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.

You can't add timers to a game where each army is different and could be considerably different. Look at a sm mech list...they have maybe 8-9 vehicles Vrs an nids or tide list. Not fair to the guys playing swarms. While it sucks that the guy moving 9 models could take 20-30 min to complete his turn...it might be his opponent being slow in rolling his saves etc. or trying to chat more than play. If timers were allowed it should be a generous amount in order to get the swarms their chance to move...and yeah the guy moving 8-9 models should be entitled to the same amount.

There's really no good excuse for anyone with 200+ models to take longer than 8 minutes to move his entire army. At the most, moving models themselves only take 3-4 minutes for 200 models, and the thinking time shouldn't take that long either. Although, i do get that a lot of you like to stop and chat between turns and phases.

A player turn though, can go up to 16 mins max if the person doesn't really make decisions quickly. I can get my turns done usually under 10 minutes easily. Granted, I play Space Marines and Imperial Guard, and my model counts usually end up between 40 to 150 models.

I've been on the receiving end of slow play at a 40k doubles event. My very amiable partner did not take offence to our opponents still being in bugmans at game start eating breakfast on the morning of the second day or the thirty minutes they then took to deploy 20 miniatures or the age the took deliberating every move. I on the other had was very conscious of the fact that the mission required our force to move objectives to our deployment zone from theirs and that their stalling meant less time for this to be achievable. Net result, they won and I was not impressed with what I deemed to be a deliberate tactic to ensure victory no matter how the dice rolled!

Games with a time limit could possbily feature turn based time limits but I must add that this was one game from 5 on the weekend and I've never experienced this tactic since.

I think there are two problems here:

1) People deliberately slow playing. There needs to be a rule to counter this.

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

We'll have to find a way to fix 1without interfering with 2.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

This is fair enough, not everybody attending a tournament is actually experienced enough to rattle through a game. Some participants still play for fun would you believe!

geordie09 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) People play slowly for legitimate reasons. There needs to be an allowance for this.

This is fair enough, not everybody attending a tournament is actually experienced enough to rattle through a game. Some participants still play for fun would you believe!

People are welcome to play for fun. But if they sign up for a tournament with time restrictions that they know they can't adhere to, then they are knowingly affecting the games of anyone that they are paired against.

Many good arguments have been made in this thread against timing player turns. I think some of us have also said that the best way TO's can make tournaments fair for every possible army build is to either extend the time for each round, or to lower the points level of the games.

In the end, maybe round length is something that tournament goers will need to consider when list building, in much the same way that we consider missions when list building. If a player doesn't feel that they can play a game within the limits of the tournament, they might consider an alternate army build, or passing on the event. Ultimately, if enough people want either longer rounds or smaller points limits, changes will come.

Why dont TOs just knock the points limit down to 1500pts?

To me this would make for much quicker games, create more balance in army list and encourage something other then Power armor Vs Power armor games.

I hate the idea of timed turns because it only encourages ultra low model count armies. If turns are timed all that will do is cause half of the tournament to turn into draigowing players.

I like the idea that player 2 always gets the last 10 minutes of gameplay. 10 minutes to dice down should=player 1's turn is over. If that ends player 1's turn in the middle of his turn so be it.

DarknessEternal wrote:I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

This works great for Warmachine/Hordes, but people specifically take armies that can be played in the short amount of time.

If people wanted the same to happen with 40k (i.e. no green tide most likely) then it's a good idea... otherwise, it just wouldn't work.

I'm not a supporter of timed turns as any kind of metric. The interactive nature of player turns would me that every table would require a timekeeper, which is an unreasonable expectation.

I do think that preparing for a tournament involves many components - painting, learning the rules, and practice are among these. I have no issue with people playing large armies at tournaments; I personally prefer to play a fairly infantry-heavy mixed IG army with a lot of movement and shooting, which I know takes a good deal of time to play. What I do take issue with is not preparing to play your army in the time limits of the tournament - to me, this is like not painting your army to the expected minimum standard. I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit. I have played foot Orks versus foot IG at 2000 points and finished in under 2 hours; the armies aren't the problem. I have also had a player arrange a dozen vehicles setting up before turn 1 for 30+ minutes, and dealt with players who spend 10+ minutes deciding what to do before moving a single model at the start of their turns. Neither of these is acceptable for a tournament with time limits - playing under time constraints in such a fashion as to guarantee that the clock will run out is at the very least inconsiderate, and often looks and feels like cheating to your opponent.
What can be done for tournament play? We feel that incomplete games reduce the validity of our tournament results, so we take action to preserve the integrity of the event. We make it clear in our event rules that we will intervene if players are having trouble finishing rounds. That said, sometimes it is very hard to finish a game, especially games with multiple multiple combats with complex units on both sides or Shooting issues like Venomspam vs. wound allocated Paladins. If I'm playing the Paladins, I have dice preassigned for resolving complex shooting problems; just having several colors of dice in your box/bag really makes handling these issues much easier.

So yes, timing rounds is generally offensive, and no, it doesn't generally help sort things out.

jwolf wrote: I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit.

Disagree... 2 hours is entirely too short for 2000 points. That timelimit with that points value is unfair to many builds. Anything over 1750 in 2 hours is pushing it.

I agree, two hours is too little time for 2k, while maintaining any sort of social interaction. You can probably rip through playtest games with people you've known for years at that pace, but not games against strangers.

Let's not forget, the reason we're out there playing toy soldiers instead of sitting on our computers playing video games is that there's something to participating in a game with a human being. And part of that is introducing yourself, making a minimum of smalltalk, actually looking at some of your opponent's paint jobs, and so on.

Redbeard wrote:I agree, two hours is too little time for 2k, while maintaining any sort of social interaction. You can probably rip through playtest games with people you've known for years at that pace, but not games against strangers.

Let's not forget, the reason we're out there playing toy soldiers instead of sitting on our computers playing video games is that there's something to participating in a game with a human being. And part of that is introducing yourself, making a minimum of smalltalk, actually looking at some of your opponent's paint jobs, and so on.

nkelsch wrote:

jwolf wrote: I do not think that any army build is unable to complete a game in 2 hours against any other army build if both players are intent on playing under the time limit.

Disagree... 2 hours is entirely too short for 2000 points. That timelimit with that points value is unfair to many builds. Anything over 1750 in 2 hours is pushing it.

There is a disconnect here.

On one hand, competitive people want to get their games done and then socialize afterwards - the games are not casual enough to make friends. It'd be like making friends at a high-stakes poker tournament, instead of paying attention to the game.

On the other hand, the more casual players like to joke around and peruse models.

I am firmly in the second camp, and I know this. So if I am going to a tournament that has 2 hour time limits, I play a small army and consciously control my urge to socialize until after the game.

I support 2-hour time limits for 2000 points because an 8-game event at 3 hours per game is literally 1 day of warhammer (24 hours). Some part-time jobs don't put in that many hours in a week!

To me its not good to have timed Player turns in 40k, horde armies just need more time, its easy to have 100+ models and a marine player to only have 40.

Even though the armies are *supposed* to be balanced, a timed game favors the army who doesnt ever have a swarm.

Also, you have the whole, opponet needs to allocate wounds, make saves.. Which he could stall there and waste the opponets "offense turn" time.


Timed turns are better for Warmahordes.

Well, in a battle point format, you can make bonus points for making it to the completion of the game a part of the scoring. In a pure win loss format, the answer is somewhat trickier. I have never played someone who stalled without it being obvious it was intentional and you should be able to get a judge to monitor the game covertly when this occurs. It largely comes down to both you and the judge manning up and confronting the person in a firm, yet respectful manner.

As a person who has played both hordes and against them, a big part of avoiding this problem is recognizing there is going to be a time issue and employ reasonable shortcuts to speed play. Avoid inconsequential stuff on later turns that has zero impact on the outcome of the game and devote the time to the parts of the table that matter. Those three scouts fighting a horde of grots out in no mans land might be the highlight of the day, but if it has no impact on objectives and the clock is running, you should probably focus efforts elsehwere on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- and game size adjustments are a seperate discussion. But sufficive to say lowering points and time limits just pushed the game more and more towards small elite marine armies with front loaded offense.

Phazael wrote:
PS- and game size adjustments are a seperate discussion. But sufficive to say lowering points and time limits just pushed the game more and more towards small elite marine armies with front loaded offense.

You are correct that every change to the format will change the meta and the strengths of the possible armies.

If I had to choose between "2 hours at lower point cost" vs "2 hours at 2000 points and timed turns" I would choose the meta that is lower point values as at least people are fully aware what they can bring opposed to this whole 'bring a list that meets the time constraints.'

Yeah some armies are weaker at lower values, but some army is *ALWAYS* weaker in a different format... At least limiting points seems to be upfront and fair opposed to the attempt to force competitive play to unreasonably fast standards in an attempt to address slow players.

0305Smitty wrote:

If I feel like a person is slow playing on purpose, I tell them and confront them to move faster. If they dont, then I go get a TO to watch them and the game.

Sounds both enjoyable and relaxing...

I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

jwolf wrote:I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

This. 2000 in 2 hrs really isn't asking that much if the opponents cooperate.

Glad to hear everyone's opinion. A lot of games get to turn 4 and end it's frustrating but it is a full game. The three games that made it to only turn 3 were a ork trukk army, Terv nids, and the funniest...a slow playing balanced gk army with coteaz and draigo

Unit1126PLL wrote:
This. 2000 in 2 hrs really isn't asking that much if the opponents cooperate.

totally disagree. And I feel like at tourneys, this fact is proven time and again. Even an extra 15 minutes can mean the difference between barley 4 turns and turn 6.

People keep increasing the point limit at tourneys without increasing the time and then blame slow play for unreasonably short games.

jwolf wrote:I love the choice being "2 hours at lower point cost" vs. "2 hours at 200 points and timed turns", as if I would choose the second (since timing is essentially impossible in my opinion).

Obviously I disagree that 2k in 2 hours is difficult to do playing a game with strangers. With friends, I like to play 2k in 90 minutes or less, and that is pretty easy to do, even with a fair amount of horsing around and socializing. Know your army, know the rules, and talk about what you intend to do so that you can head off problems before they occur. Play with no gotchas and like it's a game, and there's usually no problem. I'm happy to correct my opponent about the rules, but I'll also always let them take it back and do it right - winning is way less important to me than playing an enjoyable game.

I've never had the pleasure of watching one of your games, but you (and apparently your friends too) must be a beast or something.

I mean, I know I've finished plenty of 2K games in 2 hours in the past but none of them have been anything but a mad dash focused on getting the game completed at the cost of actually slowing down to enjoy anything that's going on. And 90 minutes for 2K? Fuggedaboudit.

Obviously tastes and ability to react and play in extreme time constraints varies however, so as I keep having to point out, just because you, a veteran of the game for many years and apparently well-practiced in speed 40K can finish your games in that amount of time does not mean most other people can...and obviously the make-up of the armies involved is going to have a big say in that as well, especially when the experience levels of the generals varies.

Of course, I also think having different kinds of tournaments is a good thing, so you can stick to your speed 40K out there in Tejas safely knowing that there's no way I'll ever consider playing in that madness (that may be your master plan, now that I think about it ).


But anyway, I digress...I totally agree with you that obviously timing each player is a totally different level of insanity than just overall short round times. However, I still think so many people (as evidenced by comments in this thread) still have this mistaken idea of what slow play is.

Slow play is not someone with a large model count army who is moving as fast as they can to finish the game but failing because time runs out. Slow play is the actual act of playing slow, regardless of how many models you have in your army.

All to often people who take small armies seem to act with a sense of entitlement as though taking that small army entitles them to sit on their butt and think for 2 minutes before moving. Meanwhile I'm sitting across the table thinking to myself: "Do you see how many models I need to move...FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MOVE YOUR 4 RHINOS AND GET ON WITH THE GAME".

And that's the thing: I see any game, tournament or otherwise as a compact between me and the other player to finish the game. That means I'll do whatever it takes to try to move things along on my end, including not moving or shooting some of my models at the end of a game if I know they aren't going to impact the outcome of the game. I also try to tell my opponents to move and shoot really quickly and if they forget something I'll let them come back and do it (so long as something major hasn't happened which makes going back and fixing that thing inappropriate).

But the people who think that they deserve to be able to spend 1/2 of the round time on their own turns without making any of those little sacrifices to help me help us finish the game that are the REAL problem.

And the ONLY way I think you can identify those people is to track whether games were naturally concluded or not and then track that data year after year. The people who play this way will tend to have a higher rate of incomplete games no matter how large or small their armies are.

@yakface - Nah, we've increased the soft dice down time limits to 2:15 this year, with hard dice down even longer, so if you needed 2:30 to play every game, you could get it (though you would be pretty rushed to get around and get snacks, etc). So I think even pokey old you could get it done.
You'll note that my example games of slow play have nothing to do with hordes and everything to do with exactly the situation you've described - the guy with the 45 model army who acts like 2 hours means "each player takes an hour to do his turns," which was the basis of the original question (and completely wrong-headed). I think we agree completely that in a game with foot Orks and mech Space Marines, the Ork player should naturally take longer to move, and the Space Marine player should expect that.
I am, in fact, a beast. I move really quickly, and I already have a plan for turn 5 in my head at deployment. I batch my dice up, I use the same colors to mean the same things every time (not necessarily every game), and I point and roll quickly. I think the biggest thing that makes my games go faster is that I never fight about rules (unless asked to do a TFG game with someone, which is fun) and I never stick it to my opponent when they make a mistake - you meant to move that 6" and shoot? - move it back and shoot then. You forgot to assault? - go ahead. This helps my opponent relax and realize that they can play quickly and not get caught in a mistake, and helps me because I don't have to worry about catching my opponent in mistakes - if I think they mean to do something they won't be able to do, I say something and we try to figure out how they can accomplish their goal. We are after all playing a game of toy soldiers, not actually at war with one another.

I have to back JWolf on this, as this is largely how I conduct myself on the Fantasy side of things, as well. The best way to get a horde army to completion is to not micromanage every single inch of movement in the game. It only works if there is give and take on both sides though. My infantry focused Tau army and my blobed guard list were some of my largest model count armies I ever ran, outside of using my wife's tide/kan wall army. I cannot remember the last time I played a game that did not go the full distance unless the other guy was playing slow to avoid getting tabled, or something.

Usually, I can bang out 2k in 90 minutes like Jwolf is saying. Having dice pre sorted into 10s or whatever multiple is most commonly needed in your army is a big leg up. In fact, just having consistant and clean dice etiquette can solve a lot of problems at the table before they start. Establishing early that you are not a tool and that the other guy does not have to worry about forgetting something takes a lot of pressure off of them so they are not constantly mentally double checking their moves. Some pregame discussion on the more complex elements of your army rules also saves a ton of time.

Again, 2k in 2 hours might not be ideal, but its certainly feasable. Having watched you play in person, Yak, I think you do play a little on the slow side, but its not really intentional; you just play your horde in a very methodic manner and tend to verbally confirm every move with the opponent (also a good habit) before moving on. That and I have never seen you play and army with a model count below 90, heh.

I think we need to idenify that 40k is not deisgned around equal turns. A 2 hours game is not 1 hour per player. You don't get to make one player speed his ass off while the other player takes his time.

Many army builds are agressive which means actions happen on THEIR turn. Some builds are reactionary which means they often are beign assaulted. 40k is not equal time and there should be no expectation of equal time. THis is where timed turns fails as there isnothing wrong if my turn takes 25 minutes and your turn takes 10 and vice versa.

Working as intended.

nkelsch wrote:I think we need to idenify that 40k is not deisgned around equal turns. A 2 hours game is not 1 hour per player. You don't get to make one player speed his ass off while the other player takes his time.

Many army builds are agressive which means actions happen on THEIR turn. Some builds are reactionary which means they often are beign assaulted. 40k is not equal time and there should be no expectation of equal time. THis is where timed turns fails as there isnothing wrong if my turn takes 25 minutes and your turn takes 10 and vice versa.

Working as intended.

This is madness!

We must make all aspects of sporthammer a competition.

How else can we prove our superiority over other nerds?

I think the issue is the size of the games. Right now tournaments tend to run 2000pts. I have problems with this, people like it because its easy to build a 2000pt list and it alleviates the strategic choices and planning needed to build a list that can deal with eveyrthing. That's the problem, if you want games that run quickly you don't want large armies and you don't want them to be able to deal with everything thats thrown at them... both of those things extend the duration of a game.

aka_mythos wrote:I think the issue is the size of the games. Right now tournaments tend to run 2000pts. I have problems with this, people like it because its easy to build a 2000pt list and it alleviates the strategic choices and planning needed to build a list that can deal with eveyrthing. That's the problem, if you want games that run quickly you don't want large armies and you don't want them to be able to deal with everything thats thrown at them... both of those things extend the duration of a game.

Agreed.

1500 forces more hard design choices and reduces spam. I prefer to play 1500 whenever possible.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:I have noticed a few people complain about slow play in tournaments, and about 3 of my 15 recent games ending with time being called instead of a game ending. Would it be offensive to use a stopwatch to time both our turns and record it as proof if a person comes off as slow, such as after noticing an opponent taking more than 30 seconds to move each model in a 10+ man squad? Im sure this doesnt happen to a lot of people, but it happens every once in awhile.

This is not the first time such a thing has been presented. Chess clocks often come up. The problem is that a slow player can force *YOUR* turn to be slow too, not necessarily theirs. They can take all the time in the world to allocate and roll saves, move a unit that falls back, make their attacks in combat, etc.

CT GAMER wrote:


1500 forces more hard design choices and reduces spam. I prefer to play 1500 whenever possible.

Hrm, personally, in my experience, it means people take all the abusive stuff and skimp on everything else, leading to a whole lot more win big/lose big games where one side or the other gets stomped because it doesn't have the answer to the one big abusive thing the opponent brought and the abusive things are either much more powerful or are decisively countered.

PeoPle played 1500 as standard for years and that was BEFORE the general points reduction instituted as a marketing ploy...