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 am just honestly of the opinion that I don't know how it is possible to not finish a 2000 pt or less 40k game in under 2.5 hours.

Usually the games that take longer than that involve one of the following:

Player takes 30 mins to move his 10 troops
Player thinks about shooting for 10 mins
Player doesn't know what his stuff shoots and takes 20 minutes to decide which dice to roll.

Again, I have played with very very slow players that, if allowed, would take 5+ hours to finish a 1500 pt game. And these players are able to run 2.5 hour 2500 pt games with me when they need to.

There is nothing saying that you have to play a full game. It is just polite to do so.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:There is nothing saying that you have to play a full game. It is just polite to do so.

So if I go 2nd, is it alright if I get to the point I would get a major victory and just stop playing?

Sure, I might lose some sportsmanship score, but I would win a game.


IMO
being prepared for a tournament includes:
Painting
Modeling
Having your list written up
Knowing how to play your army well enough that you can finish in the time alotted.

Again, you wouldn't go to a tournament with a half painted army. Why would you go with one you know you couldn't play fast enough?

Actually I've been to tourneys with lots of half or no painted armies. Thats not helping your case Timmy

TiMMAH!

darn you. hehe i've only been to tournaments with half painted lists (yay ard boyz).

Thats ok. I don't think I can keep up the argument
1) I'm playing devil's advocate here
2) I now have the Timmah! song blasting through my head.

TIMMAH!!!!

and the lords of the underworrlllddd...

Timmah!!!!

If your opponent is a time-eater, and all else has failed, meaning the diplomatic approach has born no fruit, being menacing in a passive aggressive way might deter them from doing it the next time and allow you to blow off some steam.

Yeah, it's harsh, but I paid my $40 for the tourney too and drove an hour and half in the snow, uphill, and parked 20 minutes away in -10 weather. Then some guy spends 20 minutes debating whether or not his guys want to shoot or not?

I think a few bellowing "Hurry up, Dude!" comments might spur them on. Then there is always the soft scoring where you can be punitive as well. If you get really peeved you can whip your dice into his stuff on your rolls. Patience is a virtue that can be tested either way.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:There is nothing saying that you have to play a full game. It is just polite to do so.

So we'll play on chess clocks. You can take it easy and use up all your time playing three turns but I'll play all six.

The problem is that a player that sees advantage in playing a short game (or just doesn't want to play faster) can hurt his opponent's chances. With such a small number of games at most events it only takes one game like that to kill any chance of getting prizes.

With the time split evenly between players then they can play as slow or fast as they want to.

I think a few bellowing "Hurry up, Dude!" comments might spur them on.

It would spur me into punching someone in the face.

Seriously though, that's your solution? Yell at them and throw dice at their gak? I don't see that working out well, unless you're just a big, tough guy and think the other guy's just gonna bend over and take it, and if that were the case then it'd just be bullying in my opinion.

If you can't come to a democratic solution, call a freaking judge. I thought that's what they were there for.

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

They see me trollin'...

I can post in any thread I want to, Dakka's not a dictatorship.

The title talks about slow playing at "TOURNIES"

Try to keep up Sid.

Oh, you gotta be like that now...

Anyway, I came real close to participating in my store's 'Ard Boyz tournament, but I get turned off by the attitudes some people have towards slower players, newer players, people who don't bring the hardest list they possibly can so they get the best challenge (yet another thing some people think I "owe" them), etc. I don't really know anyone at my store all that well, and if they're anything like you guys then they probably wouldn't want me there anyway. I'd have people tapping their foots and chucking dice at me every time I looked something up, or playing with one eye on the clock the whole time, telling me to "Hurry up" every three seconds, and if I didn't lose my mind and shove a railgun in someone's fething eyeball I'd be surprised.

Maybe next year, I dunno. I don't currently play in tournaments and don't currently plan to, like I said, but I still like to read all the discussion about them regardless and see if I can't let myself get talked into it.

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

Good for you. Doesn't really mean gak to me, though. All that tells me is that you're either stupidly fast or have a smaller, elite army that never has too many units on the board at one time, so you can get turns done quicker. Just because you can do it in 10 minutes doesn't mean I have to, or even can.

Maybe I'm just not taking my Warhams seriously enough, I duno. Apparently I just need to go to the gym, I need to train Rocky montage style and get in shape, so I can get that 10 minute turn down and win the big prize! Yeah! Eye of the tiger!

Oh, and TIMMAH!

*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.

THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING THE TOURNAMENTS!!1 GTFO!

-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.

Indeed, like that stupid infomercial scam gak you see on TV, some guy made several thousand dollars sitting on his ass at home, so therefore, the only reason we aren't all rolling in Benjamins like him is because we haven't taken advantage of whatever product is being sold on TV at the moment.

I just don't buy it. I mean I'm genuinely impressed that you can get a turn done that quickly (well, I'd like to see your army list first), but I just think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be able to play as fast as you, despite the size of their armies or any physical disabilities or what have you.

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.

I get bored when I lose.

Or rather, when my plan just falls to gak and I'm stuck watching my army get blown off the board with no chance of turning the game around.

interweaving units for cover ofc

Personally I think that's a rules exploit, I don't think you should be able to interweave units and claim a cover save for both of them. But since GW can't write rules for gak there's no way I could win that argument because "RAW SAYS SO!"

Not only that, but from what I understand it's kind of a difficult maneuver to pull off as each unit has to be spaced in a certain way to provide cover for the other, and it would undoubtedly take time to set them up like that. Wouldn't it make the game go by a lot faster if you just played right and kept your units in separate units like they're really supposed to be, instead of mishmashing everything together to gain an advantage due to a rules oversight? Not only that but it can be pretty damn confusing for the opponent to tell the squads apart, especially an army like Orks where everyone looks the same.


I dunno, I just think it's funny to get harped on for supposedly seeing some advantage in playing slow and trying to screw the other guy out of a win (because I'm obviously just a dick like that), and then you admit to interweaving units for cover which is undoubtedly a RAW loophole, and I refuse to believe that the game was intended to be played that way.

HOLY CRACKERJACKS SID!!!

WALL O" TEXTO!!!

Well don't read it! You won't be missing much anyway.

I am basically 2 and 4, and I honestly don't care IF ANY OF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. If anyone tried to rush me on turn two, I'll have your butt chew out by the judge. And then YOU'VE wasted time.

I love people that say they didn't go to ard boyz because they were nervous about being a new player there.

ard boyz is one of the best tournaments for a new player to go to.

My friend tried to give me this same excuse but I drug him along anyways. He had a ton of fun and realized that tournament players aren't as hardcore and unaccepting of new players as you might think.

If you really want to go to a tournament, just run a couple timed practice games, learn to manage your time and you will be fine. Again 2.5 hours is plenty of time to easily finish a 2k game if you have any grasp on the rules for your army.


Also this thread makes me think of a world of warcraft one

"I pay my 15 bucks a month so I can play however I want!"
"Yea well theres 24 other people here and their 360 bucks a month say you can't"

(something like that)

Remember just because you paid for a tournament doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Because everyone else paid and prepared for that tournament too. So you shouldn't screw people over by coming unprepared.

Khornholio wrote:If your opponent is a time-eater, and all else has failed, meaning the diplomatic approach has born no fruit, being menacing in a passive aggressive way might deter them from doing it the next time and allow you to blow off some steam.

Pray tell, define menacing in a passive aggressive way. Please cite examples. This should be interesting.

I think a few bellowing "Hurry up, Dude!" comments might spur them on.

It would spur me into punching someone in the face.

No I wouldn't punch you in the face, most likely. I would ahve to go have a discusssion with the TO and then your Dad, because you've just affirmed you're either a child or mayhaps you're "special," and need better management.

My Dad doesn't come with me to tournaments cause I'm not a child, Frazzled. :cough: jerk :cough:

He drops me off.

Timmah wrote:My Dad doesn't come with me to tournaments cause I'm not a child, Frazzled. :cough: jerk :cough:

Referring to Kornholio

He drops me off.

Well now that you won a game he won't be embarrassed to be seen with you just pulling your chain.

TIMMAH!!!

Frazzled wrote:
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.

Poor examples.

A better example would be - can you rountinely finish a round of golf quickly enough that you weren't caught up by the group following you?

That's something that all golfers should be able to do. If you can't then there's some sort of problem.


My club meets from 1830 to 2130. By the time we've unpacked tables and scenery then packed it away again that 2 hours MAX for games.

I've never failed to get in five turns of 2000 points against anybody (even the indecisive guard infantry player) although sometimes I don't get to six and seven, depending on the game and my opponent.

If you're having a problem doing that then maybe you should take a hard look at your playing style.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
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.

Poor examples.

A better example would be - can you rountinely finish a round of golf quickly enough that you weren't caught up by the group following you?

That's something that all golfers should be able to do. If you can't then there's some sort of problem.

Oh frazzle, he showed you.

But yea this is a way better example.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
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.

Poor examples.

A better example would be - can you rountinely finish a round of golf quickly enough that you weren't caught up by the group following you?

That's something that all golfers should be able to do. If you can't then there's some sort of problem.


My club meets from 1830 to 2130. By the time we've unpacked tables and scenery then packed it away again that 2 hours MAX for games.

I've never failed to get in five turns of 2000 points against anybody (even the indecisive guard infantry player) although sometimes I don't get to six and seven, depending on the game and my opponent.

If you're having a problem doing that then maybe you should take a hard look at your playing style.

The vast majority of players don't have a problem with finishing a game in a reasonable time limit.

Is there some reason that you struggle to do so?

And if you don't feel that a tournament is significant, is it too much to ask that you play fast enough so as not to hurt another player's chances, someone that might be taking it rather more seriously than you?

Frazzled wrote:
No its pretty appropriate. He's sighting his ability at having done so at some time in his life, therefor everyone should be able to do it. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy deifnition for that somewhere.

Again playing devil's advocate but if that were the case I'd have no difficulty in NOT taking a hard look at my play style. Thats nonsensical. This isn't professional sports. Its not even checkers. Its toy soldiers in a pissant tournament.

If you feel that way then maybe tournaments aren't for you.

The fact of the matter is that tournaments are still a competition. You wouldn't go to a golf tournament and take 8 hours to finish.

Heck most other "professional" or tournament scene hobbies take stalling/slow play very seriously. In Magic the gathering, at a tournament, if you slow play, intentional or not you can get a game/match loss.

I guess its just a different environment because people (for some reason) believe this is more a hobby and less a competition than other hobbies. But the truth is tournaments are more than hobbies.

If I played you with a very slapped together paint job army at some tournament would you give me full marks for painting simply because I showed up and paided my entry fee?

Or, since it sounds like Frazzled is a shooter, how about this: You're at a multi-stage shoot and you're the last shooter. The guy ahead of you is constantly late, messing around with his kit and so on. As a result you end up having to rush stages or even miss stages. Your score is lower than it should have been as a result.

Would you say "no problem, he just doesn't like to be hurried." or would you be annoyed that you missed any chance of a top finish thanks to someone else?

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

Would it also be unfair to ask someone slow down? but honestly, why the strawman, since you have been speaking of intentional slow play, why even ask this question?

Wrexasaur wrote:I am not sure I have interpreted this right, but is sure as heck sounding like simple double standards.

Tell me an instance where double standards don't exist..

Wrexasaur wrote:I have been complaining SPECIFICALLY about people who intentionally slow a game down OR are slow enough in general to take more than a fair amount of time (however the match and players define that). Who cares if you don't want to go fast, I just want to be able to play a full game. How would it be unfair to ask someone to speed it up a bit, and why the heck are you generalizing so underhandedly? I am starting to get slightly offended.

don't get offended, do you really expect in this huge wide expanse of area with so many people on it that everyone is going to agree with you and your opinion?

Wrexasaur wrote:I will simply not attend tournaments with unrealistic time limits, it is just a waste of effort.

That's the smartest thing you've said in this whole thread..

@Timmah

Well now I wouldn't, but then also if you came in and played fething quick and pushed me to play quicker then I wouldn't give you full marks for sportsmanship . . . Just because YOU want to play the game at 200 mph doesn't mean I have to, I can play it at my speed . . . yes I might not get turn 6 or 7 in, but if I can get to turn 4 or 5 in the time limit then that is a reasonable speed.

Part of the problem comes in when you only get half the turn in, I still believe you should be allowed to finish the whole game turn, as then this is even and fair.

The vast majority of players don't have a problem with finishing a game in a reasonable time limit.
Is there some reason that you struggle to do so?
****Evidently they do else we wouldn’t have this thread now would we.
****Why do you assume I struggle to do so? As I stated and you may have failed to see, I’m playing devil’s advocate here because the argument is so one sided. I just don’t take kindly to someone thinking they can tell me to do something. If my Wife can’t get me to do something what makes you think you could?

And if you don't feel that a tournament is significant, is it too much to ask that you play fast enough so as not to hurt another player's chances, someone that might be taking it rather more seriously than you?
***I take what needs to be taken seriously, seriously. You whining is not serious to me, especially if I am winning.


If you feel that way then maybe tournaments aren't for you.
****Timmah as I’ve noted playing devil’s advocate here. More importantly, if I decided to play a tournament it could be for a plethora of reasons, uincluding just playing some different people.

The fact of the matter is that tournaments are still a competition. You wouldn't go to a golf tournament and take 8 hours to finish.
****Don’t play golf do you… I’ve been stuck behind many people to where a situation just took and ungodly amount of time. Under the rules they could tell me to eat it and if I rushed them I could get thrown off the course or have a putter inserted in palces I don’t care to have it inserted thank you very much….

Heck most other "professional" or tournament scene hobbies take stalling/slow play very seriously. In Magic the gathering, at a tournament, if you slow play, intentional or not you can get a game/match loss.
***And there are plenty of tournaments that don’t. The above noted golf is one.

I guess its just a different environment because people (for some reason) believe this is more a hobby and less a competition than other hobbies. But the truth is tournaments are more than hobbies.
***That’s because the rules don’t support it as a tournament.

If I played you with a very slapped together paint job army at some tournament would you give me full marks for painting simply because I showed up and paided my entry fee?
****Nope. Of course that doesn’t have jack to do with this now does it. The worst you can do is zing my sportsmanship.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:Or, since it sounds like Frazzled is a shooter, how about this: You're at a multi-stage shoot and you're the last shooter. The guy ahead of you is constantly late, messing around with his kit and so on. As a result you end up having to rush stages or even miss stages. Your score is lower than it should have been as a result.

Would you say "no problem, he just doesn't like to be hurried." or would you be annoyed that you missed any chance of a top finish thanks to someone else?

Agreed I have a burr in my butt, but it doesn't work like that of course
To flip back, what if he's prudent in his timeleiness above, but he just walks slow?

You come across as rather defensive for someone playing devil's advocate.

Golf's not a great comparison because no matter how slow other people are then you still get just as much time for your play.

What if you get told you've got to do the last half of the course twice as fast as usual thanks to someone else playing slow?

ETA, re the shooting example, if he walks so slowly that he's holding up the event and he's unwilling to walk faster then that's a problem. Messing up other people's chances through laziness or poor preparation is appalling unsporting. If he's incapable then he needs to see about having suitable arrangement made (like starting him first but letting him slip down the shooting order through the day - I've arranged that for people in the past - or having him driven between stages).

ETA2 - I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't work like that"? I've been at events where people have not gotten to shoot the last stage as someone has been disruptive and the range is only allowed to shoot during certain hours.

Still boggles my mind that people draw comparisons between Warhammer and sports, seeing as warhammer (and wargaming in general) is a lot more hobby based than tournament based, whereas sport is more competitive as the rules allow that as they are precise and don't have loop-holes the size of the sun . . . When you enter a tournament you just have to face the fact that you might not get a full game in, and just play your army to that, this is why you should bring a versatile army that can move very quick if needed to, otherwise how else can you get to the objectives on turn 4 instead of turn 6+ . . .

Oshova wrote:@Timmah

Well now I wouldn't, but then also if you came in and played fething quick and pushed me to play quicker then I wouldn't give you full marks for sportsmanship . . . Just because YOU want to play the game at 200 mph doesn't mean I have to, I can play it at my speed . . . yes I might not get turn 6 or 7 in, but if I can get to turn 4 or 5 in the time limit then that is a reasonable speed.

Part of the problem comes in when you only get half the turn in, I still believe you should be allowed to finish the whole game turn, as then this is even and fair.

Well see in a strategy game most people plan ahead in their turns. I don't usually try and claim objectives or push people off objectives til the last turn.

I have had plenty of games that I win with a massacre, but with those same games, if we only got 5 turns in I may have got a minor loss. Why? Because I plan ahead, I might not actually be losing turn 5, but that doesn't mean I am on objectives or ready to win.

I personally think thats why GW took out the variable game length in tournaments, so the strategy is there instead of, ok if the game ends now I win, if it goes another turn I lose. Come on dice roll.

Scott-S6 wrote:You come across as rather defensive for someone playing devil's advocate.

Golf's not a great comparison because no matter how slow other people are then you still get just as much time for your play.

What if you get told you've got to do the last half of the course twice as fast as usual thanks to someone else playing slow?

I'd say you just changed the rules of the tournament and the PGA is going to hear about it.

ETA, re the shooting example, if he walks so slowly that he's holding up the event and he's unwilling to walk faster then that's a problem.

Only if the tourney organizer is foolish enough to put a time limit on the tourney, or he didn't factor in that level of potential time into the rounds. Wait, someone else has been arguing that point as well...

Messing up other people's chances through laziness or poor preparation is appalling unsporting. If he's incapable then he needs to see about having suitable arrangement made (like starting him first but letting him slip down the shooting order through the day - I've arranged that for people in the past - or having him driven between stages).

You're impugning motive when there is none stated. Your follow on point is supportive of mine though as orgnaizer, you're adjusting the schedules properly.

ETA2 - I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't work like that"? I've been at events where people have not gotten to shoot the last stage as someone has been disruptive and the range is only allowed to shoot during certain hours.

Someone has been disruptive, at a shoot? thats just wrong.

Yeah but Timmah instead you have to think about whether time is going to allow you to get those turns in, so just keep your eye on the time, and take the objectives when you need to, then you are in the time limit and on the objectives it at the end =]