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.

All games got to at least the 5th turn except two. I did play a round against a fairly new player and almost did not finish through turn 2! The only reason I didnt thumbs down him was because he didnt do it on purpose. My fault for being so low in the rankings.

 Grimgob wrote:
All games got to at least the 5th turn except two. I did play a round against a fairly new player and almost did not finish through turn 2! The only reason I didnt thumbs down him was because he didnt do it on purpose. My fault for being so low in the rankings.

I had 2 games out of 7 make it to a natural conclusion by die roll, and one that ended with opponent concession on turn 5. Most of the rest ended on turn 4. At least one game's outcome was materially affected.

 Grimgob wrote:
All games got to at least the 5th turn except two. I did play a round against a fairly new player and almost did not finish through turn 2! The only reason I didnt thumbs down him was because he didnt do it on purpose. My fault for being so low in the rankings.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. Often when people talk about whether or not there was enough time they say: 'well, at least we finished turn 5'. However, the problem with that train of thinking is that when you know the game is going to end on turn 5 (because you can see the time winding down), then the outcome of the game is often just as affected as if you had only finished 3 or 4 turns of the game.

That's why even when some tournaments have included a box to ask if people are finishing their games within time it doesn't include enough detail to explain to people what this really means. It needs to say something like:

Did your game reach a natural conclusion (Y/N)? With 'natural conclusion' meaning:

• One player conceded defeat.
• The game ended after completing turn 5 or 6 with a failed variable game length roll.
• The game ended with turn 7 completed.

That's the ONLY way you really know whether game outcomes are being adversely affected by round times. And once you have that data you can decide whether the issue is widespread enough to warrant changing something like point levels/round times or whether the issue isn't that big a deal and can be left alone...or hell, it can even tell you that it is such NOT a problem that you can consider raising point levels (or shortening round times) next year!

 yakface wrote:
That's the ONLY way you really know whether game outcomes are being adversely affected by round times. And once you have that data you can decide whether the issue is widespread enough to warrant changing something like point levels/round times or whether the issue isn't that big a deal and can be left alone...or hell, it can even tell you that it is such NOT a problem that you can consider raising point levels (or shortening round times) next year!

Yakface,
Can we (you, me?) someone rig up a ... thread/ poll for people to 'vote' in their game times at the BAO? That'd give Reece and other TOs a good idea of just how few turns got played.

I'll try a thread/poll on my own, shortly here. For the record, my games went:

Game 1 - Turn 4
Game 2 - Turn 4 (IIRC)
Game 3 - Turn 4
Game 4 - Turn 6 (IIRC)
Game 5 - Turn 1 (opponent conceded)
Game 6 - Turn 5
Game 7 - I bailed early.

Perhaps those slow times are my responsibility. I suppose that it might be me. As per my sig, I'm not a nooB and none of my opponents were either, but it did seem tough to get in a full 5.

And Game 4? Criminy, I don't remember hearing "Dice Down" called.

The things is that we run a LOT of tournaments, so I think our knowledge of how things flow at an event in terms of operating within the framework of 6th is maybe a few steps ahead of the average attendee. I think now that folks have seen how much slower the game plays, they may be open minded to lower points levels where they will actually finish games but have to play with less stuff.

I think just like being exposed to Forgeworld in a competitive setting and seeing it really isn't a big deal at all, people may not be willing to look at lower points levels. I am putting together a poll now to shoot to everyone to get their feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Blackmoor, we did have judges (just not nearly enough) and I agree about the table numbers. We used 8' tables and it was still tough to see the numbers. We will need to get something to hold them up. Just remember, that is the cost of them multiplied by 100! Haha, not cheap, even if they only cost a few bucks.

 Reecius wrote:
The things is that we run a LOT of tournaments, so I think our knowledge of how things flow at an event in terms of operating within the framework of 6th is maybe a few steps ahead of the average attendee. I think now that folks have seen how much slower the game plays, they may be open minded to lower points levels where they will actually finish games but have to play with less stuff.

I think just like being exposed to Forgeworld in a competitive setting and seeing it really isn't a big deal at all, people may not be willing to look at lower points levels. I am putting together a poll now to shoot to everyone to get their feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Blackmoor, we did have judges (just not nearly enough) and I agree about the table numbers. We used 8' tables and it was still tough to see the numbers. We will need to get something to hold them up. Just remember, that is the cost of them multiplied by 100! Haha, not cheap, even if they only cost a few bucks.

I would say that you were understaffed.

Also you might have had judges, but when everyone looks the same there was no way to tell who they were.


As far as Forge World goes, I had several problems. For example in my last game (remember that one?) I was playing against a Tau player. He handed me he army list and did not tell me much about it (he did explain the sensor towers when asked). He had a couple of hammerheads with 2 railguns on them. I was thinking that they were just conversions and so I screened my marines with LOS blocking terrain to his army and left them out in the open to the hammerheads thinking that loosing one or two to a railgun is no big deal. Then when he goes to shoot at my squad he then says that they are TL Plasma guns with 4 shots and I end up losing a squad to them. So much for WYSIWYG. Heck, if he was going to put 2 weapons on them he should have done it with the Ion cannons at least since they are closer to what they do than the railgun.

That is one of the many reasons why I quit that game. If I could not combat squad my paladins I could not kill all of his troops and he would have won since he was able to butcher my marines because he did not follow the modeling rules.

 Blackmoor wrote:

As far as Forge World goes, I had several problems. For example in my last game (remember that one?) I was playing against a Tau player. He handed me he army list and did not tell me much about it (he did explain the sensor towers when asked). He had a couple of hammerheads with 2 railguns on them. I was thinking that they were just conversions and so I screened my marines with LOS blocking terrain to his army and left them out in the open to the hammerheads thinking that loosing one or two to a railgun is no big deal. Then when he goes to shoot at my squad he then says that they are TL Plasma guns with 4 shots and I end up losing a squad to them. So much for WYSIWYG. Heck, if he was going to put 2 weapons on them he should have done it with the Ion cannons at least since they are closer to what they do than the railgun.

That is one of the many reasons why I quit that game. If I could not combat squad my paladins I could not kill all of his troops and he would have won since he was able to butcher my marines because he did not follow the modeling rules.

Did the army list have the Imperial Armor units listed (I'm assuming yes or you would have said so)?

I mean, yes, in a perfect world the guy would explain everything clearly (most people do, I find), but if you have an issue with Forgeworld, how hard is it to ask before each game: 'Do you have any Imperial Armor units in your army and if so where are they?'

And if someone doesn't have the IA rules available, then you simply mark them down on sportsmanship as they do not have a copy of their rules.

Its almost like you're purposely looking for ways to get bent out of shape about IA.

Going to comment on multiple topics.

Suggestions for next BAO

#1 don't use the projector to show listings it just creates a huge traffic jam. Instead I would suggest printing out 3 or 4 copies, give them to the first 3 or 4 players in line, and have them stick them up on opposite ends of the building. That will split 1 giant jam into several smaller ones. Then ask the first person who reports winning a game to tear down the old postings.

#2 save the projector to display remaining time.

On forge world.

Have players include a photocopied page of the unit with every copy of their army list. I only has 2 opponents that wanted to see the rules for tarantulas and sabers, and in hindsight it would have been better to leave them with a copy of their own.

Coming from the guy that has custom modeled counts models out in left field WYSIWYG needs to be a bit stricter when a gun clearly resembles another gun. Floating arcane orbs maned by psykers as sabers cannot be mistaken for something else in 40k. Worst case scenario is someone says "wtf is that?" , I explain, then it's "ok cool". When an opponent forgets what they are they look at it for a second and are forced to use their short term memory and they remember its a saber. When custom built duel rail cannons are modeled as forge world plasma gun worst case scenario is people say "ok cool", then forget it's plasma guns instead of rail guns. When they look at it they are not forced to use their short term memory, and their long term memory deceives them by saying it's a railgun.

@Blackmoor - I agree that was certainly problematic. I just fail to see how that is distinctly a Forgeworld one? Am I missing something? Did you mistake it for a Forgeworld unit? Your opponent had an conversion that was not properly modeled right?

I think the issue Blackmoor is stating (and I could be wrong) is that he is familair with the rules in most codices and their representations on the table. No know the FW rules makes it easier to make mistakes with counts as (I not only need to remember what the unit counts as, but also what it does.)

That said it sounds more like a WYSIWYG problem than a FW problem specifically in this case.

For how FW effects the overall meta, I would need to see a list of the top table armies, inclusion of any FW in those armies. I would also need to compare top tables to other non FW events (yes players are not the same) and see if there is a giant discrepancy in what armies perform well.

I.e. if Cronair is dominating non FW tournaments (example not fact) but not doing so in FW tournaments that is a change in the meta.

I'd be curious as to how many flyers showed up at this event and how many of those flyers were forgeworld. Conversely I'd be interesting in how many Mortis Contemptors, sabre platforms, and hyperios batteries and other interceptor/skyfire units showed up.

The first would be an indication that forgeworld allowance limited the flyers people brought. The second would indicate if ditching flyers was warranted or if just the possibility of including forgeworld limited flyers.

I'd also point out that even in a non-forgeworld environment the top 8 at Indy only averaged 2.4 flyers each in the top bracket which seems pretty reasonable.

 yakface wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

As far as Forge World goes, I had several problems. For example in my last game (remember that one?) I was playing against a Tau player. He handed me he army list and did not tell me much about it (he did explain the sensor towers when asked). He had a couple of hammerheads with 2 railguns on them. I was thinking that they were just conversions and so I screened my marines with LOS blocking terrain to his army and left them out in the open to the hammerheads thinking that loosing one or two to a railgun is no big deal. Then when he goes to shoot at my squad he then says that they are TL Plasma guns with 4 shots and I end up losing a squad to them. So much for WYSIWYG. Heck, if he was going to put 2 weapons on them he should have done it with the Ion cannons at least since they are closer to what they do than the railgun.

That is one of the many reasons why I quit that game. If I could not combat squad my paladins I could not kill all of his troops and he would have won since he was able to butcher my marines because he did not follow the modeling rules.

Did the army list have the Imperial Armor units listed (I'm assuming yes or you would have said so)?

I mean, yes, in a perfect world the guy would explain everything clearly (most people do, I find), but if you have an issue with Forgeworld, how hard is it to ask before each game: 'Do you have any Imperial Armor units in your army and if so where are they?'

And if someone doesn't have the IA rules available, then you simply mark them down on sportsmanship as they do not have a copy of their rules.

Its almost like you're purposely looking for ways to get bent out of shape about IA.

First let me say my opinion on FW in tournaments was changed, primarily by the nightmare thread I began a few months ago. However in an event that allows FW and requires the player to have the rules then simply marking them down for lack of rules is not enough. If you do not have the rules then there are only 2 acceptable calls from the judges and organizer imo. 1. They may not use that unit in their games, allow them to replace it with something else of course or 2. They can play with the unit but their games will only ever count as a win for their opponents.

The second issue here is modeling. The FW allowance, as I said, is fine by me now but in our area we require the actual model to be used. This cuts down on conversion confusion. Conversions, especially cool ones like Mike Fox's Orks, are welcome and encouraged for normal 40k models but not FW. The problem with Allans' game isn't that he didn't properly check the list or ask clarifying questions about possible FW units, the problem is the unit was no where near WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG is in effect at the BAO and this player did not follow those rules, had the model been the actual FW models then the fault would be entirely Allans had he still not asked clarifying questions. Are we as players really expected to make sure the the sails on an Ork Battlewagon aren't making it a FW Ork Fightabomba? If FW is going to be used the actual models should be required.

It is both a Forge World problem and a WYSIWYG problem.

I did not know that there was even an option such as a TL plasma gun on hammerheads. I know about Ion Cannons, and I know about Railguns, but not these.

And Yak, I wll check his army list when I get home tonight, but I think it just says Hammerhead on his sheet. It was an army builder print out with all of the details and in left hand column it just says Hammerhead, and buried in all of the army builder fine print it says what it is armed with.

And yes, it is a WYSIWYG problem. Here is the issue with that...I have no idea what a hammerhead with that upgrade looks like. I did not know it was a WYSIWYG problem until I got home. There is a possiblity that he was using the correct model since I do not know what it looks like, or it is possible that FW wrote the rules for it, but did not make a model for it so everyone with this upgrade has to make a conversion of some fashion to play it. On the table top, in the moment, during our game there is no way for me to know that there even is a WYSIWYG issue.

 Blackmoor wrote:
It is both a Forge World problem and a WYSIWYG problem.

I did not know that there was even an option such as a TL plasma gun on hammerheads. I know about Ion Cannons, and I know about Railguns, but not these.

And Yak, I wll check his army list when I get home tonight, but I think it just says Hammerhead on his sheet. It was an army builder print out with all of the details and in left hand column it just says Hammerhead, and buried in all of the army builder fine print it says what it is armed with.

And yes, it is a WYSIWYG problem. Here is the issue with that...I have no idea what a hammerhead with that upgrade looks like. I did not know it was a WYSIWYG problem until I got home. There is a possiblity that he was using the correct model since I do not know what it looks like, or it is possible that FW wrote the rules for it, but did not make a model for it so everyone with this upgrade has to make a conversion of some fashion to play it. On the table top, in the moment, during our game there is no way for me to know that there even is a WYSIWYG issue.

This type thing can ruin a weekend for a player. Sorry that happened to you Alan.

Marking down their sportamanship score doesn't do anything to help Alan's situation. The logistics of bringing the additional FW rules with you and educating your opponent on FW rules within your play time should be the cause against allowing FW at tournaments.

edited to correct a typing error.

Blackmoor I'd go as far to say the Tau player cheated. These are the kinds of things that give Forge World a very bad reputation. There must be stricter guidelines and active enforcement.

Exposure to FW will solve these issues. Saying you do not instantly recognize everything and therefore should not use any of it is a solution that perpetuates the problem.

The reason we allowed conversions is that for one, people got upset that they would have to pay FW prices for FW stuff, and 2, if it is going to be treated like normal 40K models, they should be held to the same standard. We allow conversions in normal 40K, so we applied the same rules to FW.

I will be very curious to see how other big GT's that don't allow FW go, Adepticon particularly. If the finals is dominated by Necron Flyers and Hell Turkeys which I have a feeling they will, it might open more folk's minds to it. We really felt that FW helped to mitigate the advantage of Flyers, but I understand that other folks may not share that belief.

And one of the biggest reasons we allow FW, is because it is fun! A TON of people there just brought the cool FW models they have in their army, a lot of which weren't even that good. It added a lot of variety and fun to the game.

I am putting together a poll though too, and that will really help to shed light on the subject and not just be our few opinions.

@Blackmoor

Each player was required to have a handout showing what any conversions were. If your opponent didn't have that, that is a legitimate reason for a thumbs down on sports. I am pretty damn sure Israel did have that, as he hangs out at our store and he knew what to expect. It was posted in the tournament guidelines WAY in advance, so everyone had plenty of time to do so. Most folks actually sent me their list with the conversions and pictures for approval, so I know a lot of people did it. Obviously though, we can't check every single person's list the day of the event, it would be logistically impossible.

#1. I have his army list still at home and I will post it here tonight. That is all that I received from him.

#2. A thumbs down on sportsmanship is worthless. An example:

Here is how my first game at the BAO went:

My opponent showed up over 15 minutes late.

I was handed an army list that had the unit names changed out to fluffy names and I had to go over their whole army to find out what everything is.

They were playing CSM/Demon list and they were using all tomb kings units and we had to go over every model to find out what it was.

It was the first time they have played this army. They did not know any of the rules for their units and had to look up all of the rules for their units. Yes I knew all of their rules but that did not change anything (the one thing they did do was put there rules on flash cards, but it was still slow).

So at the start of turn 5 I tell my opponent that it’s their turn and someone says that the round is over, I had my whole army (-5 interceptors) and they only had 7 cultists in one squad and 10 in another (ironically those units were 18” away from anything so they had no shooting or assaults possible). I explain to them that we started 15 minutes and all I have to do is move one unit for the win and they should let me do it, but they refused and they said that the round is over.

So I did the only thing that I could and gave them a thumbs down on sportsmanship, but what did that do? I still did not win, and the thumbs down did nothing to penalize them (and FYI they finished in the bottom 10).






Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as far as Forge World's effect of the meta?

You can compare it to the Indy Open that happened last weekend.

At the Indy open you had Necrons and Chaos doing very well.

At the BAO you have IG doing very well.

I will make the leap and say that this was because of Saber Platforms.

So is it better to have IG on top rather than Necrons?

That sounds like a pretty crummy game, which sucks.

We accept full responsibility for any mistakes we make, and will fix them. However, things like what you described are unfortunately not within our ability to control. New players come to tournaments (we all start somewhere) and I encourage that! We want fresh blood coming in.

People are going to make counts as armies. And I encourage that, too! The artistic side of 40K is just as cool as the competitive side. I love competitive play the most (as do a lot of folks) but a very close second is the art, fluff and creativity that comes with it. I do not want to punish anyone for being creative and making an awesome army for everyone else to enjoy (and i know the army you are talking about, it was gorgeous!).

An unfortunate side effect of that is situations like you described. Someone who was not prepared, maybe new to the game, and in a situation where things are going to slow down.

The only solution to that is so suck the creativity out of the game and reduce it down to straight WYSIWG, no conversions, no counts as, etc. That to me is no solution at all as it degrades one of the coolest parts of the hobby.

We have to strike a balance as TO's. I am sorry to hear that you had some issues, that stinks. But I promise you we listen and do what is best for the event, not just what I, or the team, wants. if so, we'd already be at 1500pts! haha

Thanks for the feedback though, it is appreciated.

@thread

When I said earlier that we run a lot of events and maybe had more experience in understanding the game in a tournament setting, I hope I didn't come across as arrogant or that my opinion trumped everyone else's. I certainly didn't mean it that way. My point was that a lot of the stuff we've pushed for and met resistance on, has since been accepted once other folks have tried it in a tournament setting.

I was just trying to convey the fact that we simply have a lot of experience in tournament 40K and that once other folks have had a chance to play more, they may come to realize on their own the same conclusions we've come to. And, maybe not, which is fine too.

We will shape all of our events to reflect what the community wants as ultimately we can't run an event if people don't come. We try to keep our egos out of it as much as possible and the feedback we get is really useful for us to shape the event that people want to have.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Blackmoor I'd go as far to say the Tau player cheated. These are the kinds of things that give Forge World a very bad reputation. There must be stricter guidelines and active enforcement.

I think the tau player in question scored a 40 on paint, which pretty much means anything he does will pass the rule of cool. It also means friends and local opponents are less likely to give him any negative feedback. I don't know the guy so I can't vouch for him, but I don't believe he would go through all that trouble of painting an army to a 40 just to confuse opponents with plasma guns modeled as rail cannons. All he needed to do was add something to the gun that makes it look like plasma, a magnetized plastic clamp would probably work, but his friends probably didn't warn him that the model is confusing. It's probably the last thing a passer by would notice about his army. The only time people tend to notice is after they forget they were told it's a railgun and their long term memory tells their conscious decision making "it's a railgun". He may have been set up for failure, and now a guy who can paint an army to 40 has become the unfortunate poster child of how a gun that looks like another gun is a bad idea for a conversion.

@Blackmoor

Well, in the top 10 we had

4 players with some IG (1 straight IG, others allies)
3 players with Chaos (1 allied in, 2 straight chaos)
2 Daemon1 (who won!, 1 allied)
2 Wolves (1 allied)
1 Tyranid (and 1 at 11th place)
1 Dark Eldar/Eldar combo

Of that, i believe only the IG players even used FW. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case. 4 of the top 10 with FW is not overwhelming to me at least.

I would hardly call that domination by IG, but they did do the best. I would agree that Sabers played a big part in that.

However, with that distribution of armies, I really do not see that as a problem. That is pretty even.

What was the distribution at the Indy Open? How many players? tournament structure? What were their missions, terrain, etc. etc. There are so many variables that a direct comparison is hard to do, but at least we can look at the distribution of the top 10 to get a rough idea.

You know I love you Reece but I think you should lock down times between rounds, pairings, proper starting times, and flow of the event before saying 40k can't be finished at 1750 in 2 hours and 15 minutes.

***Disclaimer: The following is completely personal experience and may not reflect the whole or even a significant number of events I've attended*****

I can't speak for Nova since I don't know the numbers Mike has from his score sheets but I found that 2.5 hours was plenty to finish with an all foot army putting out 100+ shots with 1/2 of them prescienced in all of my games at Nova. I think only one even went to time and the roll off ended the game anyway. Games were 1,850. And this was when 6th was only 2-3 months old.

I feel the same way about the Indy Open this weekend. I had one game go to time and no others that didn't end naturally. And the dudes that rode with me had the same results outside of a single player three of them played. Games were 1,750 and 2 hours 15 minutes.

Games at a smaller event that was 5 games were all finished under time with nothing going to the mark for myself and I didn't see anyone going over time. Rounds were 2.5 hours at 1850.

I've found that 6th actually plays faster than 5th and most of the people I've talked to at events feel the same way at local events (local being Minnesota, Wiscounsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska).

Maybe adding Forgeworld has slowed the game down by adding another level of complexity to the game starting process of showing people what you have and what it does?

Just throwing it out there. I keep meaning to make it out to one of your events but the wife already gets cranky about 5-6 GT's I attend a year even if only 3 of them are out of state. I will say though that I won't attend an event not in a hotel if I'm flying. Way to much of a pain not to mention the additional cost of renting a vehicle to get to the location for the weekend.

BTW, here's what the Tau gun is supposed to look like:

I remember seeing the dual-railgun hammerheads and wondering if there was a twin-linked railgun option that I didn't know about.

Indy open top 10

1.)Nec/Cha
2.)Necron
3.)Nec/Chaos
4.)Chaos
5.)GK
6.)Nec/Cha
7.)SW
8.)IG/SW
9.)Nec/GK
10.)IG/DA

I wish I could find the colonial results as well, but am unable.

SO looking at this you have
5 Necron players (4 allied)
4 Chaos (3 allied)
2 IG both allies
2 GK (one allied)
2 SW (one allied)
1 DA (allied)

So the largest obvious difference is Lots of Crons on top at indy and 0 crons on top at BAO, less IG(only as allies.)

And one of those chaos could have been Daemons. Not sure if I remember if they were up there or not but the list isn't clear as it Chaos is also used for my buddies Daemons at the number 11 spot.

I'd also point out an average of 2.4 flyers or so. (17 flyers for 8 armies) in the top 8. Any idea on the number of flyers in the top 8-10 or at the event overall? Just curious.

@Hulk

No worries dude, any and all input is welcome. And don't worry about hurting my feelings, I have thick skin. I write for BoLS after all! haha

Like I said, I am not saying 1500 is the ONLY way, I just find that it works great in a tournament.

One of the things I think a lot of people forget is that we have to plan for the average attendee, not the top 10% who often are those posting on the boards and very vocal. The average attendee doesn't know the rules as well, isn't as fast and doesn't practice as much. They are just a bit slower.

Also, we do have rounds and times between rounds locked down and in the schedule. The problem was that we started late day 1, and with the physical problems of crowding, trouble with acoustics and getting everyone seeing pairings quickly, it made the normally adequate 15 minutes between rounds, not adequate. We had a layering of small issues that turned into larger issues.

I am not saying it can't work at 1750 or even 1850, just that experience has shown me that 1500 works great and results in the highest number of games finishing on time.

Day 2 we started on time and allowed people to start the round early as pairings were up a half hour before the round started, and a ton of games STILL went long, haha. It's like a goldfish growing as big as its tank allows.

As people get better with 6th, and in a setting that would facilitate faster play and better logistics, I think 1750 would work, but logically I don't think anyone would disagree that in the time frame, smaller points values means more finished games and a more leisurely pace.

And no worries about not making it out, man. I understand all too well that we can't afford to go to every event. I never take it personally when someone can't make it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng77 and Hulksmash

Thanks for the data, guys!

Now, before we jump to any conclusions about what FW did or did not do, we have to remember that this is 1 sample group, and that there are a million other variables in play. This is just an indicator of what may or may not have occurred, not a definitive answer in any way.

What about a big white board for the pairings? Give players numbers when they arrive. Put table numbers in the board with the player numbers. Easier to read then a laptop.

Something worth noting is that anecdotally, more casual players and more average gamers tend to play faster, and care less about most things. I.E.., most of your attendees don't even post on forums and such, and most of them know how to play, and most of them play at a fairly clipper pace ... very often by the very nature of their average-ness: they're less finnicky about LOS and rules calls, they dice off or guess on most things, they play pretty quick and loose w/out a lot of time figuring out the nuances of perfect model placement, and they rarely ever call over a judge.

The bigger issues are actually IN the 10% ... which are coincidentally the people who care enough to post on forums often, be loud on the internets, etc. This is why often you can see individuals be very loud in critique or praise of an event, but then see the event surveys not really match the loud individuals.

The reason I say the 10% is the source of most of the issue when there is an issue ... in this case, more competitive players often play more highly tuned lists (which are in 6th edition more model-heavy in most cases), and also tend to be more precise about playing every part of the game, being specific with model placement and LOS, and demanding the same of their opponents; plus, most won't resolve rules issues with a dice off or a shrug ... they'll call over a judge about it.

The other part of the 10% are the brand new players (ALSO not common at tournaments), who are slow by virtue of being completely new to the game.

I think the thing to focus on is .. the game DOES take longer, b/c armies are generally bigger per point, and there are more whacky rules (this is true regardless of points level - 3 years ago, Marines didn't cost 13-14 points, and Daemons didn't cost 9-10 points ... there's a clear trend, ya'll).

Figuring out a way to accommodate the game taking on average a little longer is a worthwhile adventure, but there's obviously not one solution. 1750/1850 and 2.5 hour rounds with proper leeway to get going on deployment / warlord / etc? 1500 and 2 hour rounds? Longer round times or more time in BETWEEN rounds so you have less traffic jamming due to singular late game instances? There's all kinds of solutions, and folks like Reece are proactive and positive enough that they'll figure out the solution that a) is a real solution, and b) is something that fits with their own nuanced views of how the game is supposed to play ... which is the nature of how TO'ing works.

One thing not to do is try and hamfistedly apply one broad-sweeping notion to a very nuanced and complex problem (which this is, it's not uniform across army types or points sizes or players, at all). "1500 points" is as NOT the solution as "3 hour rounds." Let each TO figure it out themselves in a sense ... but as attendees DO stick to your guns, and be heard so that TO's like Reece know exactly what bugs you and why (most of which is being done in this thread rather precisely).

Random $.02 (if you'd even pay that much)

MVBrandt wrote:

One thing not to do is try and hamfistedly apply one broad-sweeping notion to a very nuanced and complex problem (which this is, it's not uniform across army types or points sizes or players, at all). "1500 points" is as NOT the solution as "3 hour rounds." Let each TO figure it out themselves in a sense ...

Random $.02 (if you'd even pay that much)

I think it is important just to make TOs aware that 6th edition takes longer to play out. There are so many little rules that take longer it is easy to over look that during the course of the game they really do add up. I also think that the player base is not aware that games are taking longer, and it is good to get the word out to them so they can make informed choices and do proper preparations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:
BTW, here's what the Tau gun is supposed to look like:

Spoiler:

I remember seeing the dual-railgun hammerheads and wondering if there was a twin-linked railgun option that I didn't know about.

I looked that up when I got home. If I saw something across the table that looked like that I would have said something.

100% agreed. I'm not in the camp saying 6th is faster. .. hell, nowhere is this more apparent than in pickup games. I used to get 4th and 5th edition beer-and-pretzel games done in 3 hours at most, playing really lazy/casually ... 6th is taking a lot longer on occasion. That does NOT mean you can only solve it by playing small-points games in tighter windows. My broader point is just that there are a lot of reasons WHY it's slower (many of which are: more competitive and brand new players both generally take longer, not shorter, to play), and each TO - while needing to solve it - may find different effective ways to solve it. No solution will probably convince or make happy everyone ... but that's no different than ever about anything :p

It is interesting to note that Lyzz’s dice change the whole forge world narrative.

If she drops down and rolls average and gets blown off the table by Alan’s saber platforms, it is a story about how powerful forge world is that that some armies are crippled by its inclusion.

Instead it is a story about how they are not overpowered and an army that did not take any forge world took them all on and won.