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.

DJ3 wrote:
I'm sure Alex (who, by the way, was the happiest man in the entire building Sunday night) is very touched by your extreme concern, everyone.

Keep fighting the good fight--even there isn't a fight and you're actually just blindly swinging at straw men who you're very certain are quite evil.

Well, I mean, the co founder of Riot is still giving him 5000 dollars (if I read the tweet right). I'd be happy too

I've seen the relevant parts now, and, well, I don't see an agreement on playing by intent rather than RAW, but I do see some behaviour that seems dubious at best. I feel bad for Alex, but I still think this is being blown out of proportion. What Tony did wasn't against the rules, he was right about the deep strike timing. It was an opportunity for him to show some great sportsmanship, and he instead chose to be... "not very nice" about it. I'm not a fan of mob mentality or witch hunts, but I hope he'll learn something from this.

I'm impressed with how well Alex took it, that's exactly how you should react in this situation. I wish him luck in future tournaments.

Thing is, tournament or not there has to be some line drawn. Min/maxing lists are one thing. But dubious rules, slow play, etc. just paints everything in a bad light and just reinforces the idea that tournaments are for cutthroat gaks who will do anything and everything to eke out a win short of blatant cheating (and sometimes even that)

Slow play was more a problem for me than the Deep Strike issue

As a model mid-level tournament player I cannot reiterate my love of the chess clock at events. Simple ITC rules additions that solves every slow play:

1.25 (90 minutes) per player. If your clock runs out, you auto lose. Max points to your opponent. Done

When your first turn in the semi finals takes you 1 hour, but when the judges put a 20 min limit per round in the finals you are able to play in that time frame, its very, very obvious that you were slow playing.
And it appears the guy "slowplayed" ALL the tournament.
2,5h-3h are a very reasonable time frame to play a 2k point game of 8th edition to his conclusion, if both players known their rules. And tournament players SHOULD known their rules. A Alpha Strike list that lost all of his strenght after the two first turns will always be undefeated if he only plays two turns per battle.
What you can't do is spend 30 minutes checking ALL LOS for ALL models in the table during your deployment,or things like that. Practice in your home to do that kind of thing fast, to not disrupt the flow of the game.

 Galas wrote:
When your first turn in the semi finals takes you 1 hour, but when the judges put a 20 min limit per round in the finals you are able to play in that time frame, its very, very obvious that you were slow playing.

Agreed. I don't get the aversion some seem to have against chess clocks in tournaments, they'd prevent this sort of thing rather effectively.

Trying to judge slow play is hard, as you often need to pay attention for an extended period of time, and you can't have judges watching every table at once. You can have chess clocks at every table at once.

The judges should have stepped in and given a warning in the first or second round. He should have been booted from the tournament long before the match with Alex if he was doing it every time.

 buddha wrote:
As a model mid-level tournament player I cannot reiterate my love of the chess clock at events. Simple ITC rules additions that solves every slow play:

1.25 (90 minutes) per player. If your clock runs out, you auto lose. Max points to your opponent. Done

My only problem with this is that armies don't play equally.

Rather than creating a disincentive such as this and losing the game, I wonder if scoring can be done in such a way to encourage both players to play at a speed to maximize the chance the game going to turn 4 or 5?

Say, any game ends at "x" turn where both players still have models, adjust your total points (meaning AFTER mission scoring) by:
Turn 1 end -5 pts each.
Turn 2 end -2 pts each.
Turn 3 end 0
Turn 4 end +1
Turn 5 end +2
Turn 6 end +5

Maybe that's too much +/- adjustment...but you get my drift?

What's the degree of separation between the top 25 players?

EDIT: Or better yet, in a tournament of this size, have a dedicated decent swag for "most turns completed" by player.

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

But reintroducing them wouldn't really help. They get docked for points, they dock everybody points. Whopedoo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Everyones phone has a clock though. All you need to do it use on of the players phones to set alarms according to the player packet for turn lengths. If your ahead of schedule, feel free to waste time, otherwise focus on your moves while your opponent takes their turn.

I still think home-brew missions are part of the issue. They don't fix anything they just alter the meta, so when GW patches this to fix the core games meta by addressing problems, it does nothing to fix these outside packets. Part of the issue with reaper spam at this event was the format.

Then organizer needs to provide charging points on tables or you'll have phones shutting down easily.

Also software needs to come from reliable source VERIFIABLY. Otherwise it's all too easy for TFG's(who are the issue) to simply have app that runs just a weeeeee bit slower thus giving them extra time(same issue with dice rolling apps)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

njtrader wrote:

Tony G is an IMAGE as to why a lot of people will not come back to competitive 40k I get it, there is money on the line but that is NO EXCUSE for this sort of behavior.

Out of curiosity how much? Luckily don't think Finnish tournaments have significant amount of money line. Generally costs so much that chasing ultimate lists with constant deliberate GW balance shuffles would be more expensive. Even fees getting to tournament would be significant dent out of even biggest prizes! (this assuming there's not been dramatic increase in prizes recently. Generally it had been on level of GW starter box as top prize)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Benlisted wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:


For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

I totally agree on the time front. Chess clocks are often touted as the solution to this, but the final game took 1:45 up to the end of turn two, leaving 45 minutes for the rest of the game. I know eldar's time is frontloaded, but these were top tier players under timed conditions - how the hell is anyone else (let alone someone without a low model count army) supposed to finish their games? Playing Nids, which regularly want to run 80+ models at 2k, I can get to the end of turn 3 or maybe 4 in 2.5 hours but it's very unlikely to go further than that unless one of us is getting utterly stomped. In my mind the only sensible solution is to reduce the points levels, to at least 1750 but frankly preferably 1500.

Well in this case one player was slow playing but this wouldn't eat other players time so actually would help. Issue would be renting clocks(so tournament fee increases) and 40k has tons more action on opponents turn than say machine so it's not as workable. Hardcore players probably ok but more casual players?

I would probably not bother switching clock off mid turn. Hurts me but screw it. If round lengths are too short for me to begin with(like 1.5h games) I just skip tournament instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
OMFG. It isn't that hard to understand people.

If you have 2 1/2 hours to play the game (this is not enough time though some people say it is) then each player gets 1h15m to play the game. When their turn starts their clock starts ticking - when their turn ends - it stops ticking. Need to pee - Do it in your turn? Run out of time? You lose.

It's a laughable joke that tournaments are not done in this fashion. 3 game turns is not a full game of 40k unless someone is tabled. 2 game turns? WTF is that...how does that qualify as a win or a loss for ether player?

In addition to this there needs to be a pregame deployment phase that has additional time. Plus in rules debates where a judge is involved the time should also stop.

Then game lengths needs to be long enough to make all armies viable. That or simply ban horde armies.

Game is designed to go more than 3 turns yes. It's also designed so that orks have to bring tons of models. If you interfere with that ability you are being just as unfair as limiting length of game. Would be more fairer to just say "orks banned from tournament"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

njtrader wrote:

1.25 hrs per player
No pauses except for judge intervention, limit 2 pauses per player per game
Expectation is that saves are rolled on the active players clock, as are psychic power denials (since both players will be doing this actively in their opponents turns ANYWAY.)
If a player's clock hits zero, they forfeit

It absolutely works. 100% of the time.

If you clock you have NO ONE but yourself to blame.

Equity of access to time is a requirement and the meta will adapt.

Then question is is 1.25h enough for horde armies to play at current point size. If not then that's unfair and messing with GW's designed balance as unfairly as game length not going to max. Some armies are DESIGNED to be slower. If you make clock to make them unplayable that's same as banning entire armies(orks, infantry IG etc).

Bolded btw still leaves room for TFG to stall and cause opponent to lose on time. So no tt does not work 100% times.

tneva82 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

But reintroducing them wouldn't really help. They get docked for points, they dock everybody points. Whopedoo.

Is ski jumping completely dead in Finland? You could use the principle from judge's scores there.

6 round tournament, you can give your opponent 0, 5, or 10 points (adjust for how the tournament is scored) for sportsmanship. 10 is the standard, 5 if your opponent is a bit of a prat, 0 if you never want to play him again. Then, at the end of the event, ignore every player's top and bottom score.

If you run into one sore loser who wants to "get back at you" then no problem, but 2+, the problem is probably you.

 Red Corsair wrote:
They have already come out and said they cannot have any more length added though. You guys are being wilfully ignorant to the fact that this is an event with only a finite amount of time that costs money. I mean they could always move the event to the salt flats and take two weeks but then we would have another list of problem.

Then reduce point size. It's pretty silly players keep upping point sizes all the time thus requiring more and more models. GW drops models point costs, players respond by upping game size! Been trend for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 schadenfreude wrote:

This many

Spoiler:

Warlord Trait superior tactical training
Relics Laurels of command, lost relic of Cadia

Cadian Brigade
3 Company commanders and one of them is the warlord
6 infantry squads with plasma guns and lascannons
3 rough rider squads with 2 plasma
5 mortar HWS
2 SWS with 2 plasma and 1 demo
1 SWS with 3 demo charges

Cadian Spearhead
1 Company commander
2 Leman Russ executioners with plasma sponson, lascannon, storm bolter.
3 Basilisks
1 mortar HWS

Elysian Vanguard
1 company commander
6 sniper teams

.

So basically reinforced platoon plus armoured+SPA squadrons in support. Hardly tons of models. If this is too much then games are def too high point levels for tournaments.

I have to admit I also don't have so much of an issue with not allowing a movement phase after deep striking.

Playing deep strike out of sequence can have a legitimate impact on the game - however in this instance it did seem like an honest mistake that Alex's opponent was aware of - the proper thing to have done would have been just to say "don't forget to do your movement first".

However I do have massive issue with slow play, turn hogging and slow rolling.

Nobody at tournament level play should be taking 60 minutes to complete a turn - especially with that list. I'd give some leeway if it was a horde army like Orks, 'Nids or AM, but even then not up to 60 minutes.

However the issue here is that LVO didn't take this into account - technically nothing wrong per se was being done, he was bending the rules to deny his opponent time to play his turn properly.

This meant the game concluded on turn 3. And that's an issue for me as there's no way to tell who won at that stage (unless they had been tabled).

In my opinion if a game doesn't finish (in other words completes after turn 5/6) it should be counted as a draw unless one layer concedes. You should not be able to pull off a win by stalling for time.

However that is the fault of the TO in this case although just being a nice human being doesn't really hurt either tbh.....

I don't think chess clocks would work, but I think players should agree between them depending on the armies in play how long each should get per turn. Games will speed up in the later turns in any case in most circumstances.

Chess clocks can be switched in half a second. You could perfectly go :

"I cast smite I roll a 11. Tap
I deny roll 12 Tap"

I shoot my 10 boltguns. 8 hiits 4 wound Tap
I make 4 saves fail, 1 fnp fail remove a model Tap.

If chess players can make it work for rounds where each player has a minute, surely we can for 90minutes.

If that time frame turns out massively impossible for horde armies then that is a disadvantage for them in a tournament you have to live with.
If that turns out to be 2 big an issue for too many lists. downsize the poitns limit to 1500?

 Earth127 wrote:
Chess clocks can be switched in half a second. You could perfectly go :

"I cast smite I roll a 11. Tap
I deny roll 12 Tap"

Then opponent says "I wasn't going to deny. Why you wasted my play time?"

If chess players can make it work for rounds where each player has a minute, surely we can for 90minutes.

If that time frame turns out massively impossible for horde armies then that is a disadvantage for them in a tournament you have to live with.
If that turns out to be 2 big an issue for too many lists. downsize the poitns limit to 1500?

Chess has no action during opponents turn.

And if you go making horde armies unviable just ban horde armies periodically. More fair than making them autolose.

Point size is only correct thing to do if you implement this and 1.25h is not enough for horde armies.

Everything's a bloody drama with you. If you're going to make a slow army have a penalty for playing slowly then BAN EVERYTHING!

Just stick a tournament clock on and don't be annoying. It's super simple and easy to implement.

I would not say autolose at the end, I would say you just don't get to take additional turns or roll saves or fight back. If when you time out your opponent only has 2 mins left and you're miles ahead on points, it should not be an auto lose. That makes no sense.

if one person is slow and the other quick, the quick player will have consecutive turns to kill the slower player - or the slower player can concede.

 ph34r wrote:
I like the part where one of the top lists' mortars weren't even glued to their bases?

What?

Not the mortars. Tony's rangers were quote:"Metal glued to the resin bases" and allegedly were broken during previous games.
Albeit I understand the fragility of the metal miniatures, nothing forbid him to glue them back or put them on pins before the event.

Orktavius wrote:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/223317017

Game starts at around 3 hours 36 minutes in, the intention 'conversation' happens around 3 hours 56 minutes though Tony's agreement is unclear.

Drama starts on 4H59MIN - and turn on the chat, it exploded.

 Silentz wrote:
Everything's a bloody drama with you. If you're going to make a slow army have a penalty for playing slowly then BAN EVERYTHING!

Just stick a tournament clock on and don't be annoying. It's super simple and easy to implement.

Problem is is 1.25h fair length for horde armies? Armies aren't equal in terms of time required to play. Thus tournament rules need to fit that.

Otherwise if you implement rule you lose on time either you need to ensure there's enough time for all armies(so if 2k 1.25h is not enough for hordes lower point value or increase time) or you should simply ban those armies which is lot more honest than charging money for horde armies that can't win because you screw with balance GW has designed.

And no rolls and no turns is autolose on almost all cases so same thing. Might just as well ban army all together. Much more honest than taking money knowing you have designed house rules player can't win with.

"Tap"

how long does it take you to tap a button? A single keypress on your keyboard? That half second is not worth wasting you breath over.

Chess turns can take less time then a deny roll. it's the moving of a sinlge figure. Whenever you tap the button on the clock is your signal to your opponent it's his action to take and you can immediately tap again to signal I am not going to do anything.

Chess clocks are made for quick swithcing (unlike a smartphone app where that is genuinely a problem). and they are not all that expensive.

Wait so currently the rules favour hordes. How come we haven't just banned elite armies altogether? Much more fair than taking money knowing you have rules that the player can't win with.

People will work to the time allocated. If you can't bring an army you can play to the rules with, don't bring it.

Minor issue with the chess clock idea, a lot of the older analog ones have a max of 1 hour. So you would need to remeber wether half an hour had already passed or use digital ones.

Fan67 wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I like the part where one of the top lists' mortars weren't even glued to their bases?

What?

Not the mortars. Tony's rangers were quote:"Metal glued to the resin bases" and allegedly were broken during previous games.
Albeit I understand the fragility of the metal miniatures, nothing forbid him to glue them back or put them on pins before the event.

Apparently the rangers weren't his minis (the whole army I think might not have been given he decided to use Nick's list 2 days before the event) and he didn't feel comfortable repairing them himself.

I'm on the fence re chess clocks, but can see why it's worth at least a try certainly on top tables/later rounds. Not sure anyone can be so adamant it won't work if they've never tried it ...

My view on go slow/hordes is that, ultimately, these are timed matches and if you want to take a large model count list then you need to play smart and ensure you can get through a game in the time allowed - plenty of practice, easy planned deployment methods, movement trays, dice in groups of 10-20 etc. If you can't play the game in the time allotted then it seems against the social contract to take such a list to a tournament until you can play it at a decent speed. I often run horde Nids and am almost paranoid about my first turn and not killing the game.

On go slow, I would prefer a system of after say 30 mins, players one's turn 1 has to have ended, after 1 hour player 2's turn 1 has to have ended. After 1:25 player 1's turn 2 has to have ended etc. Strict dice down for each turn. if you get ahead of the game then pressures off in later rounds but if 30 minutes in player one is still toiling through his turn then he foregoes the rest of his turn, so absolutely no point in playing slow on purpose. Timings are illustrative before anyone misses the bigger picture and starts arguing about how 30 mins is too short. Asshats will be asshats, so if the poor player stuck opposite one doesn't have to get referees to force the game on an individual table basis but instead timings are set for all tables then that makes it far less confrontational.

2 proper turns and a rushed 3rd (if that) is not a game of 40k. I've always tried to get at least 4 rounds in every game I've played and less than this I end up feeling we've not played a full game - and that's still not a game going to it's conclusion. If too many players can't get the turns in then the question of dropping points levels so they can becomes a real one. 1,750 or 1,500 takes a few units off the board and in some ways makes the game interesting as you have to build a list with some weaknesses and can't take an answer to all potential scenarios.

tneva82 wrote:

 Silentz wrote:
Everything's a bloody drama with you. If you're going to make a slow army have a penalty for playing slowly then BAN EVERYTHING!

Just stick a tournament clock on and don't be annoying. It's super simple and easy to implement.

Problem is is 1.25h fair length for horde armies? Armies aren't equal in terms of time required to play. Thus tournament rules need to fit that.

Otherwise if you implement rule you lose on time either you need to ensure there's enough time for all armies(so if 2k 1.25h is not enough for hordes lower point value or increase time) or you should simply ban those armies which is lot more honest than charging money for horde armies that can't win because you screw with balance GW has designed.

And no rolls and no turns is autolose on almost all cases so same thing. Might just as well ban army all together. Much more honest than taking money knowing you have designed house rules player can't win with.

they don't though. Yeah, it's a bummer that the most excessive of horde armies will struggle to get in under tine, but you know, ITC tournament rules already rule out entire armies ANYWAYS. You don't want to take admech to an ITC event for example. Nick and Tony's armies are built AROUND the venue of the ITC. Adding in something else that will, on the whole, make the tournament run better with less abuse is worth penalizing some fringe case armies. That's something the ITC already does, and deliberately so.

Just because it doesn't fix everything doesn't mean that fixing nothing is a better answer

Part of the issue with chess clocks is that 40k tournaments are a social event for many people. Chess tournaments are not. Introducing a clock makes the game less social. As was said swapping the clock is an indicator to the other player that they should do something. That is not inherent to 40k, so I can see it getting gamed. I get that they swap quickly in chess, but it would be all the time in 40k. the smite example

"I cast smite" -rolls an 11 tap
deny roll falis tap
"wait which unit is closest"
"the terminators"
"are you sure?"
forced to measure
"yup they are"
rolls mortal wounds tap
removes models tap.

Now during the whole measuring part as the smiting player can I force my opponent to measure if he does not agree with my assesment and waste his time? Will people cheese that to get opponents to accept their word about what the closest unit is?

There is no grey area in chess, no rules questions, measurements, LOS issues

"how does x work?" opponent taps to explain
"can I see you book" tap
"gets book"- tap
"oh play on while I read it" tap


. IF 40k were more abstract it could potentially work as it is I think it would detract from the game for a majority of people. Though if 40 were more abstract it would play faster in general. TLOS will always slow down the game. Now if you want them on top tables in big events cool. Or maybe on hand for slow play. If a player complains about slow play the judge brings out the chess clock and divides the remaining time.

Giving players the benefit of the doubt for a minute:
The fact that a game only made it to turn 3 at a high level of play should be a sign that 2.5 hours is not enough time for an average 2k game. My first round my opponent (who has been a rules judge at major events) and I finished on turn 3 only because I was tabled; in all likelihood we would have barely made it through turn 4 if the game had continued. I saw many games at LVO finish with a lot of models still on the table, and my teammates all shared similar experiences. I’ve seen similar results at local tournaments and pickup games. I think the community needs to consider the possibility that games of 8th may just take longer than 7th; whether this is due to army size, player familiarity with the rules or the gameplay itself is at fault I’ll leave to the TOs to figure out. Chess clocks and other measures are all well and good to consider, but ignoring the fact that games may simply take longer is missing a root issue.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Giving players the benefit of the doubt for a minute:
The fact that a game only made it to turn 3 at a high level of play should be a sign that 2.5 hours is not enough time for an average 2k game. My first round my opponent (who has been a rules judge at major events) and I finished on turn 3 only because I was tabled; in all likelihood we would have barely made it through turn 4 if the game had continued. I saw many games at LVO finish with a lot of models still on the table, and my teammates all shared similar experiences. I’ve seen similar results at local tournaments and pickup games. I think the community needs to consider the possibility that games of 8th may just take longer than 7th; whether this is due to army size, player familiarity with the rules or the gameplay itself is at fault I’ll leave to the TOs to figure out. Chess clocks and other measures are all well and good to consider, but ignoring the fact that games may simply take longer is missing a root issue.

Problem is that Frontline's narrative on tournament play to date is that a large proportion of games have been reaching a natural conclusion. If they still believe this to be the case then timings and point limits on ITC will not be changing any time soon and there is a tendency for other tournaments to follow the trend here as to points level etc. Be interesting to see how this point is covered, as well as the specifics of the case here, in their follow up podcast.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Giving players the benefit of the doubt for a minute:
The fact that a game only made it to turn 3 at a high level of play should be a sign that 2.5 hours is not enough time for an average 2k game. My first round my opponent (who has been a rules judge at major events) and I finished on turn 3 only because I was tabled; in all likelihood we would have barely made it through turn 4 if the game had continued. I saw many games at LVO finish with a lot of models still on the table, and my teammates all shared similar experiences. I’ve seen similar results at local tournaments and pickup games. I think the community needs to consider the possibility that games of 8th may just take longer than 7th; whether this is due to army size, player familiarity with the rules or the gameplay itself is at fault I’ll leave to the TOs to figure out. Chess clocks and other measures are all well and good to consider, but ignoring the fact that games may simply take longer is missing a root issue.

Or there's some serious stalling to deliberately end game on turns 2-3.

greyknight12 wrote:Giving players the benefit of the doubt for a minute:
The fact that a game only made it to turn 3 at a high level of play should be a sign that 2.5 hours is not enough time for an average 2k game... ignoring the fact that games may simply take longer is missing a root issue.

100% agreed here. They're separate issues as I see it - one is that one person can monopolise the time, but not every opponent you have is going to do that, so in many cases chess clocks would not be necessary. The other is that games are simply not finishing, and chess clocks will not help with that, because 1.15 is not enough to play 5 (let alone the potential 7) turns.

ruminator wrote:I'm on the fence re chess clocks, but can see why it's worth at least a try certainly on top tables/later rounds. Not sure anyone can be so adamant it won't work if they've never tried it ...

On go slow, I would prefer a system of after say 30 mins, players one's turn 1 has to have ended, after 1 hour player 2's turn 1 has to have ended. After 1:25 player 1's turn 2 has to have ended etc. Strict dice down for each turn. if you get ahead of the game then pressures off in later rounds but if 30 minutes in player one is still toiling through his turn then he foregoes the rest of his turn, so absolutely no point in playing slow on purpose. Timings are illustrative before anyone misses the bigger picture and starts arguing about how 30 mins is too short. Asshats will be asshats, so if the poor player stuck opposite one doesn't have to get referees to force the game on an individual table basis but instead timings are set for all tables then that makes it far less confrontational.

Part of the issue with this is that there is no incentive for players not to push things to the absolute limit in terms of allowable time. Can play your t1 in 15 minutes? May as well drag it out to 30. I think some total time pool is the only real way to combat this, as sure you can use all your time t1 but then you have no time for anything else all game.

In any case, whilst I know you were only giving example times, it made me wonder how long people would actually have for their turns in the current model of 1:15 per player. In a 5 turn game, that's 15 minutes per player per turn in order to hit at least turn 5. If your game ends up going to t7 then it's a little over 10 minutes per turn. Whilst obviously a lot of games will have resulted in a tabling before this point, when normal armies regularly have 40 models and a number of armies have easily 100, this is just not practical at all. Especially since this time doesn't account for pre-game, deployment and suchlike, which can easily cut the 2:30 round down to 2 hours or so. Then you end up with about 11-12 minutes per turn, just for a 5 turn game.

Either the time needs to go up, or the points need to go down. Whether chess clocks are needed is an entirely separate issue imo.

EDIT: That's a point actually, the 20 minute turns instituted in the final mean 3 turns take 2 hours - so even if deployment is instant extra time is needed to give players an equal amount of time on turn 4. Basically the game was always never going to end naturally...

Has anyone from Frontline Gaming (Reece or Frankie) given an official response or acknowledgement about what happened? I couldn't find anything.