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.

Oshova - That really doesn't work. If a game is supposed to last six turns, should you have your vehicles parked on the objective and taking fire from turn four onwards just in case your opponent should use a load of time for his turns? The current shared time system leaves too much open to abuse. If an opponent is moving quickly to an objective then you can pick up the pace and get more time to kill his troops. If he's moving cautiously then you can stall and stop him getting there.

If you're playing a game of chess with a time limit would you expect your opponent to play slow so that you don't get to make as many moves as you want?

I am strongly in favour of playing any timed game with chess clocks as it splits the time evenly between players. If you want to play slow and use up all your time for 4 turns that's fine but Timmah can still get six turns in.

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

There is still more too it than that. Just an example of why we need a set amount of turns.

For instance anyone playing a melee army is not going to start winning or doing decent until the later turns.
A horde army isn't going to start losing until the later rounds.
(I know, I have twice been screwed by slow ork players at ard boyz, going to like 3 turns both times. Good luck killing 150 orks in 3 rounds of shooting)


I think we should know what the average tournament time is for a round.
If its 2 hours, then I would say its "more" understandable that some people don't finish 6 turns.
However if its 2.5+ hours for a 2000 or less point tournament, then I honestly don't know how you wouldn't finish outside of intentional slow play, not knowing your army or not knowing the rules.

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

But, if that's what the rules where would you be cool with people playing slow?

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

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

I'm not suggesting motive at all. Being uprepared is un-sporting if it's going to disrupt someone else.

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

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

You've never had someone so slow that other people had to rush? Is it fair that they have to rush because someone else is overly slow?

Well see in a strategy game most people plan ahead in their turns. I don't usually try and claim objectives or push people off objectives til the last turn.
***Then respectfully, time is a factor that needs to be managed as well.


I have had plenty of games that I win with a massacre, but with those same games, if we only got 5 turns in I may have got a minor loss. Why? Because I plan ahead, I might not actually be losing turn 5, but that doesn't mean I am on objectives or ready to win.
****Again, time is a factor that needs to mbe managed as well. Or in the words of others on this board, you should play a list that insures your cvictory conditions earlier in the turn sequence.

I personally think thats why GW took out the variable game length in tournaments, so the strategy is there instead of, ok if the game ends now I win, if it goes another turn I lose. Come on dice roll.
***Wait it doesn't still do that? must depend on the tournament.

Timmah wrote:
I think we should know what the average tournament time is for a round.
If its 2 hours, then I would say its "more" understandable that some people don't finish 6 turns.
However if its 2.5+ hours for a 2000 or less point tournament, then I honestly don't know how you wouldn't finish outside of intentional slow play, not knowing your army or not knowing the rules.

The UK GTs are 2:15 for 2000pts.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

But, if that's what the rules where would you be cool with people playing slow?
***but its not.

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

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

I'm not suggesting motive at all. Being uprepared is un-sporting if it's going to disrupt someone else.
***Again you're impugning being unprepared. I literally said, what if they just walk slow?

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

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

You've never had someone so slow that other people had to rush? Is it fair that they have to rush because someone else is overly slow?

***nope, not in that context.
You said someoen was disruptive. that to me is a completely different kettle of fish.

But frazzled would you agree that certain armies benefit/get hurt by less than 6 turns?

What if I brought blood angels and everyone slow played so that we only got 3 turns in so that I only got potentially one round of assault?

What if I brough orcs and slow played and won every round because no one could kill off all my orcs in 3 turns of play?

The game is built around having 6 or 5+ turns (depending on tournament). Most competitive players build their list around knowing that fact.

If you cannot follow the tournament rules (finish a game in 2:15) why are you at the tournament? I don't violate other tournament rules. Why is time an ok one to ignore?

Timmah, currently there is not time rules except the full amount of time alloted.. until there is a 15 mins per turn per player rule, you are one making up a rule.. not the other way around.

Space Hulk had a timer, for the Marine player that is. That's the price you pay for being the good guys.


In days past of course, if an opponent was giving you grief in a game you simply smacked them around the head with one of those red whippy sticks.

But frazzled would you agree that certain armies benefit/get hurt by less than 6 turns?
***That could be the case. To use the logic of this thread then you shouldn’t bring these armies, after all their opponents want a competitive game and not an easy win.

What if I brought blood angels and everyone slow played so that we only got 3 turns in so that I only got potentially one round of assault?
****Then you lost three games and were an easy mark? To use the logic of this thread then you shouldn’t bring these armies, after all their opponents want a competitive game and not an easy win.

What if I brough orcs and slow played and won every round because no one could kill off all my orcs in 3 turns of play?
***Then you would win the tournament?

The game is built around having 6 or 5+ turns (depending on tournament). Most competitive players build their list around knowing that fact.
****Most competitive players build their list around lists that can adapt and win the game.

If you cannot follow the tournament rules (finish a game in 2:15) why are you at the tournament? I don't violate other tournament rules. Why is time an ok one to ignore?
***Again, please show me the tournament rule that says all games must have five turns, or what? Respectfully, they are not the ones ignoring the time, you are.


Since everyone seems to be making the argument that I’m the guy slow playing I should posit this. I can only remember ever making less than 4 turns in a tourney game, and that was against a Nid player who was himself the slow player because he kept asking the TO about his own rules (WTF?). I’ve played mech guard, armored company, Iron Warriors, marines, and eldar in tournaments. As long as both sides were able to complete their turn I didn’t care.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

two_heads_talking wrote:Timmah, currently there is not time rules except the full amount of time alloted.. until there is a 15 mins per turn per player rule, you are one making up a rule.. not the other way around.

What Ironman face said. I for one welcome our new Ironman overlords and look askance at those who oppose the might of Iron man...

The time limit for each game is 2.5 hours
A game consists of 6 turns.
The time limit for 6 turns is 2.5 hours.


I don't see how this is not considered to be a rule by you?
Just because a rule is constantly broken/ignored that does not mean its not a rule. (for example speed limits)


Btw, I don't think your a slow player frazzled. I am not trying to attack you about that. Sorry if you think I have.

Timmah if you read all my posts then you would know that all I've been saying has been about having 4+ turns . . . which is enough to win any game. I can't honestly remember the last time I got less than 4 turns in. Also I don't remember the last time I went to a tournament and there was a round by round time limit . . . but you know, making things up is fun =]

Time limit is set by the OT. Game turns are set by OT.
What really happens is set by Reality (TM).

Frazzled wrote:Time limit is set by the OT. Game turns are set by OT.
What really happens is set by Reality (TM).

Just because something, besides what the rules state, happens that does not mean you are not breaking a rule.

In reality I speed when I drive, even though the rules tell me not to. Does that mean I am not breaking a rule?

The notion by many is that you just play until time is called and you don't have to worry about finishing all your turns. But the fact is that the rules state you must finish a game in the time limit. So by not doing this both players (sadly) are breaking the rules even if its only one of their faults.

Again getting beat by orks consistantly because they both only got to turn three has obviously warped my opinion on this matter. Its especially funny because the 2nd ork player, I even asked if he was a fast player and if he thought we would finish 6 turns. He laughed at me and said of course. After his first 40 minute turn, I was pretty sure I was screwed.

But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play to game. Whereas speeding is breaking the law, a law that actually states you must not do this. Whereas the rule you're stating says you have this much time in which to try and do this . . . different things.

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play to game. Whereas speeding is breaking the law, a law that actually states you must not do this. Whereas the rule you're stating says you have this much time in which to try and do this . . . different things.

What this guys says.

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play a game.

Either way it can be looked at both ways.

Then by your own admission you would be fine if an ork player stalled in every game so that he won by going to 3 turns every game? Because they don't have to try and finish a game, they just need to play until the time limit.

Heck I could be so indecisive, maybe I would only get 1 turn in and win because my opponent didn't do much/enough on their first turn. Like stupidly positioning himself away from my shooting.

Timmah wrote:

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play a game.

Either way it can be looked at both ways.

Then by your own admission you would be fine if an ork player stalled in every game so that he won by going to 3 turns every game? Because they don't have to try and finish a game, they just need to play until the time limit.

Heck I could be so indecisive, maybe I would only get 1 turn in and win because my opponent didn't do much/enough on their first turn. Like stupidly positioning himself away from my shooting.

Only if it works, but I don't think you'll get many objectives in that fashion.

If my opponent takes his 1 turn wrong, I could probably claim 3 of 5.

or 1 of 2 and focus all of my fire power on 1 squad to beat him by 1 in victory points.

I can't imagine a single person in this thread (intuition speaking here) actually trying to slow play all their games with the intent to win on that basis alone.

If someone tries to do that, you are pretty much left with playing faster, scoring them badly, and/or talking to the TO about it in hopes of avoiding losses due to the TFG.

If you are not a TFG this is not directed at you. I avoid large tourneys for a lot of reasons, main point being I may have to deal with really slow players. Timmah has been making a valid point, although there is no rule stating that you must finish your game; the fact remains that the game WAS designed to take 5-6 WHOLE turns, without any regard to who is playing.

I still think that horde/swarm players can and should be able to play at a very reasonable pace, and if they REALLY just have that hard of a time finishing their games, why the heck are they at a tourney in the first place? I just do not understand how someone would be so very defensive about being asked to kick the speed up a notch, most will usually ask for this when there is a real need to.

Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

Scott-S6 wrote:can you rountinely finish a round of golf quickly enough that you weren't caught up by the group following you?

Yeah, because that doesn't depends mostly on how well the starter manages the course...

In nearly all cases, the course clogs because the starter has placed too many players on the course, causing *all* of the holes to back up 2 or 3 deep. That is, when I've been caught, I've also caught the group(s) ahead, and been caught by the group(s) behind.

But there's also no shame in fast-moving group play through if they're rushing through the course.

But, and I think we're on the same page,
there's no requirement that the backed up players play faster unless the starter asks them to.

Oshova wrote:Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

See and I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in. The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

My main pet peeve is inconsistency. If a round is over at 2:30, it should be over at 2:30. Let the other guy finish his turn so they've had an even number, but that's it. Any Yu-Gi-Oh! events I went to were run extremely well in terms of game time and would enforce a strict cut off, whereas every 40k event I've been to is a lot fuzzier on it. It seems some people at some tables just kinda keep going or the judge doesn't call it at time (waiting sometimes 15 to 20 minutes). Maybe that's just what I've seen or isn't everywhere, but I've yet to see one where it was enforced "properly."

Timmah wrote:

Oshova wrote:Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

See and I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in. The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

How do you know? You're making an RAI argument, when the I part could be just no game over 6 turns.

Timmah wrote: I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in.

Nope, "stalling" would be playing at a slower pace than reasonable for an experienced player with the same the army in the same tactical position.

Timmah wrote: The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

Nope, because otherwise, the TO would remove time limits entirely and simply use a turn limit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, because otherwise, the TO would remove time limits entirely and simply use a turn limit.

I don't think you have any way of knowing that. Penalty Box: 2 minutes for blurting

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Timmah wrote: I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in.

Nope, "stalling" would be playing at a slower pace than reasonable for an experienced player with the same the army in the same tactical position.

Whats a reasonable pace?

Frazzle: of course this is all RAI, there is no hard fast ruling on the subject. The games need to be at least 4 turns to not be stalling is just the writers reasoning.

There is no hard and fast rules for what is stalling. All we know is that a game is 6 turns. A experienced player (in my opinion) should be able to take all 6 turns in a tournaments time limit.

I would hate to see the use of timed clocks to dictate the pace of the game. I am in favor of variable game length as it adds another dimension to tactics and strategy.

This thread started off in regards to players who intentionally play slow to increase their odds of winning. I think the best way to counter that is as follows:

First the best way to slow play that I have seen is when a player constantly argues about the rules and another person (for example, a TO) must be brought into the game to help move the game along. I know for a fact this is a common strategy for slow playing because I have seen certain players question the same rules repeatedly even after being told by the ultimate authority (for example, a TO) how to resolve the issue. Yes the person asking the same questions time and time again could be hoping to get over on their next opponent and unfortunately they don't seem to realize that everyone else will eventually pickup on this. If you find yourself in this situation I think you should keep the ultimate authority close by and hurriedly resolve such disputes. To me people that repeatedly ask the same questions game after game suffer from TFG syndrome. TOs should take it upon themselves to keep a close watch and help quickly settle these types of situations.

Another method is to penalize slow play by designing missions in a tournament setting such that the culprit cannot win by a large margin. Multiple objectives helps in this regard. If the slow playing player is trying to ensure that the game only makes it to the third turn and win by a margin of 1-2 killpoints then having to acheive multiple objectives will inherently hurt them.