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've been laughing and shaking my head at a lot of the attitudes in here. To think some people actually think I owe them a set number of turns, it's fething ridiculous.

The only thing I "owe" you or anyone else, at a tournament or otherwise, is not being a dick. If your idea of bad sportsmanship happens to include "Not playing fast enough", then that's your problem for being an unreasonable jackass with unrealistic expectations.

...but I dunno, that's just my opinion. I think it's dickish to start tapping your foot and trying to rush someone through their turn because you want to massacre them, and you're afraid you won't have enough time to get max points because your opponent is playing slightly slower than you are, either because they can't play any faster or they just don't take the tournament and game in general as seriously as you do. Obviously yes, in a tournament the idea is to go for max points and win the tourney, but you can't honestly claim that it's up to me to play to an unrealistic standard because the TO doesn't know what he's doing.

I am coming in late on this, but..

"Reward unfinished games a 0" is a really bad idea. I used to play the Legend of the Five Rings card game, where a system like this was introduced to try to reduce stalling, which was becoming a problem. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a loss, 0 points for a draw (a draw was noramlly the result of a game going to time).

Typically a coin flip or roll off was used to decide a drawn game (you would just report that one player had won rather than the true result of a draw). That meant players would stall a losing game and hope to win the flip, rather than concede. Even more unscrupulous players would then hold their opponent's score to ransom to get a win. "Give me the win, otherwise you'll get 0!".

Sidstyler wrote:I've been laughing and shaking my head at a lot of the attitudes in here. To think some people actually think I owe them a set number of turns, it's fething ridiculous.

But do they owe you extra time to play your army?

I'm strongly of the opinion that time should be split, chess style. If the game is two hours long then each of you gets 1 hour for setup and turns.

Sidstyler wrote:I've been laughing and shaking my head at a lot of the attitudes in here. To think some people actually think I owe them a set number of turns, it's fething ridiculous.

The only thing I "owe" you or anyone else, at a tournament or otherwise, is not being a dick. If your idea of bad sportsmanship happens to include "Not playing fast enough", then that's your problem for being an unreasonable jackass with unrealistic expectations.

First of all, you dont owe anyone anything(But I think most people expect you to play a full game, not just deployment and 2-3 shooting phases with your tau/IG/shooty orc). You can be a dick if you want or a standup nice guy, its all up to you. Not playing the full game but slow playing it is in most ppls heads one of the things that makes you a a-hole.

Well, I think part of my problem with this whole thing is that slow play hasn't been properly defined. Some people say it's the intentional slow-playing that's a dick move, fine, I'll agree with that. But the thread title implies that being perceived as a slower player itself is a grievous sin which I just don't agree with.

Whenever I play, I try to get done quick, I don't dawdle intentionally and try not to spend too much time thinking my moves through. That said, me and my brother usually take quite a while to get through our friendly games, about 4 hours usually. I don't know how it takes so long, and I don't ever intend on playing in tournaments anyway so I doubt it'll be an issue, but still.

Even more unscrupulous players would then hold their opponent's score to ransom to get a win. "Give me the win, otherwise you'll get 0!".

Oh god. I'd be having words with that guy.

If you play at a reasonable pace, then I can't imagine anyone complaining about you using a swarm/horde.

Not sure where your planning on taking this one Sid...

Sidstyler wrote: and I don't ever intend on playing in tournaments anyway

So why are you posting in this thread? You don't have a dog in this race.

The title talks about slow playing at "TOURNIES"

Try to keep up Sid.


GG

This thread makes me laugh. All the people who say "I want to play at my own pace, don't blame me if the TO doesn't give me enough time"

Remember 'Ard boyz? 2500 pts, 2.5 hr games? In the last two years, the only people I have went to time against is ork players. Everyone else I have played has finished easily in that time.

At 2500 points I can finish a turn in about 10-15 mins max. Depending on game state.

I have played with my friend who has horrible rules knowledge and constantly needs to look up stat lines for his army. Any we easily play casual games at 2500 in under 2.5 hrs.

I guess I don't know how much time these TO's allow for a round. But if they give you even 2 hrs at up to 2000 points, and you don't finish, you are slow playing.

Again, my friend, horribly indecisive, and horrible with his memory of the rules. And we still finish in under 2.5 hours. He went to 'ard boyz with me and I think he went to time one game against a swarm army.

Timmah wrote:
I guess I don't know how much time these TO's allow for a round. But if they give you even 2 hrs at up to 2000 points, and you don't finish, you are slow playing.

After carefully considering my words here, I'll just reply with:
Your in depth statistical analysis using er, no data, results in an equaly valid resolution.

Frazzled wrote:

After carefully considering my words here, I'll just reply with:
Your in depth statistical analysis using er, no data, results in an equaly valid resolution.

You are correct, I have no data for this. However there can really be no quality data analysis without a control element (which you don't/can't have).

So all we can really relate to is our own personal situations. I have watched multiple horde army players that finish their turns in 10 mins. Its all about being comfortable with your army and knowing the rules. So in my opinion, (which everyone else is giving theirs in this thread, no actual data) if you can't finish games in a tournament you are probably slow playing, whether it be intentional or not. (outside of extenuating circumstances)

Heck this year at 'ard boyz, I had about a 30 min rules "discussion" with one of my opponents and we still finished about 20 mins early. 2-3 hours for a game is plenty of time for any competent player to finish imo. (I'll add that its my opinion because, while no one else stated their posts were their opinions, I get called out on not having statistics)

So people who don't finish 5 turns are slow playing now?

imo yes. Considering the people I play with, poor memory of rules, constantly looking up stats, very very indecisive. (we are talking like, forgetting what his CSM hit on when shooting)

I guess I am just of the opinion that if I can finish a game in 2-3 hours with these people, that anyone else should be able to.

Timmah wrote:imo yes. Considering the people I play with, poor memory of rules, constantly looking up stats, very very indecisive. (we are talking like, forgetting what his CSM hit on when shooting)

I guess I am just of the opinion that if I can finish a game in 2-3 hours with these people, that anyone else should be able to.

Thats a difficult proposition timmah as we all have differing skill sets, and the argument doesn't hold in that context.

*Some people are more indecisive.
*Some people don't know the rules as well.
*Some people have massively larger armies than you do.
*Some people may employ more tactics and are carefully weighing those to maximize their wins.
*Some may not play that often.

The statement doesn't hold because of that.
As example:
-In good conditions I can literally drive a bullet from a pistol into a one cm target at 10 yards, and put 10 rounds into a 2 cm target. Few people can do that, including many who shoot better than I do. but under your theory, if I can do it everyone should be able to do it.
-In another, I made a bonafide hole in one in golf when I was 11. Because I did it, everyone should be able to do it.

While I agree that personal experiences are not a good basis for an argument.

Now, for the record, I am a very fast player. I make decisions fast and usually have most of the game planned out in the first couple turns.

However I believe that I play against people that do not do this. With the amount of wavering/indecisions my opponents had coupled with their poor rules memory (not a bad thing, we can't all have every book memorized.) I feel that given that they, with their extremely slow pace being able to go to an 'ard boyz tournament and finish every game speaks for how slow you need to be playing in order to not finish a game.

I personally believe that 15 mins is a very reasonable turn length for any point level under 2500.
And if one of the players is playing fast, that gives even more time to the slow player to finish their turn.

However as stated earlier, I think it would be cool to go to a chess like timer just so that you don't get screwed by one guy who slow plays.

The problem with the GW format is that you basically NEED to massacre or major victory all 3+ of your games in order to have a shot at winning. Its kinda a bad format but thats another point. So if you are really trying to win, you need to play fast and try to finish every game.


On a side note

Playing fast doesn't always mean less fun. I personally get really really bored when a 6 turn game takes 4+ hours. idk about the rest of you.

Timmah wrote:
I personally believe that 15 mins is a very reasonable turn length for any point level under 2500.

Maybe you don't love your miniatures very much. Maybe you've never tried to move 200 orks, while maintaining large enough gaps between models that you're not utterly destroyed by templates, while keeping all your units within 6" of the big mek, and then doing it again in the shooting phase as they all run varying amounts...

All armies are not created equal, even for the most decisive and quick-thinking of players.

Frazzled wrote:So people who don't finish 5 turns are slow playing now?

Simple answer: Yes

I'm not a tourney player but I can see both sides to the coin.

Best solution would be timed turns for each player however without a rules referee it could get exploited by TFG if he relentlessly asks and clarifies stuff throughout the turn.

Beating the clock is an aspect in most competitive "sports" and I'm sure there's a few tournaments who've already done it.

Kallbrand wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So people who don't finish 5 turns are slow playing now?

Simple answer: Yes

Simple reply: No

I have played both types of armies, including mech marines to swarm nids (interweaving units for cover ofc)

Yes it takes time, but I have done it and watched many other players do it and finish in a reasonable time.

Armies like orcs really benefit from not going to 5-6 rounds simply because you don't have enough time to kill them all. Just like many armies benefit from going the entire 6 rounds.

If you are going to a tournament you should be prepared to play fast and know that if you don't your screwing some other guy over.

I can't go to tournaments unprepared with a half painted half assembled army. Why should you come unprepared to play your army fast?

No when I go to a tournament I come to prepared to play. Your timeframe is irrelevant to me.

Edit (3 rd time damn fast edit button)

I've played tourney games where we barely made it to three and other games where we made through turn six with lots of time to spare, with the same list. I see to many variables here to take a 'my way or the highway' approach. Most of the time false black/white paradigms are just that: false.

Using a chess timer or equivalent is the only fair resolution aside from the obvious one*.

* Don't play 40k in tournaments. It sucks at it.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Using a chess timer or equivalent is the only fair resolution aside from the obvious one*.

* Don't play 40k in tournaments. It sucks at it.

OK to be fair if the TO had everyone use a timer and a little extra time is set for deployment I'd be down with this. Alternatively if the TO called it out I'd be down with it as well. I'm really just objecting to one player trying to tell the other player what to do.

Frazzled wrote:No when I go to a tournament I come to prepared to play. Your timeframe is irrelevant to me.

I've played tourney games where we barely made it to three and other games where we made through turn six with lots of time to spare, with the same list. I see to many variables here to take a 'my way or the highway' approach. Most of the time false black/white paradigms are just that: false.

The timeframe is not set by your opponent. It is the tournament timeframe, which is were I do not see a leg to stand on for the people advocating not adjusting their play speed in the least because of it. This is one of the RULES of the tournament that was posted before you signed up, and to say you won't even make an attempt to adhere to it is wrong. Your actions are effecting your opponent who does not deserve to be robbed from any chance of advancing, because you could not be bothered to try and play within the limit you signed up for. If you are unwilling or unable to adhere to a set time then don't join tournaments. Some people here have said they do just that, and I thank you. To do so is not only wasting the slow players time when they could be playing a friendly limit free game, but the three people unlucky enough to pull the person who don't deserve to have their score effected as a result. Slow playing tournies just because the person doesn't "feel" like speeding up is unacceptable, spin it however you want.

You are right though that it's not black and white, and I do agree that each army will take varying amounts of time to operate and deploy. This is just fact. However if you had a clock on each persons time taken per game you could easily adjust for horde armies in the case of an unfinished game. Use that clock only then, and take into account whether the guy was playing a horde army. Taking longer to think as a norm, having more decisions to make, not wanting to rush things, etc. should NOT give you more time than me in a tournament. If when the game ends the opponent has used more time and is not playing an army that requires it than there should be penalties.

EDIT: (not the first two for my horrible writing)
Not talking about a forfeit because the person took longer, but a set points reduction for amount of time taken over the opponent. I would bet the majority of the unfinished games end in draws/minors, and if the TO called it as a slow play situation he could bump either up a notch or flip the results. This is one possible fix, and I am sure it like any other has holes in it.

Kaotik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No when I go to a tournament I come to prepared to play. Your timeframe is irrelevant to me.

I've played tourney games where we barely made it to three and other games where we made through turn six with lots of time to spare, with the same list. I see to many variables here to take a 'my way or the highway' approach. Most of the time false black/white paradigms are just that: false.

The timeframe is not set by your opponent. It is the tournament timeframe, which is were I do not see a leg to stand on for the people advocating not adjusting their play speed in the least because of it. This is one of the RULES of the tournament that was posted before you signed up, and to say you won't even make an attempt to adhere to it is wrong. Your actions are effecting your opponent who does not deserve to be robbed from any chance of advancing, because you could not be bothered to try and play within the limit you signed up for. If you are unwilling or unable to adhere to a set time then don't join tournaments. Some people here have said they do just that, and I thank you. To do so is not only wasting your time when you could be playing a friendly limit free game, but the three people unlucky enough to pull the person who would like to advance if possible. Slow playing tournies just because you don't "feel" like speeding up is unacceptable, spin it however you want.

You are right though that it's not black and white, and I do agree that each army will take varying amounts of time to operate and deploy. This is just fact. However if you had a clock on each persons time taken per game you could easily adjust for horde armies in the case of an unfinished game. Use that clock only then, and take into account whether the guy was playing a horde army. Taking longer to think as a norm, having more decisions to make, not wanting to rush things, etc. should NOT give you more time than me in a tournament. If when the game ends the opponent has used more time and is not playing an army that requires it than there should be penalties.

EDIT:
Not talking about a forfeit because you took longer, but a set points reduction for amount of time taken over the opponent. I would bet the majority of the unfinished games end in draws/minors, and if the TO called it as a slow play situation he could bump either up a notch. This is a possible fix, and I am sure it like any other has holes in it.

Why, it wouldn't be wasting my time at all. I may be having a blast, and even kicking his proverbial teeth. You're assuming my opponent would get the better of me if I rushed.

Again, playing devils advocate here, but absent the TO putting it in the rules, there's nothing saying you have to make X number of turns. As have been noted its your fault if your whole strategy depends on winning the bottom of turn 5. Its just sucks to be that player then.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, playing devils advocate here, but absent the TO putting it in the rules, there's nothing saying you have to make X number of turns.

The game says how many turns there are.

A tournament is a game of 40k in the allotted amount of time.

If you did not finish the game (either turn #6 or random game length) you did not play a game of 40k.

As have been noted its your fault if your whole strategy depends on winning the bottom of turn 5. Its just sucks to be that player then.

I understand your point now. Your strategy should be based on winning turns #3 and #4, while your opponent is playing to win turn #5. I wonder if that would encourage slow play?

Frazzled wrote:


Why, it wouldn't be wasting my time at all. I may be having a blast, and even kicking his proverbial teeth. You're assuming my opponent would get the better of me if I rushed.

Again, playing devils advocate here, but absent the TO putting it in the rules, there's nothing saying you have to make X number of turns. As have been noted its your fault if your whole strategy depends on winning the bottom of turn 5. Its just sucks to be that player then.

In some cases slow play could cost the person doing it points as well, you are perfectly correct. If that was always the case I would say ok. Sadly I think the majority is a mix of people doing it on purpose if they think they can avert a massacre, or it is done because the person can't/won't play at the required speed and that effects the other player negatively.

As for the second part, I play SW which is assault army so I am probably advocating my side of things just as strongly because it effects me the most when a game ends on turn 3-4 and I have JUST gotten to start actually swinging the chain swords. That coupled with the fact I am 95% sure it was done to me in round1 of the prelims.

In swimming at least there are invitational meets where you have to meet a certain standard in order to enter an event. These are called 'invitational' events, as in you're only invited if you can keep up. Of course, the standard is pretty low, except for championships, but the point is to keep out the reccys who would delay the meet and cause heats to go over their alloted time because they're not familiar with the rules.

Blackmoor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again, playing devils advocate here, but absent the TO putting it in the rules, there's nothing saying you have to make X number of turns.

The game says how many turns there are.

A tournament is a game of 40k in the allotted amount of time.

If you did not finish the game (either turn #6 or random game length) you did not play a game of 40k.

Sorry it just means we didn't make it to turn 5.

Nurglitch wrote:In swimming at least there are invitational meets where you have to meet a certain standard in order to enter an event. These are called 'invitational' events, as in you're only invited if you can keep up. Of course, the standard is pretty low, except for championships, but the point is to keep out the reccys who would delay the meet and cause heats to go over their alloted time because they're not familiar with the rules.

I am really hoping the prelims will have weeded the vast majority out as you said. The guy that did it to me first round and only finished one of his games will be advancing though. I cannot believe this did not happen more than once across the tournament, but I can hope that it only happened for 1-2 people at the spot I am going to for the semis.

Blackmoor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again, playing devils advocate here, but absent the TO putting it in the rules, there's nothing saying you have to make X number of turns.

The game says how many turns there are.

A tournament is a game of 40k in the allotted amount of time.

If you did not finish the game (either turn #6 or random game length) you did not play a game of 40k.

As have been noted its your fault if your whole strategy depends on winning the bottom of turn 5. Its just sucks to be that player then.

I understand your point now. Your strategy should be based on winning turns #3 and #4, while your opponent is playing to win turn #5. I wonder if that would encourage slow play?

Actually no. I usually have a defined strategy that floats by turn. But if its turn 3 and we have 30 minutes left to play, I'm surely not going to pin my gaming on what happens in turn 5.