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.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

So if "how to play a game" on page 183 is not a general rule, how to you play your games?

 Jidmah wrote:
Ideally you should be able to finish a game within the time limit.

Finishing the game means playing it to an end, so all the turns. There are plenty games out there which have an even higher variance of turns than WH40k, and they still mange.

I have yet to see another game that is played in tournaments where it is normal that a game ends early. Time limits are there to enforce faster playing, not to make a tournament possible in the first place.

Therefore the game rules must be adjusted to enable finishing games in a timely manner. Reducing points could be one way, but changes to the rules to speed up certain things would also be a good thing.

Time limits are there completely to make tournaments possible. We currently have 2 forms of “general” tournament. The 1 day, 3 game events, and the 2 day 5-6 game events. These amount of games are generally picked as they provide (usually) a clear winner at the end of the swiss format (or at least the 6 game events do).

Time limits are then put on each game, because you only have so much time to get the event completed over 1 day/the weekend. Sure, they have an impact on the pace of the game, but, they aren’t there solely to do so.

Lots of games in tournaments end early. At the LVO, for example, at least 12% of the games played (313 games) ended early via tabling or concession. I would also argue that the LVO would be one the lower %age side of things, due to its elevated status and people playing slower in an attempt to not make mistakes. In my last event, 3 games (50% of my games) ended early. 2 of them, me tabling my opponent, the other, me getting tabled.

I am also of the opinion, that, in a large portion of games that fail to end due to time, the players themselves have to take a large portion of the blame, rather than the game itself. Hopefully, I’ll be able to start getting some data on this soon.

In the perfect world, a game would take 2.5-3 hours max every time, alternatively, a tournament could run over 3 days and 2 games a day – 1 morning, 1 afternoon. But, as we all know, that is basically impossible due to real life and work.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

So if "how to play a game" on page 183 is not a general rule, how to you play your games?

What is written on page 183?

Kdash wrote:

In the perfect world, a game would take 2.5-3 hours max every time, alternatively, a tournament could run over 3 days and 2 games a day – 1 morning, 1 afternoon. But, as we all know, that is basically impossible due to real life and work.

And to archieve that you can shock horror decrease point values if rules change so that it takes longer to play.

Tournaments don't have just time to round to alter with to ensure games end naturally rather than due to time. If they can't extend time for one game make rules so that games don't last so long.

This would also make 40k less expensive. Players always complain about price of game when players have much to blame on that part as well by insisting tournament point sizes keep going up and up and up. soon we play 3k tournaments with even more models and wonder why price of armies has gone up.

Kdash wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

So if "how to play a game" on page 183 is not a general rule, how to you play your games?

What is written on page 183?

The same as on page 15 of the core rules, that a game lasts 5 turns
there is no arguing that there are no rules that say how many turns a game has as it is even written in the free to download core rules

Kdash wrote:
Time limits are there completely to make tournaments possible. We currently have 2 forms of “general” tournament. The 1 day, 3 game events, and the 2 day 5-6 game events. These amount of games are generally picked as they provide (usually) a clear winner at the end of the swiss format (or at least the 6 game events do).

Time limits are then put on each game, because you only have so much time to get the event completed over 1 day/the weekend. Sure, they have an impact on the pace of the game, but, they aren’t there solely to do so.

Lots of games in tournaments end early. At the LVO, for example, at least 12% of the games played (313 games) ended early via tabling or concession. I would also argue that the LVO would be one the lower %age side of things, due to its elevated status and people playing slower in an attempt to not make mistakes. In my last event, 3 games (50% of my games) ended early. 2 of them, me tabling my opponent, the other, me getting tabled.

I was talking about games that are not Warhammer 40k. I have played in dozens of MtG events and people going to time is the exception, not the norm. If going to time is the norm something is amiss and countermeasures need to be taken.
Note that in MtG there are rules against slow play that are enforced by judges, so people taking their sweet time or being stuck in analysis paralysis are a lot less common.
In general, I think judges as well organized as the DCI for MtG would be very good for WH40k events.

I would also not consider a tabling to be "ending the game early". You played the game to its conclusion. If I draw a perfect hand in MtG and my opponent draws nothing but junk a game can be over withing three or four turns (in some formats even sooner) - it is still a full game.

I am also of the opinion, that, in a large portion of games that fail to end due to time, the players themselves have to take a large portion of the blame, rather than the game itself. Hopefully, I’ll be able to start getting some data on this soon.

If a large portion of games go to time, this means that time is not enough for a large portion of the players. The average competitor should be able to play an average game within the time limit.

FLG's chess clocks will show if the players are to blame. If a lot of games end with certain armies no longer being able to play, the format needs to change.

In the perfect world, a game would take 2.5-3 hours max every time, alternatively, a tournament could run over 3 days and 2 games a day – 1 morning, 1 afternoon. But, as we all know, that is basically impossible due to real life and work.

Maybe we just have to play tournaments with less points - and GW needs to support that by enabling all armies to bring all the tools necessary at that point level.
When our group is doing a narrative campaign day, we play three games of 1500 points followed by a final battle with all players. We usually start at 10 AM and the final battle starts at 18 PM. If you consider that many of those players only play a few times a year and all the time consuming stuff that is going on in narrative games (gotta love the ones with guards), I think I'm not wrong to assume that practiced player should easily be able to fit four games of 1500 in eight hours.

If it takes going to 1500 points to get in the tournament games at 2.5 hours, so be it.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. the only tournaments I am playing in are HH events which still use 7th ed rules...

 kodos wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

So if "how to play a game" on page 183 is not a general rule, how to you play your games?

What is written on page 183?

The same as on page 15 of the core rules, that a game lasts 5 turns
there is no arguing that there are no rules that say how many turns a game has as it is even written in the free to download core rules

I didn't see stuff on 183. Did you mean a different one? (Not that it really matters)




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea I went over the book as best I can and i can't find anything that codifies the rounds outside of missions themselves.

Kdash wrote:
I am also of the opinion, that, in a large portion of games that fail to end due to time, the players themselves have to take a large portion of the blame, rather than the game itself. Hopefully, I’ll be able to start getting some data on this soon.

This is 100% correct - the amount of time players waste at a table is unreal. If you start timing yourself you'll realize just how bad it is.

Nothing on game length on page 183.

In my limited number of games, playing space marines, 1500 points seems pretty limiting in terms of what I can field. A lower point limit would hurt elite armies pretty badly. Whereas if you're playing something like Tyranids, Orks or Guard, 1500 points still affords you a ton of options.

Is it cheating to slow play if it will give you a win?

Cause it seems like some people don’t think it is..

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea I went over the book as best I can and i can't find anything that codifies the rounds outside of missions themselves.

The missions are an integral part of the game - I don't accept that that only having game length specified in the missions means it's somehow not important.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yea I went over the book as best I can and i can't find anything that codifies the rounds outside of missions themselves.

The missions are an integral part of the game - I don't accept that that only having game length specified in the missions means it's somehow not important.

I'm not claiming that. I think the general point is that there is not a defined standard and that it is subjective to the mission.

In my experience 2.5 vs 3 hour games makes a difference. That extra half hour is at least an extra game turn (meaning games go from reliably 3 turns to reliably 4 with most games reaching some sort of natural conclusion, tabling, concession or turn 5).

I think ITC should modify their missions to account for a 5 turn maximum, TOs and players need to plan for 3 hour games with 10 minutes MAX between them.

Throw in tourneys starting sooner (doors open at 8, first game at 9, 3 hours, lunch, 2x 3 hours w/ 10 minute break done and packed up by 8pm)

I also feel some sort of bonus for setting up in the least amount of time should count (not just number of drops but least amount of time taken) since I've noticed a lot of time wasted by armies taking forever to deploy.

Chess clocks could be okay but I just don't like the idea of someone forgetting to "end their clock" means pretty much an auto lose. With how interactive the turns are maybe some sort of clock score at the end of the game would be better. Write down your clock remaining at the end of the round and submit it with your round score. Players going over 1.5 hours of turn time would get a warning at the end of round 1 and some sort of penalty for subsequent rounds?

Clock time meaning total time of your turn (no clock switching for saves or other stuff.) This would require TOs to be nearby to field complaints of opponents trying to waste their opponents clock but I think this form of slow play would be much easier to spot by your opponent. Also since one game doesn't get you a penalty it seems a bit harder to game the system.

I think taken together games not getting to turn 5 would be few and far between and games reaching a natural conclusions (end of T5, concession or tabling) would be the overwhelming majority with games ending at/before turn 3 would fall back to anomalies.

Suggestion - chess clocks only for deployment with a finite amount of time to be used.

There's a difference for allowing for up to X turns and then saying that game should be X turns.

What would really speed up the game would be a batch dice rule. When rolling over 50 dice, players can agree to use a batch dice rule which allows you to mathematically determine the outcome of a roll.

I have had people try to slow the game down by playing totally within the rules. I charged a squad of 10 guardsmen with 19 Genestealers. He demanded i roll all the dice. Then he rolled his saves. For reference, the odds of falling that far away from the pnorm such that the squad survives by at least 1 model is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000310.

This kind of thing slows down games at any points level. And people will do this if they think they can gain an advantage by having the game end early.

Reemule wrote:
Is it cheating to slow play if it will give you a win?

Cause it seems like some people don’t think it is..

It's not cheating, no. Cheating requires you break a rule. It's not a rule. It IS incredibly bad form, bad sportsmanship and still a bad thing to do, however.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Suggestion - chess clocks only for deployment with a finite amount of time to be used.

What is the penalty if I still have units to deploy when time ends?

Presumably you have your allocated time and if it's not deployed in time it misses the game as it was late for the battle.

Reemule wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Suggestion - chess clocks only for deployment with a finite amount of time to be used.

What is the penalty if I still have units to deploy when time ends?

Unit is considered destroyed.

Chess clock for deployment is brilliant.

Not sure how it would work though - please give horde armies a chance to actually do their thing.

Yeah its just an idea - I haven't fully fleshed it out but I think if you could speed up deployment it would drastically help speed up the game as a whole.

This, i think, is a fantastic idea.

Not only will it increase the speed of one of the slowest portions of the game, but, it will also get people used to chess clocks, should, later down the line, they get fully introduced.

 Marmatag wrote:
Chess clock for deployment is brilliant.

Not sure how it would work though - please give horde armies a chance to actually do their thing.

make movement tray type things sort of mandatory for large blocks?

its not like most tournies use fairly dynamic tables or anything. its ususally mouse pads.

Still not sure how the Deployment thing is going to go.

I have 10 minutes, and he has 10 minutes, go deploy, soon as your done with a unit slap it to his time?

Yeah effectively you load lets say 8 minutes a piece - Start my clock, drop, swap to yours, drop, swap to mine, back and forth through the allotted time pool. Units that deepstrike are basically 'swap to you, deploying tzaangors in the webway, back to you'.

Addendum to Marmatag's questions about hordes (and this is just a rough idea) - maybe you have the caveat that you once you deploy the first 5 or 6 models of the unit you swap and deploy (this of course is effectively giving the horde army more time to deploy which may not be fair). Only other idea is start out with movement trays, deploy the perimeter and put the rest of the unit down in trays inside said footprint.

I think it's more one of those prepare for the tournament and why this needs to be anounced beforehand. If you know you can't play your army effectively in a certain format , don't. On the other the format being different than you expected is a big no-no.

What should tournaments use for point value? Points. Duh.

















Seriously, though. I've found that lists work better when you have to agonize over getting everything in and have to compromise in the end. 1,500 has done this since 3rd, no need to change it now.