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.

@Clauss:

I agree with you that those times for those points numbers are enough for players to finish their games. But one of the problems is you only have control over yourself. Your opponent may not understand your army. Your opponent may have a rules interpretation ingrained in them that is incorrect, and requires a long session with the judge. And of course, you can prepare a lot, but if you don't know a lot of people who play with Njal or someone similar you may take a little longer than normal to deal with his rules and the effect he has on the game.

Any of these things can quickly turn enough time into not enough time. I think those times/points levels work great but the reality is that people don't know their opponents armies cold, and sometimes don't know the rules cold.

The streamed game between Tony and Dash is actually a good example - they only played turn 6 because they were allowed by the judge due to a long discussion. They're about as good as it gets in terms of knowing how to play but it doesn't always work out.

If you increase the time or lower the points numbers, it just makes it possible to play at a reasonable pace but not worry about a rules dispute that comes up, or a particularly brutal multiple combat, or a player who thinks a lot before making their moves, because you'll feel like you still have plenty of time to finish. As it is, with these times, there's just not a lot of margin for error before your games suddenly aren't finishing.

Of course, this is coming from a notorious slow player who's had to spend a lot of time working on speeding it up. When Grimgob says "the only armies that have consistently slow played me are IG and Tau" I read it as "Lambadomy slow plays me with his Tau" .

Other than absurdly long times for very low points values, slow or bad players, or intentional slow players ... kinda don't finish games regardless of points value and time limit.

If you're running a smaller GT with only enough time for 5 rounds or so, and are OK with awarding arbitrary generalship awards based on picking one person among many without losses ... cool. You'll still have unfinished games and slow play regardless.

Beer4TheBeerGod wrote:

Eidolon wrote:Its going to be sitting at my lgs. among the ard boys finals hammer, the various other trophies, the 3 golden demon awards, will sit the 0-8 trophy.

Glad to see it found a good home!

This is great

It isn't just about finishing games...it's about enjoying the games, and the question of whether or not what you need to do to finish the games in those time amounts (2:30 for 2000 or 2:00 for 1750) is that fun.

The bad or really slow players...yes, they often don't finish, but there is a wide spectrum here of Great, Good, Pretty good, blah blah, playing Hordes, elite armies, etc...as for who is finishing and who isn't, I don't pretend to know.

I think when your basic idea is that you want to have 256 players and have one clear winner (so you need 8 rounds) then this becomes more important actually. You could do less points and keep the rounds the same length. This may actually cut down on the amount of unfinished games, change the amount of horde armies taken, cut down on the amount of players dropping out, etc. Or it might do nothing. I'm just saying that just because two good players can finish their game in the allotted time doesn't make it the right amount of time or right points level for the optimal experience.

Clauss wrote:For the NOVA Invitational we had 2 hours for each 1750 game, I had no issues with the time. My first game finish with 30 minutes free, my second finished with about 20 minutes left. My third game we got through 5 turns then the judge stopped us at the end of our 5th(for fun I rolled it and it would not have kept going). My fourth game finished with 40 mins left, my last game ended on turn 5. I ran into foot angels, deathwing, eldar, GKs and Mechguard. I honestly dont think you need more than 2 hours for 1750 points. Two adequate players who know their rules can get a game done in less than 2 hours if they are a playing to their best abilities without slow playing.

I think some armies certainly can. Other armies, which have more models and throw more dice, much less so. IIRC your invitational list was pretty darn low model count. Not to mention that you save time in the deployment stage. Even the mechanized version of a DE army, for example, had a fast player like Dash running out of time. They just have a lot of units and throw a ton of dice every turn. Orks even moreso.

Clauss wrote:For 2000 points 2.5 hours is easily enough time. I know people who play orks, nids and other larger armies. But During the invitational there was a full mechguard player who got his rounds finished. There was multiple foot armies that finished their games. I really dont think two good players who know their rules wont finish. I have yet to not finish a turn 5 in the past year of playing in tournaments against dozens of armies. Sure, it would be cool to have 2.5 hours for the invitational, you wouldn't have to play efficiently and quickly. But that isn't realistic for a 5 game competition. If you know all of your rules, and every other army, the games go quick.

IMO 2.5hrs usually is enough, though some armies are still going to struggle with a high model count at 2k. And I agree completely that for an event of a format like this one, you need the higher number of rounds. That's part of the draw and the unique appeal of NOVA, and I love getting a ton of games in a weekend, so that definitely appeals to me. I do worry, however, if a significant percentage of games are running up against the the time limit. And when I see what appears to be an even higher-than-usual percentage of lower model count MEQ armies in attendance (and read comments like Hyvemind's), it does make me suspect that a lower points size might be a smart choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:Other than absurdly long times for very low points values, slow or bad players, or intentional slow players ... kinda don't finish games regardless of points value and time limit.

If you're running a smaller GT with only enough time for 5 rounds or so, and are OK with awarding arbitrary generalship awards based on picking one person among many without losses ... cool. You'll still have unfinished games and slow play regardless.

Hey Mike, did you use Jon (Yakface's)'s idea? Did you have the number of turns played and whether the game ended due to time or came to a "natural" end on the results sheets? It would be awesome to see some numbers on this and be able to tell whether this is all anecdotal perception or if it's a real issue.

lambadomy wrote:


Of course, this is coming from a notorious slow player who's had to spend a lot of time working on speeding it up. When Grimgob says "the only armies that have consistently slow played me are IG and Tau" I read it as "Lambadomy slow plays me with his Tau" .

We had one slow game and you admit you were a slow player in general at the time, we have also had games that completly finished so I don't think you slow play deliberatly (but its still funny you remember that game ). I'm just a competitive person and sometimes I get caught up in the heat of it (sorry if I came off like a jerk at the time) but seriously I could count on my hands the games I felt someone was actually being shadey in their play. I'd also like to add I feel slow play is not getting past turn 3 as I play pretty fast unless there is a huge multi assault. I do mean IG and Tau though as they dominate the first half of the game and I've noticed that when BW are barreling down at them and dont get blown up till turn 2 and we only make it to end of 3 someone is taking way to long in the shooting phase.

Grimgob our game went pretty fast at the slaughter in space

nkelsch wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:
How about this idea......Someone should invent a GW clock, similar to a chess clock. Turn 1, I start my clock. I move. I shoot. I assault.My assault phase ends, I turn off my clock, my opponent runs his until the end of his assault phase, and so on.

Both clocks allow you 2.5 hours of play time. Let's say for some reason, at the end of turn 4 you are out of time, while your opponent has 1 hour left. Guess who is not moving or shooting anymore? This eliminates slowhammer, and ensures both parties get the same amount of time to play.

Game is not balanced around or designed for equal play. Most phases are interactive so all this does is shifting slowplay to your opponents phases. I play orks and the turn I Waaaagh and assault will be a single long assault phase but both players are rolling attacks. If I am penalized and lose future turns for that, it has broken the game. My army needs that assault to be effective, and a marine army is balanced to withstand the assault. This also shifts the meta further in favor for a defensive shooty army as you never have to worry about tactical movement or long assaults on your phases.

I don't think I would play in an event with a chess-timer 'equal time' model. Not all long phases are slow play... Slow play is like porn, we can't define it but we know it when we see it.

Uhm, maybe I was not clear.....

both players with clocks get 2.5 hours to play the game. Without clocks, both players get 2.5 hours to play the game. Whether one particular phase is longer or shorter, it makes no difference. The goal is, you control the time...you can see on your clock how much time you have left. You can't be slowhammered. ( ok, in reality, you'd have 1.25 hours, as your clock does not run while your opponents does).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Clauss wrote:In response to Mannahnin and Adam Longwalker regarding the time constraints. For the NOVA Invitational we had 2 hours for each 1750 game, I had no issues with the time. My first game finish with 30 minutes free, my second finished with about 20 minutes left. My third game we got through 5 turns then the judge stopped us at the end of our 5th(for fun I rolled it and it would not have kept going). My fourth game finished with 40 mins left, my last game ended on turn 5. I ran into foot angels, deathwing, eldar, GKs and Mechguard. I honestly dont think you need more than 2 hours for 1750 points. Two adequate players who know their rules can get a game done in less than 2 hours if they are a playing to their best abilities without slow playing. For 2000 points 2.5 hours is easily enough time. I know people who play orks, nids and other larger armies. But During the invitational there was a full mechguard player who got his rounds finished. There was multiple foot armies that finished their games. I really dont think two good players who know their rules wont finish. I have yet to not finish a turn 5 in the past year of playing in tournaments against dozens of armies. Sure, it would be cool to have 2.5 hours for the invitational, you wouldn't have to play efficiently and quickly. But that isn't realistic for a 5 game competition. If you know all of your rules, and every other army, the games go quick.

You are correct sir. It's not the points, its the players.

I've pointed this out several times....in today's 40K, many players have 200 or more points tied into characters. At 1750 (( which was a made up value by the GW staff one year...why not 1650 or 1800 or 1900?) that means you are really running a 1500 point list with one more guy.

Yes, some armies don't spend that much on characters and are larger as a result. GUess what, my guard army drops...a tank...to get from 1750 to 1500. I'm still running lots of models on foot, which is one of the reasons for games taking so much time.

So the real solution is to A. Find a way to let players know how long their turns are taking or B. Give them more time.

I've played many games with a chess clock to try to speed my own play and just pay attention to how much time my turns take.

The problem is that your opponent has plenty of opportunity to stall or play slowly on your turn, purposeful or not.

You shoot someone...and then wait for them to roll saves (I assign this one to him...and this one to him...and oh wait there's two plasma saves? let me start over). aults and both players are rolling a lot of dice on the 4th and 5th turns. There are just too many things you can end up punishing a player for in a straight up equal time system, mainly in the assault phase but also in the movement phase for horde armies.

You assault them and then both players roll their attacks, work on their initiative, etc...you do a complex multi assault and even if you do it quickly, maybe your opponent takes a while sorting out which squad member is going to attack who.

You do almost anything on your turn and your opponent can have a rules question about it.

The only way this could work is if you were doing things like starting your clock, moving your units, not being interrupted by your opponent, and then when you start shooting, every time your opponent needs to save...it goes to his clock. Then once you assault, you break everything down by initiative and then roll your stuff, switch clock, let him roll, switch clock, saves, etc, back and forth. If you have a rules question, or ask for a judge...it goes on your clock. Etc.

This may be possible, but it feels like it would be difficult and time consuming and slow the game down.

Some turns in 40k take much longer than others. Early turns can be quick, while late turns full of assaults or difficult decisions drag. Some armies play quickly but end up bogged down in a lot of assaults on the 4th and 5th turns. Other armies are just time consuming to move and shoot but are otherwise perfectly reasonable 2000 point armies.

That being said, I still encourage anyone to at least try to time their turns just to see how they're doing. Obviously one of the main culprits of slow play is inexperience in actually trying to play quickly. But that doesn't mean that longer rounds or smaller armies wouldn't help even experienced players. it also doesn't mean that smaller armies or longer rounds wouldn't have an affect on what kind of armies people brought.

christianA wrote:Grimgob our game went pretty fast at the slaughter in space

That wasnt a game, that was a slaughter plus you have very good target priority with an army your very experianced with. hope to see you this weekend. and as a side note most if not all my losses in my sig this year are from IG.

@Grimgob: Yeah, I was just trying to be funny based on your comment. You didn't come off as a jerk that time, or any time. I just tend to remember games (playing relatively seldom helps with that).

If I get off my butt maybe you'll get revenge against my Tau this weekend...assuming we meet in the first round, because otherwise I don't think we'll be on the same tables

I understand why the NOVA folks want to run enough games to determine an absolute winner. What I cannot understand is why they are dead set on that points value.

The very heavy majority of our games finished all of their natural turns. I don't even know where this depth of presumption came from, other than maybe the gaunt spamming nid player on his first dfew games ever played.

MVBrandt wrote:The very heavy majority of our games finished all of their natural turns.

What's an acceptable percentage of games not to finish all of their natural turns? 20%?

Significantly less than that. Slow players and people who play slow ... are slow players and people who play slow. It is a straw man that dropping a tank or a troop unit suddenly causes a mass percentage of games to all finish. It's why I don't put much stock in that sort of argument.

It's only a false claim if an insignificant number of games are running short by hitting the time limit. Did you collect the data to find out?

-------

That aside for a second, I want to take a minute to congratulate you, Mike, for what was by almost all accounts a great event.

That it's only your second year and you're already considered one of the top events in the country, worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Wargamescon and (especially) Adepticon is a heck of an achievement. That you've got guys flying out from California and even Britain is awesome (about a half dozen guys also drove down from my local store up here in NH, a couple of whom were in that Perfect Sports role call), and demonstrates that people are really interested in this kind of event, and grateful that someone out there is knocking himself, his friends and family out with their efforts to put on a National-class event. Especially given some of your obstacles this year (little thing called a Hurricane pulling some of your judges away), you've clearly done a heck of a job. Having the work ethic and the commitment to this event to crank out huge amounts of (apparently good-quality) terrain to fill all those tables, and to run this huge number of rounds are not things to be taken lightly or for granted. Having the intelligence and humility and self-confidence to accept criticism and feedback and tweak and adjust is really gravy on top. Every organizer of one of these things has a vision of what he wants to do, and will naturally run the kind of event he himself would best love to play in. The fact that you've been so open to feedback is one of your several admirable qualities. So I hope people's comments and feedback don't come off as nitpicking, and are more a testament to your openness and desire to further perfect an already-great event.

To everyone else:

I'd like to make sure that Mike, who is here in this thread posting a day later rather than just sleeping the whole monumental effort off, is acknowledged and thanked properly for his work. Congratulations, sir! And well done.



21 bolter salute:

That was one of the nicest things anyone has written or said on the internet. We do try very hard to accept criticism and improve our format year in and year out. We're already talking about ways to spread out the rounds and give people more comfort zone, etc. (several ideas are on table).

Thank you. If we do the NOVA for anything at all, it's for the socializing and appreciation. There's no money in it, no fame worth wanting, and it's a ton of work ... the thanks mean more than I can express!

I consider myself an average player and have never attended such a tournament as Nova but it sounds like it was a fantastic time and a great job by all who made it work.

On the issue of game time. I wonder what the correlation is between game time and the majority of armies that showed up to play. You would expect a healthy amount of the newer and powerful 5th edition dexes to be present. However, are players bringing lower model count armies because that is their usual army or did some decide not to bring larger armies because of concerns for time?

Nids have problems with the dex in addition to time issues if fielding a horde type army, so I wonder did any players decide not to go with a horde-type nid army because they felt the dex was not strong enough compared to other 5th edition books or because a horde army can easily be pressed for time (or a combination of both)? I think this is important because if the time significantly favours low model count armies to the point that horde armies (or significantly larger model count armies) are not deemed practical that will affect the type of armies that show up to a tourney. Certainly not the only factor but it is one to consider.

MVBrandt wrote:That was one of the nicest things anyone has written or said on the internet. We do try very hard to accept criticism and improve our format year in and year out. We're already talking about ways to spread out the rounds and give people more comfort zone, etc. (several ideas are on table).

Thank you. If we do the NOVA for anything at all, it's for the socializing and appreciation. There's no money in it, no fame worth wanting, and it's a ton of work ... the thanks mean more than I can express!

Yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to the follow-up meeting! I'm sure a lot of us are on the same page about some changes for next year.

It would be interesting to see the average model count per year, to see if time limits do reduce how many units people bring.

I will add the congratulations to Mike - having run small fry tournaments in comparison to NOVA i know how much work they can be, so to put on something that in only 2 years has an international following, huge presence and essentially just "amazing, but tweak...." comments is a huge vindication of your abilities and work ethic. Keep it up - you've certainly gotten a lot of people thinking about the next step in gaming, while you're busy doing it.

Hi

I find that people are constructing a time issue troubling. For myself, 1850 in two hours is the standard and it isn't an issue for most players in my area.

Last fall, I played with a 194 model ork horde at one event and completed all of my games. It usually took 90% of the time alloted but I play very quickly when I choose to bring a horde of that size.

At Adpeticon this past spring, in the team tournament my partner and I had a round where we played 7 turns with 219 models and finished with 35 minutes to spare.

There are simple things I do to speed things up:
- I only measure the exact distance moved for the leading edge of my horde units and for distinct models (for example, the nob and special weapons), with the distinct message to my opponent that if it looks like I am moving more than 6" to call shenanigans. This saves a lot of 6" checks.

- After moving the leading edge and distinct models, I leap frog the trailing elements to fill the middle rather than move each model. This saves physically moving 10 models per unit - multiply that by 4-5 units of 30 boyz over 7 turns and that adds up to a lot of time saved.

- I know how many dice of a particular colour I have so that I can quickly get things done rather than counting from 1 upwards each time. The first time I roll a big pile, I count it and show my opponent how many dice I have. From then on I know I have 36 green dice, so if I need to roll 28, I will pull 8 out and roll the rest.

- And perhaps most importantly, I plan the particulars of my turn as he is executing his. Usually, I know what I want to accomplish 3-4 turns in advance. When playing a horde, my time to think and plan is while my opponent is doing his thing. At least 80% of my following turn can be planned after he is done his movement. There will be tweaks based on how devastating his turn will be, but I can think through average damage scenarios while he moves, and narrow the choices in my turn X or Y as to what I do next.

Cheers,
Nate

MVBrandt you got the Army list for the top 16 at both the open and the invitational?

Warlocke21 wrote:Hey all - I was "that tyranid player" (/braces self). Although I've been a GW player and fan since 2e, my play history in 5e is 2 friendly games, 1 very small 3-game FLGS tournament, and NOVA. With that in mind, I'll post a few comments to earlier posts about the 3 games from day 1, especially having had high expectations after the games from the day before. I obviously never expected that I would *ever* be on table 1 at NOVA, and even asked Mike if he was okay with me being on camera/miked up given my (lack of) experience. Big kudos to Mike for letting a new player enjoy a little limelight, feel a little special going 3-1 on day 1 at a huge tournament (and all the well-earned vinegar that goes with said limelight /grin).

If you're familiar with the tournament format, my initial random seed on Saturday was table 2 in bracket 1 (where the camera was), and wins pushed me to table 1 for the rest of the day.

Magilla Gurilla -
I can agree that the top table was not the most "appealing" games to watch.
I also saw some pretty shady things going on with the Tyranid player; however, I am willing to chalk it up to being new(er) to the game.
Having said that....
...I have no doubt that MVB is aware of the situation; and will do what he can to make sure all the parties involved are aware of any possible problems.

In my opinion two thumbs up for the willingness to have an event like this broadcast from beginning to end.

First - thanks for the benefit of the doubt: I'll own up to being uneducated/inexperienced any day of the week as that's absolutely accurate; deliberate cheating: not in a million years. After my initial flgs tournament experience I was very sensitized to my slow play, and intentionally took a smaller list to NOVA to help compensate, but clearly not enough. As far as the "situation" of I and my opponents only getting through 3-4 turns, Mike was definitely aware, as was John, the head judge. Mike and I talked about it, and he asked me to work on speeding up after the 2nd game; and then again, he, John and I all talked about it after the 3rd game. I was definitely stressing about it and did for the rest of the tournament, and appreciated Andrew pushing me in the 4th game.

hyv3mynd -
From the little I watched, there was a tyranid player under the camera for 2 games that only finished 3/4 turns. Wasn't very familiar with his own unit's stats and rules.

I understand there's added pressure playing under a camera and I've never done it. Even still, I've played nids exclusively for a year and you really have to move to finish 2k games in a time limit. Assaults with multiple initiatives, rending, armor, and FnP really slow the game down.

Tomorrow should be a lot better as hopefully the most experienced players play under the camera at a better pace with more solid rules knowledge.

Tiny bit of validation perhaps... thanks hyv3mynd.

whoadirty -
I would consider myself sort of a novice player, so it's interesting to see some of these guys not know the codex they are using. Or they are cheating. Just watched a Tyranid player playing against Grey Knights and when his Tervigon died, he said he only had to put wounds on one squad. There were a couple other instances I have seen in another game (for an army I don't even play) where the guy had to look up the rules. Is this common? I kind of expected guys to know their codex at a tourney like this.

This was a huge mistake on my part - and was so concerned about the slowplay aspects was not about to look into a rulebook unless forced to; and Andrew just said play on. I should have had this one down though.

Sorry to single you out Warlocke21, I was watching and 'nids just happen to be one of armies I play and it just stuck out to me. Like I had said, not having played in a huge event like that I was under the impression that everyone knew their army books inside out. Impressive how well you did with just a few games under your belt ... bravo!

Just would like to add to what Mannahnin said regarding the Nova Open. The Nova open was the single best tournament I have ever attended over my 7 years of playing. I will make sure next year I will be going and hopefully playing as many games as possible.

You guys had amazing support and sponsors which were fun to look at before/after and in the downtime, the Swag bag was great for the event. Laser pointer, shot glass, random bags of bitz, free bases, food, and all types of stuff. It was a warm welcome to the event. You and your staff also were very warm, I saw you greeting dozens and dozens of players and being friendly which really creates a nice atmosphere in the tournament. Not to mention your judges, all of which who were very good with the rules and very well instructed by yourself and John I am sure. It was a very cool experience to have a judge at each table. At first i was scared and hesitant about him watching over my shoulder. But after about 5-10 mins you get used to it and understand that the judge there is merely a safety blanket to prevent any cheating/bullying/or just horrible use of rules.

Also the terrain was the best I have seen at a large tournament, each table had customized terrain that was carefully made/painted and set up, it was very impressive to the see every single table done with the same care.

Thank you Mike, was a great tournament. I will be readily awaiting next year.
-Kurt C

Ventus wrote:
On the issue of game time. I wonder what the correlation is between game time and the majority of armies that showed up to play. You would expect a healthy amount of the newer and powerful 5th edition dexes to be present. However, are players bringing lower model count armies because that is their usual army or did some decide not to bring larger armies because of concerns for time?

This I think is a huge point. That people do not bring certain armies because of the time and the points limit.

I was talking to one of the 19th Legion guys (they are some nice guys from MS, check out their blog) and I played one who was playing tyranids at Wargames Con and asked him if he brought his bugs. He said he didn't because he can't finish his games in time.

MVB is right that almost all of the games finished on time, but I wonder if it is because people left home the armies that they know will struggle with the time limit.

Mannahnin wrote:That aside for a second, I want to take a minute to congratulate you, Mike, for what was by almost all accounts a great event.

That it's only your second year and you're already considered one of the top events in the country, worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as Wargamescon and (especially) Adepticon is a heck of an achievement. That you've got guys flying out from California and even Britain is awesome (about a half dozen guys also drove down from my local store up here in NH, a couple of whom were in that Perfect Sports role call), and demonstrates that people are really interested in this kind of event, and grateful that someone out there is knocking himself, his friends and family out with their efforts to put on a National-class event. Especially given some of your obstacles this year (little thing called a Hurricane pulling some of your judges away), you've clearly done a heck of a job. Having the work ethic and the commitment to this event to crank out huge amounts of (apparently good-quality) terrain to fill all those tables, and to run this huge number of rounds are not things to be taken lightly or for granted. Having the intelligence and humility and self-confidence to accept criticism and feedback and tweak and adjust is really gravy on top. Every organizer of one of these things has a vision of what he wants to do, and will naturally run the kind of event he himself would best love to play in. The fact that you've been so open to feedback is one of your several admirable qualities. So I hope people's comments and feedback don't come off as nitpicking, and are more a testament to your openness and desire to further perfect an already-great event.

Nice post, Mannahnin! And totally agreed... there's no way I'm missing this event next year

Blackmoor wrote:

Ventus wrote:
On the issue of game time. I wonder what the correlation is between game time and the majority of armies that showed up to play. You would expect a healthy amount of the newer and powerful 5th edition dexes to be present. However, are players bringing lower model count armies because that is their usual army or did some decide not to bring larger armies because of concerns for time?

This I think is a huge point. That people do not bring certain armies because of the time and the points limit.

I was talking to one of the 19th Legion guys (they are some nice guys from MS, check out their blog) and I played one who was playing tyranids at Wargames Con and asked him if he brought his bugs. He said he didn't because he can't finish his games in time.

MVB is right that almost all of the games finished on time, but I wonder if it is because people left home the armies that they know will struggle with the time limit.

My nids were my first choice for nova, but they stayed home because I play slow with them. Loganwing to a lesser extent. I picked jumpers primarily because they play fast, and also i knew they would be a very good looking army if I put work into them.

I just want to agree with everything Mannahnin said. I have not been to the NOVA open but everything about it is exactly how I would want a tournament and an event to be. Having a group of people willing to put in the time, effort and expense require to do this is phenomenal.

As for the Time limit/points discussion, it's good to know that most of the games finished on time. The other information we'd need to figure out if that means it's enough time isn't really available. Was there an inordinate amount of elite armies, or are GK just the new hotness? Without information about what people bring to a lot of other tournaments with different points amounts/time limits we really have no idea so we can only make educated guesses.

I'll actually be able to provide all of the army lists and general breakdowns of model counts per army and all of that, but it's going to take me a lot of time.

We also tracked who played who each round, so you'll all be able to plot that data however you like, once we have army lists / etc. to attach to names.

The results, however, will be going up quite soon.

That is awesome info Mike. Thank you for your time to provide us with that data.