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.

 Grimgold wrote:
FLG mentioned in a youtube comment that there had been several polls that showed people wanted to play at 2k. I don't remember seeing any since the early early days of 8th, and certainly none since the LVO.

The polls FLG send out only go to those that participate in ITC events and have a registered username and email with FLG. They used to do quarterly polls and update the ITC rules based off the results, but I can't recall seeing an ITC poll since 3rd quarter 2016. Not sure if they stopped doing them or if somehow I've been excluded. The last poll I remember had a lot of Tau nerfs on it. But, the polls I do remember participating in 1850+ always clearly won out over smaller games.

I'm also very against chess clocks. I think there's way too much back and forth with the active player and you're going to waste more time slapping the clock than actually rolling the save. I think the issue lies in people not being alert, focused, and ready. On top of that, know the rules. The chess clocks will be an unwelcome distraction. They should drop from 2k back down to 1850 and bump the time to 3 hours flat and call it a day.

Chess clocks work great in chess because when its your turn you don't require any involvement of your opponent in the turn itself. They don't have to look something up in their codex (for you or them); they don't have to roll any dice; they don't have to move something or state what something is or anything.

In Warhammer and 40K there's so much back and forth i could see chess clocks being an annoyance and a point of argument on when the clock "counts as their time".

The core concept of the clock is to speed up the game and to avoid people deliberately using time wasting tactics. In my view there are surely better methods than the clock.

And no game uses clocks to keep one side from "slowing down the game" (NFL,NBA). Warmachine uses clocks and the game calls for turn interaction and it seems to be functioning just fine for its event settings. My guess is that people just don't want to get used to "these new fangled devices". Once the clocks are in play for a while people will just accept them as normal and the world will go on turning.

It's really not a problem. You switch the clock when you resolve your actions, your opponent switches it back when they've done theirs. If your opponent is on the ball, they'll probably have dice in hand for their armor rolls before you even need to switch the clock and if they don't, having it switched to them a few times will teach them to really quick. That's kind of the whole point of the thing.

Yeah - we practice with Chess Clocks and once you've done it a few times you really start to speed up. You've got dice in hand and it generally moves quickly. The point of it is not just to speed up people who intentionally slow playing but to speed up the game as a whole. It cuts down on codex fishing (which if you're playing an army at a tournament you should be knowledgeable enough with your army that is limited need), excessive dice counting and pooling (get separate, distinct dice for various functions), and encourages you to stay plugged in to the game and ready to make your decisions as opposed to having to catch up each time your opponent needs input.

The problem with Chess Clocks (and yes, I am going to catch some flak for this I bet) is that some people just need to think.

I've been playing with chess clocks lately in my last few games on phones, and it's been an adventure. I've always been a fast player (and yes my army composition helps) but recently, I played a very long game against an Ork player.

It wasn't long because he was hordes, really, though (believe it or not, I wiped them out fairly easily). It was long because he really sat there and thought. I offered suggestions, too, which didn't help, but I do always try to help my opponent out. After a while, he would decide on a plan and everything flowed from there.

Even though it took ~3 hours (almost on the dot), we did play it out to the Random Game Length (it ended with a '1' on the die after turn 5), and do you know what? He won by one point, because of some lucky rolls partly (3 1's on a 2+ to wound was my last close-combat of the game, needing to kill one model). But he absolutely won fair and square. Had the game ended ~30 minutes earlier, however, I'm not certain that would have been the case. 3 superheavy tanks is a hard army to fight and requires some thought, and his army killed two of them before the end... and only just. The second one died on turn 5.

If the game had been limited to 2.5 hours, whether by chess clock or just general tournament limits, it would have been a loss for him. Which is unfair, because it was, truly, a victory, and the game was very close and fun, with both of us smiling at the end and giggling about some of the more fun moments.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And no game uses clocks to keep one side from "slowing down the game" (NFL,NBA). Warmachine uses clocks and the game calls for turn interaction and it seems to be functioning just fine for its event settings. My guess is that people just don't want to get used to "these new fangled devices". Once the clocks are in play for a while people will just accept them as normal and the world will go on turning.

Warmachine doesn't have you acting in your opponent's turn, no armor saves or the like so it's a much better fit for a chess clock. 40k is not so clean, with saves, morale, overwatch, stratagems, the clock could get passed back and forth a dozen times in a turn. There are lots of opportunities for screw ups and "Accidents" like rolling dice on your opponent's time will require judge intervention. Remember it's zero sum, so if you take minute rolling dice in your opponent's turn, you now have a two minute time advantage, the minute you didn't spend and the minute he lost.

If that's the way it has to go, well that's life and I'm sure people will get used to it, or they just won't attend. However, it's my thought that lowering points is a much less invasive way to address the same problem. The Chess clock is a constant stress, requiring your attention the whole time, reduced points just comes up in list building, and then not again.

If you set a time limit how is it "unfair" to either player that if the game had gone on the other player would have won? Both players are aware of the rule and both players have to take that rule into account.
I agree that it would be nice if every game went to its natural conclusion of max turns but that really isn't practical even in a casual environment.

No flak, just a solid "Tough break for that guy".

I also play better when I take ages, and some of my home games run 4+ hours.

But... in a tournament, you need to think faster - or less.

I guess as that person's opponent with far fewer models, you could donate him some of your clock? Can't see anyone doing it outside the bottom tables, but they are far less likely to have clocks.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:If you set a time limit how is it "unfair" to either player that if the game had gone on the other player would have won? Both players are aware of the rule and both players have to take that rule into account.
I agree that it would be nice if every game went to its natural conclusion of max turns but that really isn't practical even in a casual environment.

Because his army needed that time to work. I brought 78 Toughness 8 3+ wounds. That's no easy thing to whittle away in just a few turns without dedicated weapons. Army endurance is absolutely a thing, and mine started strong and petered out, while his was fairly "alright" throughout the whole game. It would have been unfortunate for him to lose at a tournament simply because we only played 3 turns or whatever.

Silentz wrote:No flak, just a solid "Tough break for that guy".

I also play better when I take ages, and some of my home games run 4+ hours.

But... in a tournament, you need to think faster - or less.

I guess as that person's opponent with far fewer models, you could donate him some of your clock? Can't see anyone doing it outside the bottom tables, but they are far less likely to have clocks.

How can you be determining the best Warhammer 40k player in the world if you exclude armies and whatnot? That's my question. If the "best players of Warhammer" aren't playing warhammer, but are instead building armies and playstyles that are front-loaded but actually fairly bad at the game (like mine, apparently ), how does that have any meaning?

Because part of playing the game and being the best of it is being the best in the given context of the situation. Ultimately no one will ever be crowned the best 40k player of all time because there is no unifying set of rules and contexts that all players play in. Part of being the 'best' in a given scenario though is not just being good at the game but being good at operating in the parameters that have been set.

In tournaments there are time-limits, part of being the best player at that point is putting together and playing an army that can get the job done in that time-limit. I tend to play large armies (150+ model chaos armies for example) and I don't have issues completing my games inside the allocated 2.5 hours - in large part because I practice with those time frames in mind.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:If you set a time limit how is it "unfair" to either player that if the game had gone on the other player would have won? Both players are aware of the rule and both players have to take that rule into account.
I agree that it would be nice if every game went to its natural conclusion of max turns but that really isn't practical even in a casual environment.

Because his army needed that time to work. I brought 78 Toughness 8 3+ wounds. That's no easy thing to whittle away in just a few turns without dedicated weapons. Army endurance is absolutely a thing, and mine started strong and petered out, while his was fairly "alright" throughout the whole game. It would have been unfortunate for him to lose at a tournament simply because we only played 3 turns or whatever.

But that's my point. If you each knew that you only had so much time to play and one player takes a slow developing army then it is a tactical choice. Granted in your specific game there was no expectation of being timed so it was what it was but if you and he had agreed to a time limit either of you could have arranged your list to perform in a faster fashion.

Putting a time limit on a game is no more constraining than putting a points limit on a game. Both need to be taken into account and tactical choices must be made with the constraints given to the player.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Because part of playing the game and being the best of it is being the best in the given context of the situation. Ultimately no one will ever be crowned the best 40k player of all time because there is no unifying set of rules and contexts that all players play in. Part of being the 'best' in a given scenario though is not just being good at the game but being good at operating in the parameters that have been set.

In tournaments there are time-limits, part of being the best player at that point is putting together and playing an army that can get the job done in that time-limit. I tend to play large armies (150+ model chaos armies for example) and I don't have issues completing my games inside the allocated 2.5 hours - in large part because I practice with those time frames in mind.

Certainly, you could say "I'm the best at climbing Mount Everest, up to 8000 meters" or whatever. But it desperately and badly skews the meta to look at tournament results, then, for data. If armies are front-loaded to do tons of damage in 3 turns, and then they've shot their bolt and would lose beyond then, then you've got an entirely different meta from armies designed to hunker down and endure the first few turns, before coming out at the end and winning once the enemy's bolt has been shot.

If GW (and we) are using tournament data to balance warhammer 40k, but tournaments are played in situations that casual players don't play in, then surely that data becomes less relevant or even useless?

EDIT to reply to Leo as well:

Yes, but my point is that "core" 40k isn't designed with time limits, and non-tournament players won't be using them. But asking GW to balance the game for tournaments means GW will be balancing for timed games, even though that can (and probably does) skew the meta. In other words, the tournament meta would be removed from the casual meta, and you can no longer balance them together (which is the whole argument for using tournaments for balance data in the first place: "balanced tournament play means balanced casual play").

Data is only useful to those who need it. If events run under the same rules then the data is useful. If they run under different rules then the data is less useful.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Data is only useful to those who need it. If events run under the same rules then the data is useful. If they run under different rules then the data is less useful.

I don't understand this reply. Are you saying that GW (and a lot of the players here) are mistaken for balancing the whole of Warhammer around tournament data? Or are you saying tournament data is a valid balancing mechanism for the wider game, despite the obvious flaws (esp. regarding time limits)?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Data is only useful to those who need it. If events run under the same rules then the data is useful. If they run under different rules then the data is less useful.

I don't understand this reply. Are you saying that GW (and a lot of the players here) are mistaken for balancing the whole of Warhammer around tournament data? Or are you saying tournament data is a valid balancing mechanism for the wider game, despite the obvious flaws (esp. regarding time limits)?

Ultimately (and I'll catch a load of it for this) but why does balance matter for you? This isn't a personal attack to be clear, just using you as the illustrative - but you tend to post and fall far more in the casual side of the game. If GW balances around tournament data that doesn't really impact you because you're not really playing that same game. If the game is more tightly balanced for top end play the effects will be felt by casual players as well and if you don't like that ruleset change it. You're already not playing at an 'optimal' (not a bad thing here, this is a subjective hobby involving fun) so why not make the changes or build lists that are relevant to you and your group's fun.

Also just to point out, this thread isn't about balancing the game or even GW's role in this but is about what tournaments should do so the only real relevant discussion in this thread is about tournaments, not about kitchen table play.

I'm just saying that one person's data is another person's garbage. Event data is good for future events and not too useful for casual play.

If you're referring to GW's use of event data to make game adjustments then they can certainly mine whatever data they are looking for out of the results and lists played. If they need to, they can adjust things through whatever lens they find necessary.

I maintain that 1500 is a great level for tourney and a good standard for pick up games. It was a common and popular level in 5th, and point values have only decreased every edition, so armies are still larger than they used to be without increasing the total point limit.

If time is an issue at large tournaments, it seems like the simplest solution is the best; cut down point values. Trying to implement chess clocks, or have more TOs to enforce slow play is all well and good, but you can do that, and cut point values to either get more games, or ensure every game goes to completion.

That said, the 1750/1850 is still a comfortable game, but I shy away from 2k and above. The game is cramped enough on a 6x4 with 1500pts on the table.

Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Data is only useful to those who need it. If events run under the same rules then the data is useful. If they run under different rules then the data is less useful.

I don't understand this reply. Are you saying that GW (and a lot of the players here) are mistaken for balancing the whole of Warhammer around tournament data? Or are you saying tournament data is a valid balancing mechanism for the wider game, despite the obvious flaws (esp. regarding time limits)?

Ultimately (and I'll catch a load of it for this) but why does balance matter for you? This isn't a personal attack to be clear, just using you as the illustrative - but you tend to post and fall far more in the casual side of the game. If GW balances around tournament data that doesn't really impact you because you're not really playing that same game. If the game is more tightly balanced for top end play the effects will be felt by casual players as well and if you don't like that ruleset change it. You're already not playing at an 'optimal' (not a bad thing here, this is a subjective hobby involving fun) so why not make the changes or build lists that are relevant to you and your group's fun.

Also just to point out, this thread isn't about balancing the game or even GW's role in this but is about what tournaments should do so the only real relevant discussion in this thread is about tournaments, not about kitchen table play.

It matters to me because oftentimes I will see the claim that "a more balanced game for tournaments is a more balanced game for casual players". But if the tournament is playing by entirely different rules than the casual players, that's not really true. Take for example, the Manticore. In a tournament, it probably never suffers from its limited ammunition capability (4 turns of shooting) so it essentially is just a "Better Basilisk" and appears really good.

Locally, however, Manticores haven't been performing. Because games go to Turn 7, sometimes, and when they do, that's half the game where the manticore is sitting there sucking its thumb. And often, it's the most crucial half of the game, because things are getting down to the wire, and actually having artillery support to pick on that last jump troop that just hid out of LOS on an objective might matter. That's why Basilisks have no such ammo limit. Does that make sense?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'm just saying that one person's data is another person's garbage. Event data is good for future events and not too useful for casual play.

If you're referring to GW's use of event data to make game adjustments then they can certainly mine whatever data they are looking for out of the results and lists played. If they need to, they can adjust things through whatever lens they find necessary.

So you agree with me that GW should not be using tournament results to balance casual play? So changing rules and points costs based on what is happening in tournaments is silly?

I don't disagree that 1500 might not be a good standard for tournament play but I don't think it'll ever happen as long as TOs leave it up to players because there is an emotional investment with playing with more of your toy soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'm just saying that one person's data is another person's garbage. Event data is good for future events and not too useful for casual play.

If you're referring to GW's use of event data to make game adjustments then they can certainly mine whatever data they are looking for out of the results and lists played. If they need to, they can adjust things through whatever lens they find necessary.

So you agree with me that GW should not be using tournament results to balance casual play? So changing rules and points costs based on what is happening in tournaments is silly?

This is irrelevant to the question the thread poses - this is about what points level should tournaments be played at. I don't mean to be rude but continuing to belabor the point in this thread is irrelevant as it has no impact on this specific conversation of 'what points level would be best for tournaments'.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
This is irrelevant to the question the thread poses - this is about what points level should tournaments be played at. I don't mean to be rude but continuing to belabor the point in this thread is irrelevant as it has no impact on this specific conversation of 'what points level would be best for tournaments'.

Well, what I'm seeking to prove with this line of questioning you so stubbornly refuse to follow, is that using a lower points level where games can finish to completion will once again restore the connection between the tournament meta and the casual meta. This will be a positive thing for casual play as well, rather than chess clocks which merely skew the tournament meta and disconnect what is "balanced in 2k at 2.5 hours" from what is "balanced for 5-7 turns of play".

EDIT:
Essentially I am trying to close the gap between casual and tournament play so that the game can be more balanced across the whole spectrum of play.

Personally thin for a tourny 1500 would probably be better for the sake of time and list building "restrictions" making taking certain choices much more difficult

but 2k is fine too.

I don't think that gap is ever going to realistically close because the two groups have very different alignments. Ultimately I'm interested in what GW is going to do about tournaments because that's my hobby - how that impacts casual play is incidental at best to me.

I don't think there will ever be a connection between what's best at top tables at tournaments and what's happening in casual play because the mindsets are so different. As a tournament player I have no problems taking things that are untenable in the fluff and I don't make selections around units I like from a visual stand point. The decision making criteria, the willingness to build combos, etc. are all very different in the two groups. You're trying to drawn commonalities between two groups to use those for balance but even if those games are going to time they're just a different caliber of game. If players just played faster and were better playing 2k at events wouldn't matter because time wouldn't be an issue.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
I don't think that gap is ever going to realistically close because the two groups have very different alignments. Ultimately I'm interested in what GW is going to do about tournaments because that's my hobby - how that impacts casual play is incidental at best to me.

I don't think there will ever be a connection between what's best at top tables at tournaments and what's happening in casual play because the mindsets are so different. As a tournament player I have no problems taking things that are untenable in the fluff and I don't make selections around units I like from a visual stand point. The decision making criteria, the willingness to build combos, etc. are all very different in the two groups. You're trying to drawn commonalities between two groups to use those for balance but even if those games are going to time they're just a different caliber of game. If players just played faster and were better playing 2k at events wouldn't matter because time wouldn't be an issue.

It's actually not me trying to force this connection. It's ... well, literally everyone on this forum. I don't know where you've been, but a lot of the attempts by competitive players to remove/eliminate fluffy options in the name of "balance" are that "balanced play helps everyone" and then when one asks "balanced around what" they say "competitive play, because it's where people are looking to break the game."

By admitting that competitive play is inherently at some level completely different than casual play, you are essentially shooting this argument in the foot: balance decisions should not be made for the competitive players, because they are a comparative minority in the hobby, as not everyone plays in tournaments (and I would go so far as to say most people don't).

The problem I find with the current ITC time and scoring system is the the scoring is based on rounds and the rounds are limited by time. So your scored is dictated by a 6 round game when the time only allots for a 3-4 turn game. Unit1126 summed it up best a couple posts up. Some armies are amazing the first 2 turns then peter out and hope they can weather the storm. Some armies absorb the alpha beating and then dominate the last couple turns. If the last couple turns are eliminated, then the meta is changed greatly and some armies are completely useless.

 deviantduck wrote:
The problem I find with the current ITC time and scoring system is the the scoring is based on rounds and the rounds are limited by time. So your scored is dictated by a 6 round game when the time only allots for a 3-4 turn game. Unit1126 summed it up best a couple posts up. Some armies are amazing the first 2 turns then peter out and hope they can weather the storm. Some armies absorb the alpha beating and then dominate the last couple turns. If the last couple turns are eliminated, then the meta is changed greatly and some armies are completely useless.

That's does seem to be the issue FLG is trying to address with chess clocks, which is why I'm curious why there is even debate on whether or not it's an issue. FLG says it's a problem, and they are trying to address it, the question should be how it's addressed rather than if. Reducing points makes sense to me, and chess clocks makes sense to them, leaving things as they are right now makes sense to no one.

The problem with dakka is that people who don't even play in tournaments get to vote on this issue.

I try to get in 2 ITC tournaments a month.

I voted 2000.

1500 is not enough - armies that are forced to specialize would be really hurt by this, because they couldn't bring the points necessary to handle real threats. For instance, you need to be able to address a lot of things, swiss army knife armies that are a carnival of undercosted jibberish like Imperial Guard and Eldar would do even better in this format because they have all the tools they need regardless of the points.

1850 just doesn't make sense. This was nonsense in 7th edition and everyone knew it, pretty sure people picked this number because it was the right baseline to get a riptide wing + something, or a gladius. It was dubious at best and we don't need that number brought forward.

If your 2000 point games are not making it far enough - play better. Learn the meta armies, learn the rules, you won't pause the game for explanations or stuff like that. Understand when things are dead, and don't drag the game out with pointless rolling. If someone is going to totally obliterate something, and it involves rolling a TON of dice, be a "this guy" and just pull the model.

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Personally thin for a tourny 1500 would probably be better for the sake of time and list building "restrictions" making taking certain choices much more difficult

but 2k is fine too.

Some armies simply can't make these choices though at 1500. You can't address chaff + heavy armor in some armies at this point value while screening your own stuff. 1500 works for Imperium & Eldar. It doesn't really work for pretty much anyone else.

 Grimgold wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And no game uses clocks to keep one side from "slowing down the game" (NFL,NBA). Warmachine uses clocks and the game calls for turn interaction and it seems to be functioning just fine for its event settings. My guess is that people just don't want to get used to "these new fangled devices". Once the clocks are in play for a while people will just accept them as normal and the world will go on turning.

Warmachine doesn't have you acting in your opponent's turn, no armor saves or the like so it's a much better fit for a chess clock. 40k is not so clean, with saves, morale, overwatch, stratagems, the clock could get passed back and forth a dozen times in a turn. There are lots of opportunities for screw ups and "Accidents" like rolling dice on your opponent's time will require judge intervention. Remember it's zero sum, so if you take minute rolling dice in your opponent's turn, you now have a two minute time advantage, the minute you didn't spend and the minute he lost.

If that's the way it has to go, well that's life and I'm sure people will get used to it, or they just won't attend. However, it's my thought that lowering points is a much less invasive way to address the same problem. The Chess clock is a constant stress, requiring your attention the whole time, reduced points just comes up in list building, and then not again.

I play Trolls. I roll a 5+ armor save for EVERY attack made individually against my guys. 10 guys attack my 10 guys; one resolves its attack, I roll, tough, next attack, another tough check. There's more back and forth in killing one unit than an entire turn in 40k and its FINE. If I dawdle, my opponent passes the clock to remind me to roll. I'm I'm on the ball, we don't bother. It's really not a problem.

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem with dakka is that people who don't even play in tournaments get to vote on this issue.

I try to get in 2 ITC tournaments a month.

I voted 2000.

1500 is not enough - armies that are forced to specialize would be really hurt by this, because they couldn't bring the points necessary to handle real threats. For instance, you need to be able to address a lot of things, swiss army knife armies that are a carnival of undercosted jibberish like Imperial Guard and Eldar would do even better in this format because they have all the tools they need regardless of the points.

1850 just doesn't make sense. This was nonsense in 7th edition and everyone knew it, pretty sure people picked this number because it was the right baseline to get a riptide wing + something, or a gladius. It was dubious at best and we don't need that number brought forward.

If your 2000 point games are not making it far enough - play better. Learn the meta armies, learn the rules, you won't pause the game for explanations or stuff like that. Understand when things are dead, and don't drag the game out with pointless rolling. If someone is going to totally obliterate something, and it involves rolling a TON of dice, be a "this guy" and just pull the model.

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

Tony, one of the best players in ITC didn't finish a game during the tournament, would you like to tell him to get gud? If you looks at the scores for the LVO, outside of concessions most of the top players only sealed the deal on a fraction of their matches, want to tell all of the top players to get gud? I don't begrudge people choosing 2k, it will lead to chess clocks, but if that's how they want to play the hobby takes all kinds. I draw the line when you are telling people they are awful players if they can't finish a 2k game in the time limit, when most of the best players in the hobby can't, it's juvenile and flies in the face of evidence and comes across a douchey humble brag. "I can finish my games, if there is a problem you guys must suck". Really dude, save that gak for 4chan /tg/.

Let's also not pretend that in a 2.5 hour game you are actually playing 2.5 hours. Most tourney games take at least 15-30 minutes just to setup the board and deploy both armies. Before top of 1 even starts.

As Marmatag pointed out, too, Dakka votes don't always play in tournies but still get to vote. I bet if you put 1000 or 2500 as a poll choice you'd get more votes for them on here than any other.

Also, the final 8 tables at LVO shouldn't have a time limit at all. At that high level slow play shouldn't be a factor and the games should go to their final conclusion, not natural conclusion.