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.

I see. Well those sorts of players aren't the target for us. Lol.

Actinium wrote:Tournaments are already a clusterfeth of time constraints, forcing everybody to sit there waiting, staring angrily at the ork guy on table 4 because he has 150 models to move every turn and hasn't gotten to the bottom of 5th yet, before they can even know if they sat there waiting for a reason or if the game ended anyway and they could have been packing up and getting ready for their next matches or getting something to eat/drink or whatever like normal/current, is a bad idea.

Random game length is totally fair. If you and your twin brother fighting another pair of twins get different results do to random game length you were probably playing it wrong. If your entire strategy revolves around absolutely needing the game to go a turn over or under what it did you need to take a long hard look at your list and tactics and think about how you got in that situation, not shake your fist at the heavens blaming the bad dice. For every time someone has lost because of variable length, the other guy has won. It's absolutely the same as demanding if the guy on table 2 hit with his lascannon, your lascannon should have hit too.

This. Last-turn guaranteed objective grabs in 3rd and 4th edition were dumb. Random game length was a simple change which made a big improvement.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

So, how many factions can just sit on three to five objectives for up to three turns?

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

Hm, I rather liked how it worked in the leaked dex. Points per turn, but having it at the end granted a few more points. Not to mention you had to contest things outside the vehicle. (Though you could contest it with any infantry, also meant you couldn't just sit in A Land Raider Achilles and stay invulnerable, hehehe.)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:The only time I would agree to removing random game length, is if capturing objectives gave points per turn rather than just being vital at the final turn.

This way Eldar and it's various speed factions won't truly be overpowered on the final turn. Not to mention force people to actually fight.

No, but it does make the factions that can just sit on things substantially better.

Hm, I rather liked how it worked in the leaked dex. Points per turn, but having it at the end granted a few more points. Not to mention you had to contest things outside the vehicle. (Though you could contest it with any infantry, also meant you couldn't just sit in A Land Raider Achilles and stay invulnerable, hehehe.)

My friends and I actually played a few games of the "6th edition" leak and hated the cumulative points system. It devolved into who could camp on an objective the longest, so by the time we got to the second game we realised that it was always in your best interests to place objectives as close to your deployment zone as possible. Then just sit back and plink away at enemy Troops as much as possible. Even with double points for the last turn, it was still so one-sided towards defensive armies that the points advantage you gained in the first few turns would be enough to win the game against an offensive army.

Now, if they retained random game length, but started accumulating points from the bottom of turn 5 onwards, then you have something interesting. The first few turns would be spent jockeying for position, before the sides try to consolidate whatever objectives they had.

As to the original question, I think that Random Game Length is almost essential. You have to plan to be able to capture more objectives than your opponent by turn 5, while remaining flexible enough to change plans if the game goes for longer. IMHO, it's a much better measure of skill and army strength than 3rd/4th edition's last-turn-grabfest that relied almost solely on who had the fastest units available to their armies.

that it was always in your best interests to place objectives as close to your deployment zone as possible. Then just sit back and plink away at enemy Troops as much as possible. E

You don't do this now? Everyone puts their objectives as close as possible (within terrain) and everyone tries to kill troops off.

Doesn't sound like you were contesting either.

It depends actually - if you plah an aggressive assaulting army you often dont place your objecive (C&C) in your own half, as it means you have to have something baby sitting it, too far from the rest of your lines.

I think it's important for determining who wins, and can stop people from winning on a technicality.

How to win in a fixed length game with DA (As thats what I play):

2x land raiders with Terminator with SS/TH. Sit them right on top of one/two objectives. Lascannon and multimelta to the face for anything that gets close. Little short of exterminatus or Vanish Land Raider remover is going to shift them.

As many RW bikes & Land Speeders as you can afford.

Always go second if you can.

Rush the Land Raiders forward to capture prefrably one, but two if you need to, objectives. Sit, wait, shoot at anything that comes in to range.

Turbo boost the bikes up and down as far away from the enamy as you can.

Last turn, turbo boost forward and contest all objectives held by the enamy.

Win.

Give praise to Mr Land and his discoveries.

Actually, my friend and I solved the problem. Since we hardly ever played past the 5th turn, we made up a new game type thing. If you've ever played WoW, specfically, Arathi Basin PvP, it works a bit like that. For every game turn that you hold an objective, you gain 100 points per objective held. A contested objective means no one gets points for that objective.

This way, you can't lose in the last player turn when your opponent moves everything flat out and contests all of the objective/moves out from behind cover to claim them. You ahve to actually hold the objectives, rather than simply be in the vicinity of them by the end of the game.

You mean kind of like in our Super Eclipse mission?

http://www.40kambassadors.com/missions.php#mission1

Accumulating points has been in several of our local tournies as a way to score that also, in other missions

There's no need to quote yourself.

You're still penalizing armies like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids with those missions. They can't sit Troop squads on objectives turn after turn.

A Tervigon with Regeneration, FNP and a cover save can camp on an objective pretty well.

It's a lot of points to immobilize, though.

Most motorized units can last three turns on an objective, which is a majority of 1/3 the games and half 2/3 of the games! One turn while in the transport, one while out and then if the enemy can't kill them outright, 1 more. Of course if you get yourself killed, its academic anyways. Getting killed is getting killed.

Which has nothing to do with anything whatsoever related to the subject at hand. Lol.

Onward!

Except that some armies are actually required to use their troops for fighting. If an ork leaves his boyz sitting on an objective, he is going to have a hard time killing stuff.

DarknessEternal wrote:There's no need to quote yourself.

You're still penalizing armies like Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, and Tyranids with those missions. They can't sit Troop squads on objectives turn after turn.

Eldar can squat down with fortune and dire avengers.

Dark Eldar have Wracks

Orks have grots that can go to ground.

Tyranids have Tervigon + termagaunt troops.

grots are good for it, yeah. Also just guys in trucks. with KFF. And Orks have other slots they can kill with. elites for example...

Regardless, nothing to do with random game length.

You mean grots, as in "die automatically when charged by anything, including other gretchin"? How are they going to hold objectives for the entire game?

And I'll simply ignore the suggestion of spending 250+ points and a HQ slot on an open topped AV10 vehicle which is supposed to hold an objective all game.

I'd also like to see an ork army which kills everything with their elite slots. I really do.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Eldar can squat down with fortune and dire avengers.

So every Troops squad comes with its own HQ character? And how does this mysterious and apparently free Farseer make that unit not disappear immediately in assault?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Dark Eldar have Wracks

Who aren't Troops. Hope that works out for them.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Orks have grots that can go to ground.

I was mistaken, these will disappear faster than Guardians.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Tyranids have Tervigon + termagaunt troops.

Yes, because 250 points is a good investment on 2 units doing nothing for an entire game since their range off effectiveness is 12".

So every Troops squad comes with its own HQ character? And how does this mysterious and apparently free Farseer make that unit not disappear immediately in assault?

Apparently by not being pants and actually supporting its troops with other things. If the enemy is bunkering down you should be putting those flying tanks of yours to good use.

Who aren't Troops. Hope that works out for them.

I have yet to see a dark eldar not take a haemonculus, ever.

I was mistaken, these will disappear faster than Guardians.

I've used them plenty for objectives holding in the past, pretty cheap, and going to ground makes them effectively hard to displace without assault, and if the enemy is assaulting you as an ork..You've failed something hard.

Yes, because 250 points is a good investment on 2 units doing nothing for an entire game since their range off effectiveness is 12".

Technically you have an 18" weapon as well, but if you feel you need some actual ranged effectiveness go with warriors than, I hear the venom cannon is effective.


Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

Not either way. The existing rule of random game length already solves the issue of last turn contesting.

DarknessEternal wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Either way, you push the game into favoring hard holding troops, or the few that have fast skimmers that can easily contest at the end of the game and take their own objective. Someone's toes are going to be stepped on.

Not either way. The existing rule of random game length already solves the issue of last turn contesting.

Which I was supporting, I support having the random length variable mechanic. I was saying if they "Wanted" an end turn that wasn't a variable, that it should be based around the points/holding troops etc.

Jidmah wrote:You mean grots, as in "die automatically when charged by anything, including other gretchin"? How are they going to hold objectives for the entire game?

And I'll simply ignore the suggestion of spending 250+ points and a HQ slot on an open topped AV10 vehicle which is supposed to hold an objective all game.

I'd also like to see an ork army which kills everything with their elite slots. I really do.

Three things: first, you need to be more tactically imaginative. The orks need not start on the board if their job is to hold objectives, do they?

Second: Gretchin don't either.

Third: orc number of attacks alone insures that they can compete in any melee they are charging in. And as usual, when they are not, hey... They get owned by a lot of thinigs. An thats just the nature of the army.

Also having nothing to do with the thread topic. but...

1. We are still talking about lasting three turns on an objective. Thus placing your troops in reserve doesn't do gak.
2. Placing a support HQ into reserve to have it help capture objectives while it could improve your entire army is almost definitely contra-productive.
3. Gretchin are not orks. They lose combat against almost anything even if they charge. You also can't charge a unit that has deep-struck right next to you if you have gone to ground.
4. If you are posting nonsense, you have to defend it. Claiming the sky is purple and then telling everyone who argues the sky is blue to stay on topic won't make the sky purple.

Like I said. You just have to be more imaginative than those over generalizations you just espoused.

As for whether this matters in regards to random game length, what it SOUNDS like you are saying is that you dont want to change how you play. That's not an argument either.

The reality is that ALL armies have to be ready to play 7 turns if need be. And you have to do things tactically to make sure you can, because CURRENTLY you have no idea when the game will end.

ALL of that is fine and dandy in normal games. No money on the line and no "fairness issue" with other people next to you playing the same game. You and your OPPONENT were treated fairly and equally by the same die and knew the risks.

But when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him won BECAUSE there was another round... I mean are we not trying to find, in tournaments, given all other things being equal, who can win the most games? We are. But did we really test that if, within the confines of the tournament itself, there is no equity in their opportunity to do so?

That is why I am suggesting that the TO could make ONE roll for everyone. It maintains the random game length element while being fair to every participant.

The question then is: how to pull it off. Now of you do it 30 minutes before the end of the round, they will know there is a 6th...but stll must wonder about the 7th. At 15 minutes to go you can roll for the 7th. And everyone knows there is no 8th. So the 7th would be treated just as if there never WAS random game length by the players. It's just one idea.

Nope nope nope.

Random is fair. Someone wins and someone loses. Swap around one of the table sides and your example is:

'... when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him loses BECAUSE there was another round...'

What side of the table you're on or who you're next to is subjective, no one guy or side consistently benefits from random length. I'm not saying 1 more or less turn can't effect the outcome of a game but no more than a lascannon shot hitting or missing can and it's absurd to demand that everyone who's making a game changing lascannon shot stop playing and wait for the TO to make a roll to get the same result across all tables because you don't want to see anyone else win that way if you didn't. Try not to get in the situation where 1 random roll, be it a to hit roll or a moral check or roll to see if the game continues into turn 6, determines if you win or lose. But if you do, you pray to the dice gods like everyone else and you don't harp about your opponent or the guy next to you having hotter dice. Being the better player is about having a well rounded game plan that deals with cold dice, that plans ahead for the game going long or stopping short the same way it plans around if its lascannon misses.

Its fair to the two players. No one said otherwise.

i said it wasn't fair between pairs of players.

Jancoran wrote:No money on the line and no "fairness issue" with other people next to you playing the same game. You and your OPPONENT were treated fairly and equally by the same die and knew the risks.

But when you are in a tourney, and money is on the line and one guy loses BECAUSE there wasn't another round, while the guy next to him won BECAUSE there was another round... I mean are we not trying to find, in tournaments, given all other things being equal, who can win the most games? We are. But did we really test that if, within the confines of the tournament itself, there is no equity in their opportunity to do so?

That is why I am suggesting that the TO could make ONE roll for everyone. It maintains the random game length element while being fair to every participant.

The question then is: how to pull it off. Now of you do it 30 minutes before the end of the round, they will know there is a 6th...but stll must wonder about the 7th. At 15 minutes to go you can roll for the 7th. And everyone knows there is no 8th. So the 7th would be treated just as if there never WAS random game length by the players. It's just one idea.

PLaying a game in which the codex are not at all balanced, I think reserves is about the last reason that would cause you to loose.

jgehunter wrote:
I think reserves is about the last reason that would cause you to loose.

And yet it isn't. My army makes extensive use of reserves to succeed. "not coming on" is pretty much a good thing for my Tau force http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436851.page.

So what I have established here is that Random game length is popular and should be kept. I am fine with that conclusion. Lots of input = no reason to change the fact that it happens.

I am now beyond that question and onto how we can add equity witout getting rid of random game length. The overwhelming response is to keep the mechanic but i am interested in how we can simply make that mechanic fair for all.

Given that different armies play at different speeds, the real problem is when to roll. Typically in a 2 hour match, you can pretty well see the end coming 20-30 minutes from the end time. But some people can finish a whole 6 turn game in 90 minutes! Uncommon but it happens. Making people wait to see the roll doesn't really create any problems but doing it too soon does.

In this particular case, there will be a judge for each two tables. So perhaps the judges can indicate when their players are done with their movement at the bottom of turn 5. At that point, we can roll. Any logistical challenges with that solution that anyone can see? Personal preferences aside, what can go wrong with that logistically that would be terrible enough not to do it?