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.

After playing our first tournament, my friend and I played a series of games where we timed our turns, trying to keep each player turn down to 10 minutes. We did this because we both had trouble finishing games in that first tournament due to taking to long on our turns. This way we would be well practiced for future tourneys with a two hour time limit. After playing several games over about a month long period, we both had no problems in our next tourney finishing games.

I wouldn't mind playing with a timer, as long as everybody in the tourney also played with a timer. I think it would be rather rude to impose a restriction on just certain people.

DarknessEternal wrote:I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

Me too. I'd include deployment in the allotted time too.

One problem though is your opponent being slow to allocate/roll saves in your turn (I think stopping the timer for that and then restarting when they're done would be rather cumbersome given it's a 6x4 and not a chess table, but otherwise I think it would solve a ot of problems).

In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

For casual games though I do not think it would be necessary for a timer,

After all it is supposed to be a casual game.

Oh casual games (like casual games of chess) wouldn't need timed. But tournaments do have time limits and running short of turns because your opponent is slow is a bit irritating.

The point about large model count armies being disadavantaged is pertinent though and I'd be happy enough if the time was allocated on some sort of pro rata basis based on model count (not purely on model count but with it factored in)

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

ruminator wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

Your 20 model armies are explicitly balanced around the concept of having those 200 model armies out there. If we remove high model count due to model restrictions or artificial time limits not supported by the rules then you modify the meta. Instead of rock, papers and scissors, you have a meta with rock and paper and scissors was asked not to play.

He has every right to play a 200 model army as he paid the points for it. Just because 30 boyz are slower to move and run than 12 trukk boyz in a trukk doesn't mean he should be punished for the codex designers. The reason you need 30 boyz is to soak up casualties you will take which you avoid by transporting. What you are basically saying is only mechanized armies should be allowed to play in tourneys and anything that walks should be banned.

Time limits don't work because I guarantee on my horde orks, 75% of opponents will be assaulting me and my 300+ attacks will be done on YOUR clock. And I will then take my sweet time because putting us on the clock has modified the game to include timewasting as a valid tactic. I think people would begin purposfully built around wasting your opponent's clock to negate attacks. I can take some nice combos which will keep my units rolling invuns and FNP rolls over and over on your turn!

Timed turns = Army Comp. It is enforcing peoples static opinions on how they believe the game should be played and diverge from the actual rules of the game.

I seriously considered a timing system for my tournaments but after a lot of thinking I decided against it.

The goal of timing players turns would have to be to reward players who finish games, and I did not want to punish players because that's simply not fun. A less fun environment brings less people in my opinion

I simply couldn't come up with a timing system that was totally fair (As others have stated the assault phase is shared among both players, how do you time that?), is simple to use (Chess clocks are fine if you're a chess player but a lot arent used to them) and promotes quicker player rather than punishing slow people

If there is a lot of interaction with the players, like during the assault phase in 40k, then it doesn't work because your opponent can run out your clock. It works fine in games like war machine because there is very little interaction between players.

With chess clocks (which I agree are problematic in 40K because of the size of the board, and to a lesser extent because you do need to get familiar with them - though that's generally a fast thing to grasp) you could just stop your clock when it was time for the opponent to pick up his dice and he'd then do the same. That, however, is a bit fiddly. A better method would be to simply stop the clock altogether for the assault phase once assaults had been declared (though taking saves in the shooting phase would be a lesser issue also). In fairness it's a very imperfect solution but a game ending on turn four is also very imperfect.

I've no wish to see horde players penalised, nor indeed to give an advantage to small model count armies but a game stopped due to time running out because the other person was dithering is irritating, especially if other games are being played for the full 5-7 turns.

nkelsch wrote:

ruminator wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:In tournament play you bring an army list that can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. No excuses.

My list can play in a reasonable amount of time. It's my opponent who takes too long. I think that's just about everyone's perspective if a game doesn't finish.

No. I won't take certain lists to a tournament as I know I can't play them in the time alloted. 40k is supposed to be a 5 turn game in most instances and where the opponent knows he can only get 3-4 turns in the time he should change his list or stick to casual play. Seriously. Extending the time limiit is not always the answer. At 1,750 why would everyone else need 2.5 hrs a round just because one person has a 200 model army? I don't want to spend less time playing than waiting between rounds. It's selfish. Bring on the clocks.

Your 20 model armies are explicitly balanced around the concept of having those 200 model armies out there. If we remove high model count due to model restrictions or artificial time limits not supported by the rules then you modify the meta. Instead of rock, papers and scissors, you have a meta with rock and paper and scissors was asked not to play.

He has every right to play a 200 model army as he paid the points for it. Just because 30 boyz are slower to move and run than 12 trukk boyz in a trukk doesn't mean he should be punished for the codex designers. The reason you need 30 boyz is to soak up casualties you will take which you avoid by transporting. What you are basically saying is only mechanized armies should be allowed to play in tourneys and anything that walks should be banned.

Time limits don't work because I guarantee on my horde orks, 75% of opponents will be assaulting me and my 300+ attacks will be done on YOUR clock. And I will then take my sweet time because putting us on the clock has modified the game to include timewasting as a valid tactic. I think people would begin purposfully built around wasting your opponent's clock to negate attacks. I can take some nice combos which will keep my units rolling invuns and FNP rolls over and over on your turn!

Timed turns = Army Comp. It is enforcing peoples static opinions on how they believe the game should be played and diverge from the actual rules of the game.

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

One thing with timing is that if (say) the game was sheduled for 2 hours so you got an hour each, you should only lose on time if the game itself runs over, not merely if your own clock runs out (ie both must happen: you are out of time and the game is over time). Of course the problem then is unsporting players deliberately using up more of their own time than they need but building time-balance to allow for disparate model count would help a bit (eg I get 45 mins, you get 1 hour 15 mins), though would itself be complex to balance in a fair way.

Best overall of course would just be to allow more time for each game so horde players wouldn't be so disadvantaged (and nor would their opponent who will rightly be expecting a 5 turn minimum of course), but time tends to be at a premium anyway...

People keep talking about the army as being the problem. It's not. It's the players, and different play styles.

I've played 200 model armies in tournaments and finished almost all my games. The one game I didn't get full-time on was against a very deliberate, thoughtful player. In that case, the combination of me having a lot of models and him taking time to think through moves combined to stop us a turn short. Realistically that's neither of our fault, it's just how things played out. (And, given that it was the first game of a three-day con, both of us were also breaking out our cameras to take pictures for you guys to enjoy).

Moving 200 models might take time, but those of us who play hordes have learned how to move those models quickly and how to think our moves through on our opponent's turn. It can be faster to move and run six units of 30 guys than to nominate targets and fire 18 MSU units. Rolling dice takes some time, especially if you're being polite enough to tell your opponent what you're rolling for, and let them see the results, not to mention small things like discussing possible cover saves and measuring ranges.

I think that all it really takes is a dedicated effort on the part of both players to play at a reasonable pace. The things that really take time away aren't moving models, or even rolling dice, they're wasting ten minutes to look up a rule, and another five to find a judge. They're challenging every move your opponent makes, and every line-of-sight they draw.

I love WMHD due to timed turns. When heading to a event, you know you have a 2nd opponent, its called the clock. If you bring a horde styled army, you know what your getting into. Can't finish the stuff you wanted to do? Priortize it.

I also play a 40K Horde / Ork list. None of my tournment level games have had trouble with timing. I play very very fast. I move fast, I have my dice set up for fast rolling. IE I'm shooting my lootas, there are dice set down during my opponents turn for lootas, in 10's. That way my opponent can see them as I pick them up. Often i've taken less time for my army then my opponents, and I have over 100 models on the table.

If you cannot play fast, don't bring a horde army. Its that simple. Don Mondo suggested the don't start a new turn thing. I hold to that. I've had many opponents who have small armies start stalling because they know I won't have time to finish my turn on last turn. When they start the turn I make a statement, "don't start it unless i get mine also please."

I notice alot of people saying that timed games wouldnt be fair to Ork hordes players. Thats BS! I've played in tournaments against 150+ model armies with guys who knew exactly what they were going to do before they started their turns and were able to finish games well before time ran out.
On the flip side, I also ran a tournament last week and we had one player (running orks) who didn't finish a single game. He kept blaming his high model count but that was also BS because all of his boyz and nobz had transports. Bottom line is that he's a slow player and needs to learn how to play his army so he can pick up the pace.

Redbeard wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

I guess we don't have complete jerks playing in So Cal. Any system can be broken to gain an advantage, timers or turn minimums, it is up to good TOs and Organizers to mitigate that behavior.

gruebot wrote:I notice alot of people saying that timed games wouldnt be fair to Ork hordes players. Thats BS! I've played in tournaments against 150+ model armies with guys who knew exactly what they were going to do before they started their turns and were able to finish games well before time ran out.
On the flip side, I also ran a tournament last week and we had one player (running orks) who didn't finish a single game. He kept blaming his high model count but that was also BS because all of his boyz and nobz had transports. Bottom line is that he's a slow player and needs to learn how to play his army so he can pick up the pace.

Mech orks can be just as bad for moving purposes, I've actually been observing recently I spend a lot of time during my movement phase just deciding how/where I put my battlewagons before I even disembark, then there's the always fun piling out of 20 boyz onto terrain causing hardcore "wobbly model syndrome," it's not a fast process. I've been purposefully playing games under certain time restrictions just to become better at fast decision making.

I can agree horde armies can be pretty quick to play as well, as they usually lack the MSU shooting other armies have, it's just a matter of moving blobs of mobs forward, but there are times that it's still too cumbersome, and the second you try to develop any type of counter-tactic to dealing with templates(max out that 2" spacing) it adds a lot of time. Though with practice I can now do this fairly fast, so it's not much of an issue.

My biggest gripe, and my whole point, is people who bring these 20-30 model count armies, shouldn't get pissed just because their opponent's turn took longer. It's understandable if you only played 4 or less rounds in a 2 and a half hour time limit, but if you do manage to get a turn 5 in and still complain "so and so took more time than I did!" I don't want to hear it.

we started timing our turns preparing for a tourney.

all it did was now, that we dont time our turns, our games dont take 3 hours.

just getting into the mentality that "hey if its not my turn to do something, NOW is the time to shoot the gak, not while my opponent is waiting for me to roll dice." is a tremendous time saver

The time issue is what killed competitive 40K and fantasy for me. I hated the amount of down time and the ability to slowplay when your backs against the wall.

Cmon, how many times do you see a compatition where the guy on the other side just stops the action and takes as much time as he needs to get out of a jam.

If anything needs to be fixed in GW tournamants its time and soft scores.

ruminator wrote:

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

But now you are talking COMP and peoples philosophies on how the correct way to play the game is. I am simply talking META and what the game is balanced for. A transport costs a specific amount of points as it basically equates to the number of added models a unit would need in order to walk, and take casulties. The weapons to deal with the units are different. People should be encouraged to diversify, but eliminating a specific unit type or putting army comp in to minimize means people diversify less on what they bring, which means people can spam Anti tank and anti armorsave weapons and totally neglect anti meat and lowstrength high shot weapons.

Basically people take only allow rock and paper to come to a tourney, and then people all play paper as there is never going to be any scissors because people think it is 'selfish' or 'rude'.

Not saying everyone should show up with 280 model hordes, but people get overly bored and critical of use of time when people are making movement actions which are not interactive, it is the 'I play fast, you are slow' mentality. Often foot units move the appropraite amount of time, but stillt akes longer than transports and people have a flawed concept of equal time which the game was not designed for and is an urneasonable expectation.

Time limits are all COMP. And I thought COMP was the devil?

ruminator wrote:

Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

I don't agree at all with your statement. I have played against horde armies and had no problem finishing games. It really comes down to the player running the horde, and how comfortable/competent they are working within the time constraints of a tournament. I've also had games that didn't finish because I was playing somebody with a regular sized army that took way to much time to consider every movement and shooting phase. To call somebody selfish because of the size of their army isn't really fair, because horde armies can be played in a tournament with no problems.

ruminator wrote:Still think it's selfish. Your opponent didn't come along to join in for 40 mins of a 2hr+ game because you've got on your high horse with your 200 models. You show no concept of helping your opponent enjoy the game as much as yourself. My main army is Nids so saying I'm trying to ban non-mech armies is laughable. I just wouldn't take a 5 tervigon list to a tournament as it's just being self indulgent.

It takes two to tango.

My only game at the BAO that made it through Turn 7 was my 'Nids vs. Yakface's Kan-wall orks. Bodies, bodies everywhere, and plenty of complicated interactions. But we finished, because we both knew what we were doing, and we both WANTED to finish.

I find most horde army players at the GT level have no problems playing their armies in a reasonable time frame; it's their opponents who end up delaying the progress of the game. In some cases, people just don't know how to play AGAINST horde armies, and spend too much time thinking about it.

Zoned wrote:Agree with Winterman.

I thought about using timers in 40k.

But to be fair, you'd have to do it like this:

Player 1 activates his clock. Moves as normal.

Declares unit 1 is shooting. Rolls to hit and to wound. Stops clock, player 2's clock activates.

Player 2 allocates and makes saves. Stops his clock, player 1's clock starts.

And so on.

Do-able? Sure. Will it take a lot of getting used to? Yes. Are tournament going to provide chess clocks for every table? Probably not.

The other question is - how big of an issue is slow playing? Yes it occurs, but is instituting such a grand change the real solution?

This is definitely the way it would have to work.

Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

Deathmachine wrote:Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

It is immpossible to do this with the current 40k ruleset as turns are interactive.

Usually there is one long assault phase which happens and it is unfair for all that time to be penalized against a single player as assaults are interactive. It shouldn't be my fault if I assault you and you take a long time with your high number of attacks, armor saves or special rules on my turn.

And what happens if the time is gone? 40k gives us no remedy for units in assault but without time to resolve attacks. I would actually like sometimes to assault on my turn but not take any casualties. It would be a tactic to assault on my turn, waste time then resolve attacks on your turn when bogged down in combat.

Game breaking, army comp and generally unneeded.

This topic particularly irks me because I feel that people don't really appreciate the impact of what they propose. Too many people have the attitude of: well if I can do 'X' or my buddy can do 'Y' then everyone should be able to, without thinking of what message such an overall change actually sends to both current tournament players and those considering attending tournaments for the first time as well.

Before I get too far into this, let's look at a few incontrovertible facts (this is going to be 40K-centric since its what most people talk about when this issue comes up):


FACT #1: There is no mention of time limitations in the rules for 40K.

Instead, players are allowed to choose any force from any codex in any legal configuration they choose. Taking a 20 model Palladin army is just as acceptable as taking 200 model Tyranid army.


FACT #2: It takes longer to complete a turn when you have more models to move, shoot, fight close combat with.

Yes, some veteran gamers have practiced enough with their horde armies to be able to move at blazing speeds, however the simple incontrovertible fact remains that it just takes more physical time to pick up and move more models and roll more dice for more models then it does when you have less models in your army.


FACT #3: Tournaments are not reserved just for veteran players.

Well, I suppose someone could create a tournament where only veteran players were allowed, but in general tournaments are supposed to be for everyone to attend. And more importantly without having a fresh influx of new tournament players, eventually you wouldn't have tournaments anymore!



Now, it has been said (in this thread even), that players taking a larger army are somehow being 'selfish', which therefore means those same people believe that players who take 20 model armies are being selfless, in that they're taking an army that is clearly designed to help both players finish their games.

Still other people (again in this thread as well) seem to believe that taking a horde army is okay as long as you're like them or their buddy who are able to finish all their games in every tournament without any problems even with their bazillion model Tyranid army. So what message does this send? That it is okay to play a high model count army as long as you've put extra time and effort into practicing how to play faster than somebody who is bringing a 20 model army.


Both these attitudes naturally stem from the issue that some people aren't able to finish their games in tournaments due to time constraints. However, to blame the players that are taking larger model armies for this issue is to completely ignore the 3 facts I presented above.

Players of any skill and background should be allowed to pick any legal army and bring it to a tournament and have the same reasonable expectation to play and finish their games as those who bring tiny model count armies if for no other reason than that the game is written to allow both types of armies!

If a regular-joe non-veteran gamer isn't able to finish any of his games at a tournament with a horde army and he's moving and rolling dice at the same speed as the guy with the 20 man army, then the problem is not with him it is with the tournament.

Whether you realize it or not, the ballooning of point values in games while keeping tournament round times roughly the same has created a 'meta-game' element that essentially punishes players for taking larger model count armies and rewards those who bring small model count armies.

Why? Because when you don't finish a game to completion you never know whether that is going to be in your favor or not. In some games it will be a huge benefit but in other games it won't, and that sort of uncertainty does not work for players who are looking to win every single one of their games and be tournament champion.

Therefore, players are pushed away from large model count armies and into small model count armies by this tournament meta-game change that does not exist in the actual rules for the game.

Just as an example, I've heard that PP specifically have reduced the time limits allowed in their events to help 'push' people away from taking infantry-based armies and instead relying more on jack-based armies.

Whether or not that is actually true (I don't know myself), is really irrelevant because the point is still valid. When you reduce time available to play, players will feel the need to go for smaller model count armies.

And this is even true when just talking about overall round time, let alone allocating time between individual players.


So what is the problem with subtly directing players to smaller model count armies for tournaments? Well, a few things really:


1) All armies start to look and feel the same.

Yep, there's a reason why you keep seeing more and more Paladin-spam armies and less and less Tyranid armies. Yes there are other factors involved besides players not wanting to have to deal with unfinished games, but that factor no doubt helps to contribute. I think we all hate and lament playing against similar army builds multiple times throughout a tournament, yet that's precisely what improper time constraints on tournaments help to promote.


2) This meta-game change ends up affecting the power levels of non-horde armies as well.

Some army builds are actually countered by horde-type armies. However, if improper time constraints in tournaments helps to push players away from taking large model count armies then all of a sudden players cognizant of this fact now no longer have to take those types of armies really into consideration when constructing their armies. This in itself helps make certain army builds much more viable then they would be if you had a ton of high model count armies running around tournaments.


3) It isn't fair to players who naturally play horde armies.

Imagine Timmy goes out and starts playing Tyranids because he loves the models. After years he's built up a nice awesome beautiful army and now he wants to play in tournaments but when he does so he struggles to complete his games because of how many models he has to move and shoot with in relation to how much time is allocated for each game.

Now, some people will simply say that Timmy should switch to a different army or change his army build to include less models. However, why should he have to? What if Timmy likes his army and in his home games with no time-limit he has no problem doing well with the army. Why should a player be denied the ability to play a perfectly valid army type simply because other tournament players and organizers want to keep pushing the points limits of their games up to an unrealistic level in comparison with the time allocated for each round?

The answer is of course should be that a player shouldn't have to do that. If they are playing a valid army and they are playing at a normal speed that everyone else is playing at there should be enough time in the tournament round to complete their game. And if there isn't enough time then the tournament needs to either lower their point level or increase the amount of time allowed for each round.



----



And everything I've said above just applies to overall game time limitations, not even specifically to timing specific players (which is an even more ludicrous idea). But let's get into that:


What is the point of timing each player? To prevent players from 'slow playing'? If so, what exactly does that mean?

Is a player with a horde army blazing through his movement, shooting and assault but still taking 30 minutes for a critical turn where lots is going on 'slow playing', while a player with 20 models takes only 15 minutes for his turn even though he may be taking his time to really consider where to move, etc, isn't?

If so, then we've got some serious, serious problems with the perception of what 'slow play' actually is.

As I said above, a player taking a legal army should be able to play at a normal pace and have enough time in the tournament rounds to finish their games. Indeed, two players taking 20 man armies facing off against each other should finish the tournament round insanely quickly and should have to sit around for an hour or more waiting for their next game, because that is the type of army they chose to go with.

The moment where you start to make tournament round times where that is the norm is the moment where you generally compromise peoples' ability to comfortably bring a high model count army and believe that they can finish all their games, and that's a moment we've long since passed by.

Yes, I understand that you, your buddy and six guys you know all can finish all their tournament games with 200 model armies, but rest assured, you're the minority. Most people just don't bother even bringing such armies to tournaments anymore. Are there other factors involved with people not bringing those armies as well? Of course, but you're a fool if you think the difficult of finishing games with big armies isn't a major part of that.


So getting back to 'slow play', if a horde army player has enough time in the round to comfortably complete his turns while moving and shooting at the same 'speed' as his opponent who only has 20 models, then surely this is not 'slow play', because obviously if there is enough time in the round they would be finishing their game.

So then what is 'slow play'? Slow play has to be when players take a longer amount of time to complete their turns than most players using that same army would, or worse still players intentionally playing slower when they see that completing the game all the way to its natural conclusion would result in them losing the game.

These are the type of people that should be targeted, not large model count players who are simply unable to finish their games because the tournament rounds are too short.

So how the heck do you do this? The only way is to track player data year after year. The first step is to include a 'did your game come to its natural conclusion' box on your tournament results sheets and its probably a good idea to include the game turn players got to if their game had to be called when time ran out.

Once you start collecting this data if you also start entering army model count in, over time as a tournament organizer you'll really start to get a feel for whether or not players in general have enough time in their tournament rounds to finish their games or not, and if not, exactly what model count armies are really struggling to finish. But more importantly, this data will start to identify true slow players, especially if they show back up to the tournament the next year with a different army.

Once these players are identified over a year or two you as the tournament organizer can actually confront them and reveal the data you have for them to point out that they are actually playing slower than others. Obviously if the player is open to change they might actually be able to change their ways, but if they aren't receptive then you can make the tough call of actually disallowing them from your tournaments!

This is really the best and only way to truly track and punish 'slow play'. Attempting to assign each player a set amount of time fails completely because it doesn't take into account the fundamental truth that higher-model count armies physically take longer to play than low model count armies.

If you actually wanted to impose a system to stop true 'slow play' by timing each player then you should be dividing the round time between the players based on the amount of models in each army.

Now obviously this system isn't truly fair either, but it gets a hell of a lot closer to really punishing 'slow play' then even splitting time between the players.

So, my theoretical suggestion (that should never really be used) would be:

Total up the number of models in each army, but subtract 1/2 the number of models worth of transport capacity for each transport vehicle in the army (as units may roughly spend about 1/2 the game in a transport, which would take a whole lot less time to move and shoot with then if the models are out on the table).

So if I had 60 models in my army, but three Rhinos in the list, I would be subtracting 15 models from the total (as each Rhino has a transport capacity of 10, halved down to 5). So the grand total for this army would be: 45 models.

Compare that to an all foot Ork army with 155 models in it.

That means the Ork player should get 77.5 % of the round time while the Space Marine player should get only 22.5% of the round time. So if we had 2 hour rounds, the Ork player would get roughly 1 hour and 33 minutes while the SM player gets only 27 minutes.

This would actually be the way to truly prevent real slow playing from occurring and assuming there is actually enough time in the tournament round to allow players to reasonably finish their game this breakdown of time should not actually inconvenience either player if they're playing at a 'normal' speed.


But of course something like this would never work because players keep pushing TO's to increase game sizes without extending round lengths without worrying about anyone but themselves (the tried and true: 'If 'I' can finish 'my' games then everyone should be able to'). And as long as there isn't really enough time in the round to comfortably complete your games then the alleged burden of 'slow play' will always get shoved back onto the players with large model count armies as it being somehow 'selfish' for them to bring such an army!


However, if you're really truly concerned about combating true slow players, then you should be pushing your TO to increase round length and/or reduce the point values of your tournament games. In addition you should be pressuring them into tracking game completion % for each player and compare it to army model counts in order to help identify true slow players over time and pressure them to speed up or ban them from your tournaments.

And last but not at all least, have a look at what YOU are doing. If you've got a small model count army and you're not playing at the same blazing speed as your large model count opponent, then perhaps you're the real problem! Just because you bring less models to the table doesn't mean you should be able to take forever on your turns. Because keep in mind, that even a low model count army can cause your opponent's army to take longer to play.

How can that be? For example, if I'm playing all shooty Ork army and I'm facing off against Paladin-spam then in order for me to win every turn I need to fire every single weapon I have and pray you fail enough saves to die. Than means I'm rolling tons and tons and tons of dice each turn and you're taking even longer because you have to allocate each and every wound before rolling a save. And god forbid we're talking about an army with Feel No Pain, where you're making an extra roll every time I do cause a wound.

But in essence, the point is: Your army type and configuration actually makes my army take longer to play! So with that concept in mind, you should always be respectful to your opponent and play your turns as fast as they are playing their turns (not overall time elapsed but actual speed of movement and decision-making).

What Yak said x 1000!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point, I play IG with 350ish models at 2k points and 450-500 models at 2.5k points. Even with my fastest moving, rolling, and everything elsewhere I am visible sweating and burning off calories like I'm doing PT, I am really constrained by the 2 to 2.5 hour time limits imposed by most tournaments at those levels. Should I just not take that many models? Why should I not play the army I have spent my time, money, and effort on especially at is is a valid choice and can work to counter much of the meta game going on right now?

nkelsch wrote:

Deathmachine wrote:Do it like speed chess both players have an hour to use up when there turn is over they hit the button and it starts the other players timer. so 10 mins to set up and 10 mins a turn to a turn 5 game for average time...

It is immpossible to do this with the current 40k ruleset as turns are interactive.

Usually there is one long assault phase which happens and it is unfair for all that time to be penalized against a single player as assaults are interactive. It shouldn't be my fault if I assault you and you take a long time with your high number of attacks, armor saves or special rules on my turn.

And what happens if the time is gone? 40k gives us no remedy for units in assault but without time to resolve attacks. I would actually like sometimes to assault on my turn but not take any casualties. It would be a tactic to assault on my turn, waste time then resolve attacks on your turn when bogged down in combat.

Game breaking, army comp and generally unneeded.

Um it does work i play sm against orks alot and we have tried it you see on both turns it will be about the same amount of time for combat cause everyone still fights. it does work not sure in a tournament world if it would work but it does in friendly games. also when playing speed chess it means you dont have much time to think so it makes it pretty fun at times. and its what has made me a faster player in tournaments. and if you did what you say you would do that would make you that guy....

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:What Yak said x 1000!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Case in point, I play IG with 350ish models at 2k points and 450-500 models at 2.5k points. Even with my fastest moving, rolling, and everything elsewhere I am visible sweating and burning off calories like I'm doing PT, I am really constrained by the 2 to 2.5 hour time limits imposed by most tournaments at those levels. Should I just not take that many models? Why should I not play the army I have spent my time, money, and effort on especially at is is a valid choice and can work to counter much of the meta game going on right now?

Until tournaments with longer time limits per round are common, you might just have to accept the fact that you will have a hard time finishing games if you enter said events. This will affect not only you but the opponents you get paired up with. Unless you can get to a level of practice of using your army within those constraints, you and your opponents will be negatively affected by them. I would love to see events with three hour rounds. That might go a long way toward eliminating the problem. Barring that, events at lower points levels would also work.

I recall, maybe incorrectly, that the old GW GTs had longer round times, or perhaps it was a lower point level.

It did make for a nice laid-back atmosphere. But it also led to a huge amount of down-time between rounds, Three hour rounds are great for individual games, but when put into a tournament format they make a three-game event into a 9+ hour commitment.

The GW GT had five rounds over two days. Modern GTs are pushing seven or eight rounds over two days.