaller decisions don't really matter that much. Your goal is to overwhelm your opponent with numbers, and that's either going to happen or it's not. The time-consuming part of these armies has nothing to do with making decisions, it has to do with moving models. 180 orks is still only six units - big picture wise, you have six units, and they're all going to close with your opponent... then you just have to do it.

Footslogging Guard is slightly different, in that you may have many units, but for the most part, they're staying put and firing. Deployment is where you spend most of your time, your movement phases should be nearly non-existent, and your shooting isn't that hard to prioritize, especially as many times, only a single model will be firing from a given unit.

For 4th, I played a lot of Drop Guard, and I don't agree with you at all about that. There's a lot of decision-making throughout.

Even with static guard, for 3rd, restricted LOS means you need to choose your targets and how you're going to layer firepower, whether it's 1 shooter or 10.

"think your being disingenuous now.

You signed up to the tourney, you therefore have given tacit approval of the format. Now it is incumbant upon you, the player, to make a good faith attempt to get a full game in. "

Laughed out loud at that one. We will get a full game in, just not as many turns as you may like. The tissues are held by the TO's if you feel like crying.

Too many points in too little time is not my problem. That is why the game allows calculations to determine a winner when time runs out.

Simple as that.