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.

Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...

Slow play over.

 Fifty wrote:
Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...

Slow play over.

But will give additional cover to the cheaters fudging dice with fast-rolling and/or bullying casual attendants with "theory-gaming" through turns for illicit points, skewing the results that way.

Will only work with a "3-strike and you're disqualified rule" or something along those lines for picking up dice too quickly for your opponent to check or rolling for clearly declaring what you're rolling, etc.., etc.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Solution for future tournaments - a win gained at the end of turn 5, 6 or 7 (including if you table your opponent before turn 5) gets you five points, but if you are winning at the end of turn 3 and the game ends, you only get 3 points, end of turn 4 gets you 4 points, etc...

Slow play over.

But will give additional cover to the cheaters fudging dice with fast-rolling and/or bullying casual attendants with "theory-gaming" through turns for illicit points, skewing the results that way.

Will only work with a "3-strike and you're disqualified rule" or something along those lines for picking up dice too quickly for your opponent to check or rolling for clearly declaring what you're rolling, etc.., etc.

This also incentivizes chipmunking games you know you're going to lose and/or to help buddies.

Wilson wrote:
My brother played him and while he said he was a nice dude, he did slow play. if they had got past turn 3, he ( my brother) would have racked up more points.

I would add though, that that's just one of the down sides to running a horde army. it naturally takes longer. You can do things to speed up the game of course, but it does take longer.

That's pretty much orks. They can survive 3, maybe 4 turns and then they collapse. If you want to win games in tournament with orks you must keep games in 2-3 turns max. Anything more and you won't HAVE army left to win the game with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

He has been live streamed twice and having played Vs him alot, he doesn't delay turns. He is just a very competent player and knows his stuff!

From le Reddit.

Of course with ork knowing his stuff means making damn sure game ends in as few turns as possible if he wants to win games...

Nidzrule! wrote:
I was there. The problem was that when you got to the top tables there were a number of horde lists that were dominating. The final game was Morgan's orks vs. some other chap's nurgle horde list with the plaguecrawlers. Morgan always has the slow play card available to use. Looking at the numbers posted, I can see why people are pre-supposing slow play.

The meta has gone too far the other way with horde. However, this tournament did NOT include the FAQ changes so will be invalid as to how 40k will continue to develop. In that sense the London GT will be more interesting.

Also Max Barton bowed out of the 40k GT and instead did Shadespire. He won that instead (albeit with Shadespire's current OP list lol).

Hordes are fine once you allow people to play a normal game to at least 5 turns. Its ending games at the 3rd that makes hordes seem more durable then they are in objective heavy games. Once the new faq takes effect and chess clocks are implemented in the top tables pure hordes will never see top tables in tournies. Unfortunately chess clocks are now needs becuase of players like this guy and this will hurt players who take balanced lists with horde screens as they are now rushing thier games to not be penalized.

Given the answers so far, maybe the trouble is actually caused by the competitive scene and thus competitive tournaments should be banned from play. Then we won't have to talk about cheating, slow play, and so on.

Competition brings these behaviors, after all. As long as there is something to gain from victory (prestige, prices, ...), human nature makes it so everything justifies the ends for some people.

That or maybe some people are that mad that an Ork army dares to win and thus, it must be the ork player who cheated/use something that isn't called "good play".

I know it’s like beating an old drum over and over, but, hordes can still be used in a chess clock environment. Sure, you need to take moving all the models into account in your list creation and preparation, but it is possible. You also have the added benefit, of each time your opponent has a turn, you have less models to move in the following turn! Having a horde army is used far too liberally and far too often by a lot of players as an excuse. Orks and horde Guard can still totally win events when going to 5 turns, it is just that currently there is no incentive for them to increase their speed of play. However, chess clocks will solve this going forward (and they aren’t as “scary” as some people think).


My problem with this result is 2-fold. Only playing 3 turns and refusing extra when judges allow it, doesn’t not offer a good representation of the game and event overall. Sure, it is all within the boundaries of the set rules, but, if slow play was identified and not acted upon, then it also further indicates the current ingrained issue with event judges and their overall reluctance to actually enforce rules and penalties. This seems to be an ongoing problem across all the big events.

2nd issue, in my view, is apparent issue with scoring. The fact that a player can win an event of this size, and supposedly reputation (but let’s face it, as soon as they announced they weren’t using the beta rules, it became a non-event). If a player can gain 4 points over any other player by just playing half a game each time and only killing 650 points worth of full units, it screams to me that something has gone wrong somewhere. He only won by 2 points due to the “hobby” scoring system, which to me, is not a good way of supplementing the event score, but it’s a discussion for another time and thread.

Unfortunately, winning an end of game/turn objective scoring game is far too heavily stacked in the favour of the horde player, especially when they have access to big blob squads and morale reduction abilities. It doesn’t matter what you do to me in 5 turns of shooting, if I table 6 units of 30 conscripts that ignore morale and have obsec when I sit them on 4 of the 6 objectives from turn 1 onwards. Try as you might, 95% of armies just won’t be able to kill enough in the available turns – and that’s with the horde player just passing their turns after getting to the objectives and not rolling any dice for the other 50-70% of their army.

Time limits will unfortunately always be a thing at events, and a certain percentage of people will always try to do whatever they can to turn it to their advantage. Personally, if I come across this situation there are a couple of things that I can do. If they seem like a decent person I can raise it with them in a friendly way, if not, I can either go to a judge or take out my phone, put it on the table and start a stop watch. It’s a bit blunt, but, people can get the picture pretty quickly that you’re timing them. This can also then be raised with a judge if it gets more and more excessive. The other option is to spend the time they take working on your next turn, and then blast through it quickly and smoothly straight after. It soon becomes apparent to others when you spent a quarter of the time on your turns as your opponent is doing on theirs. It also adds additional pressure to your slow playing opponent as it means they have to risk going even slower.



@Sarouan people don't have an issue with Orks winning events or doing well in them. People just have more issue with the way that some people go about it.

I was at the tournament final and played the guy who won at the heats. He was a good opponenent and you can't fault his character or call him a cheat. Did he play to his armies strengths? Did he know he was aiming for a turn 2 win??? Only he can answer that and has to live with it. I do know that I would have tabled him in 4 or 5 turns but doing so was an impossibility with the whole set up (TIME), which as a player was massively frustrating for me as I knew I should / could win... but couldn't. I even stated at the start of the game i wanted a quick game and made my intentions clear but it just didnt happen due to so much stuff everywhere. As a result I've settled on understanding time as a resource as important as points and as a result it should be distributed evenly like points are. Bring on chess clocks and let's even the playing field.
Also take it easy guys. He won. Well done. It's all moulded plastic and dice at the end of the day. Let the hobby be the winner and buy some sodding chess clocks. Lol

Look I am British so perhaps have beat around the bush about it.

It is very likely that the ork army taken was designed to play to turn 2 or 3 and then swarm the objectives. Win before armies could have the chance to chew through those bodies.

The last mission was killpoints and he was up against another horde army (Nurgle). I have no problem with Morgan and this is not going to change the results. However, the important thing is that this does not occur anywhere else.

This is also taking advantage of the social contract - how do you force the other player to play if he says he wants to stop? You can only rely on the TO to lay down the law and FORCE that to happen (i.e. slowplayer auto concedes). I think a hard line does need to be taken in the future as this is an immensely frustrating way to end a game. I mean Scarecrow20 himself states that he knew that the game was not going to go past turn 3.

Kdash comes up with some good ways to turn the tables on the offending slowplayer. But this is also part of the strategy. You get forced into playing faster and making mistakes because the slowplayer is monopolising time during his turn. Your win condition becomes more than just in-game but can also skew your perception of risk versus reward in carrying out certain actions e.g. you may take on higher risk moves because it might result in more casualties faster rather than sitting back because you KNOW you arent going past turn 3.

David Glaysher (top chap btw) took a horde daemon army and he manage to finish by turn 5 and 6! What's the difference between his army and the ork's in terms of model count?

Hard questions but they need to be answered.

Extend the time limit or turn 3 game endings will always be common. Finals should have an extension to 3.5+ hours if not longer for a final to make sure the game is completed.

I enjoy death clocks in Warmachine, but it's understandable 40k doesn't have them. I just hate to have a grinding un-finishable game at an event I traveled too and landed a hotel.

Most events have been doing jack-all about the slow play epidemic ever since it really took off part way through 7e. I'm not sure how much it's going to take for the decision makers to realize that we are trying to cram too many points into too little time. Players shouldn't have to give themselves a stroke speed-playing for over two hours just to get a legit game result. They should have time to take a mid-game smoke, hit the bathroom, and have a rules issue involving calling a judge without hitting the time wall. Only the slowest most grindy matchups should get close to the limit.

And events should definitely set aside extra time for finals. Those should be natural finish or concession only.

Sure. The blatantly obvious solution is the same all 40K players everywhere use when they are strapped for time.

Play less points.

Wanna cram 5 games into a weekend? Play 1500 points or even 1000 points. Problem solved.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Sure. The blatantly obvious solution is the same all 40K players everywhere use when they are strapped for time.

Play less points.

Wanna cram 5 games into a weekend? Play 1500 points or even 1000 points. Problem solved.

Nothing blatantly obvious, or right about it.

Did a GT two weeks ago. 5 games, 80 players. 2000 points. Most games went to turn 5 or 6. Even the horde armies. It was just a result of people not being jerks about slow playing.

You just lower it to 1500 points, it's going to be the same results. That won't change a thing.

Fair enough. Just not my experience. Too many games in a strict time-limit tournament format that claim to go to turn 5 or 6 tend to be cheaters theory-hammering/fast-talking illicit points without transparently playing for them in an orderly fashion.

YMMD.

 KillswitchUK wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.


The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.

Also more the fact that no one bothered attending the GT Final because they wern't using the latest FAQ and the terrain/rulespack is terrible. Also judges rulings have been...questionable...throughout every GW heat.

Lets not forget that the ork player slow played almost every game from what I hear and barely got passed turn 2/3, which doesn't seem to be an issue for GW, but has a very big impact . Shows in the fact that he got barely any VPs.

Gratz either way to the winners.

Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?

 Togusa wrote:


Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?

99% of tournament games ending turn 2 or turn 3 are not intentionally slow-played for advantages. They just happen to be slow games of 40K.

99% of slow-play accusations are false attempts by sore losers to smear people and or discredit other players.

Slow games of 40K ≠ slow play.


Thus there are 3 different and distinct problems that need to be solved:

1. Speeding up slow games (not slow-playing) as 40K by its nature can be cumbersome and isn't designed for tournament games. More time/lower points would be the obvious solution.
2. Stop the false-accusation-train by cheaters using the slow-play hysteria as a cover to deflect from other, far more common types of cheating.
3. Stop the true, intentional, malicious slow-play that is out there (if rarer than people under 2.) want to make you believe).


As long as people prone to be guilty of No. 2 keep conflating No. 1 and No 3. to muddy the debate, we're not getting anywhere.

I think biggest downer for me (not necessarily proof of slow play but close) was the refusal to play on in a game that ended turn 3 despite ref saying more time was allowed. That stinks as you want to play the game not the tournament and if not slow playing then why not carry on?
However if memory serves me right the tyranid player and the ork player did agree to stop on turn 3 before the ref came over... don't quote me on that one as I wasn't the tyranid player. That s as close to proof I can come up with but your right sir. Rest is pure conjecture.
I personally loved the final gt. Great bunch of blokes to play against who taught me a lot and defo new friends made who I'll see on the tournament circuit in the future. Total hobby win.

Sunny side up, I cited a player that played horde daemons and got at least 5 turns in all his games. He did not have vehicles. He had 4 favourite game votes.

Ork player did not get to past turn 3 in his games. He had zero favourite game votes.

There's a reason why these questions are coming up. This is not going to affect results of the tournament. It's done. But something should be done for the future. Slow play needs to be stopped - less points or more time for each game or more time for the last game. Whatever - but the status quo cannot hold.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Togusa wrote:


Rather than taking this as proof, is there proof that he slow-played? Lots of claims are made on the internet, but without evidence, how do we know?

99% of tournament games ending turn 2 or turn 3 are not intentionally slow-played for advantages. They just happen to be slow games of 40K.

99% of slow-play accusations are false attempts by sore losers to smear people and or discredit other players.

Slow games of 40K ≠ slow play.


Thus there are 3 different and distinct problems that need to be solved:

1. Speeding up slow games (not slow-playing) as 40K by its nature can be cumbersome and isn't designed for tournament games. More time/lower points would be the obvious solution.
2. Stop the false-accusation-train by cheaters using the slow-play hysteria as a cover to deflect from other, far more common types of cheating.
3. Stop the true, intentional, malicious slow-play that is out there (if rarer than people under 2.) want to make you believe).


As long as people prone to be guilty of No. 2 keep conflating No. 1 and No 3. to muddy the debate, we're not getting anywhere.

I agree. For example, I was at LVO this year and last year as well. In most cases my games never made it beyond turn 3, with two exceptions.

From my perspective, it had little to do with slow-play (though to be clear there are cases it does happen) and more to do with poor organization. Often times it would take upwards of 25-30 minutes, with two cases that took almost 45 minutes to get pairings. By the time we got to our tables and were set up, an hour or more had passed out of a three hour game time. Why they simply do not produce pairings the day before and post them for the first day's game is beyond me. The second problem was that the applications that these tournaments rely on are not yet at the level they need to be at to be useful. Time could be saved by posting them on large screens using projectors or the like.

The next problem was set up and space, because many of these events have hundreds of people attending, space is extremely limited, models of course are quite delicate and the time it takes to unpack, organize, deploy, play and then repack can be stressful.

I personally think that these tournaments should have caps for the number of people, and instead the event should be organized with many multiple styles of tournament for people to play in.

I FULLY agree with lower points, and I feel that 1500 to 1600 is much more doable in the current environment and would also cut down on some of the other issues, such as spam.

Anyone have access to Paul Dennett's Dark Angels army?

I played the dark angels guy. He was spot on player
From memory he had....
He had 3 dark talons... flyers
3 squads of scouts
Belile (excuse spelling)
Loads if bikes with plasma. Think 2 x 3 and 1 x 6
Tank to give - 1 hut bubble
Dude on a landspeeder with sword twin assault n heavy bolter
Landspeeder with twin assault and heavy bolter

Pic of army

Other angle

Thanks!

No problem. Shame I didn't have better pics.

It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

-Game is designed to go 5-6 turns each player unless someone gets tabled or someone concedes.

-Tournaments are limiting rounds(games) to 2.5 hours and expect players to complete a game within that 2.5 hours (totally doable for experienced players).

-Player(s) are being accused of building lists and slow playing so they can maximize points gained in the first few turns before they would normally lose outside of the 2.5 hour limit.

I think it just goes against the spirit of the game if true (certainly looks true though). Some players are not bringing good Warhammer 40,000 lists to compete in a tournament, they are bringing good tournament lists to exploit/bend the rules into their favor based off the rules set by the TO. Its like tournaments are creating its own sub game with 40k as its skin/costume and contestants are going to build a list around that.

This is why arguments like chess clocks and changes to the rounds time limit etc keep coming up.

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.

I don’t know where you think the game doesn’t have predefined turn limits all the book missions are 5-6 turns whether they are fixed or random.

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

You can easily just flip this argument around and say why are you punishing elite army players and forcing them to sit and do nothing for over half a round, despite paying the same in tickets and lodging, because a horde player feels entitled to more than half the round time.