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 don't think slow play is nearly the issue people are making it out to be. Of the games that I've not finished, deliberate slow play really has not been a factor.

What has been a factor is how many extra rolls are required in 6th, and certain armies that exacerbate this. IG can get pretty bad, especially with 1st rank/2nd rank on blob squads, and then rolling all those dice again the next turn as they get charged. In one tournament game, between the two phases, my opponent rolled somewhere over 200 dice to-hit, plus all the subsequent wounding, saves and FnP rolls, to deal something like 2 wounds to my unit of plague drones (in cover, with endurance cast on them).

I don't want to see events get to the point where you can't introduce yourself to your opponent or make any small talk without being accused of slow-play. Gaming is primarily a social activity, and we shouldn't be forced to be heads-down all game because some people want more points in the game.

Target wrote:
1500 Is where most things converge/stabilize imo, and is chosen partly because its a convenient/acceptable/roundish number thats historically been played. Im sure 1400 or 1550 or 1600 wouldn't be very different either.

...

The list goes on - the armies really don't change, they just get less of the big expensive choices (wave serpents, wraithknights, riptides, broadside units, 1 less FMC, only 1 guard blob instead of 2, 1 less tervigon and some other small units, etc.) than at 1850.

Thanks for taking the time to actually write out example lists--I think it really helps to articulate your position. I think that we just disagree on the point where most things converge/stabilize. I still feel like that point is closer to 1750, but perhaps that's just where I feel satisfied with my ability to take all of the tools I want as opposed to just the tools that I need (and, after all, 1750 and 1500 aren't *that* far apart). My main reservation about this theorizing though is the implicit assumption that building an army of 1500 points is simply a matter of scaling down an army built for 1750/1850/2000. I think that a meta built around 1500 points could reveal significant differences about what works or does not work on a smaller scale.

1500 points is plenty for a Grand Tourney and would change little from 1850. Would it change the Meta, Mabey but no where near as much as 6th edition is changing it anyway ..as to playing with all your toys ..the only time any long time gamer can do this is at an APOCOLYSE Game ..Where 5,000+ points is on the board for each side ..

Slow play points deductions..pick up the pace I play Orks full on green tide and move and shoot rounds are under 10 minutes for me during turn one and time drops as the game progresses ..(fewer models make for faster moves)

I have to say that the lower points really make sense. I have been able to finish all my games when at 1500. I still see 5 IG flyers on the board, so spam is still there, ugh. I wish my FLGS did more creative events with prizes. I really like the 555 point games, they mix stuff up.

 Danny Internets wrote:

Target wrote:
1500 Is where most things converge/stabilize imo, and is chosen partly because its a convenient/acceptable/roundish number thats historically been played. Im sure 1400 or 1550 or 1600 wouldn't be very different either.

...

The list goes on - the armies really don't change, they just get less of the big expensive choices (wave serpents, wraithknights, riptides, broadside units, 1 less FMC, only 1 guard blob instead of 2, 1 less tervigon and some other small units, etc.) than at 1850.

Thanks for taking the time to actually write out example lists--I think it really helps to articulate your position. I think that we just disagree on the point where most things converge/stabilize. I still feel like that point is closer to 1750, but perhaps that's just where I feel satisfied with my ability to take all of the tools I want as opposed to just the tools that I need (and, after all, 1750 and 1500 aren't *that* far apart). My main reservation about this theorizing though is the implicit assumption that building an army of 1500 points is simply a matter of scaling down an army built for 1750/1850/2000. I think that a meta built around 1500 points could reveal significant differences about what works or does not work on a smaller scale.

Here's my stumbling block though - you seem to agree roughly now that there is a range below 2000 (and 1850) where the meta and lists are largely unchanged, and all we're doing is scaling back the extras. And while I agree there would probably be some minor differences at 1500 (you might see some new builds/some of the current truly dominant ones might not be as prolific as they are) I don't think you'd actually lose any, as all of the current ones that are big scale down just fine (as seen in my example lists), except that they start having to make harder choices about troops versus quality units while not losing their deathstars.

So why not try the change to 1500 (or heck even 1750, I'll take any lower I can get!) if there's no reason other than the potential of unintended consequences (which is always there) versus the current issues with games finishing and such? We know that 1850 and 2000 are largely unnecessary balance wise and add time in already tight tournament schedules.

Sidenote:

One build you might see me toss down for a few laughs at 1500:

Coteaz
6x3 Acolyte + Psybolt Razor
3x5 Purifier, Hammer, 2 Incinerator + Psybolt Razor
3x5 Purgation, Hammer, 4 Incinerator, Psybolt/Dozer/Razor

Has a few spare points for upgrades still, this is at 1477 Flame on!

Side-Sidenote: While I said "why not try the change" I just meant in general/in a philosophical support of the change sense, not for BFS, thats way too close obviously

@Target

Stop copying my lists man!

But seriously, I wouldn't mind a 1,500pt GT. Do I want them all to be 1,500pts? No! But I'd be fine with some of the bigger ones dropping down a bit to ensure the game gets completed in time. Especially considering we're looking at Tyranids and Orks likely in the next 6 months which means more hordes a comin.

 Hulksmash wrote:
But seriously, I wouldn't mind a 1,500pt GT. Do I want them all to be 1,500pts? No! But I'd be fine with some of the bigger ones dropping down a bit to ensure the game gets completed in time. Especially considering we're looking at Tyranids and Orks likely in the next 6 months which means more hordes a comin.

Oooh, that's a good point. And it'd make players like myself, who are not that fast (okay, sometimes I think I'm genuinely slow... working on it!) feel a little more confident in taking a higher model count army. I have been dreaming of running nids once Trollforged gets their stuff into production, and I feel like it'd be more feasible at a 1500 point event (although I still likely wouldn't run pure swarm).

Getting more excited about the lower point levels the more it's discussed actually . Seems well worth trying!

Lowering the standard tournament point also has the added benefit of making the game more accessible to new players. I have two or three friends half way interested in the game at any given time. Telling them it will take $400-$600 and 50-70 models for a standard tournament army is an easier sell than $600-$800 and 70-120 models.

Makes it easier to get an army painted up for a GT, to boot (unless going the afore-mentioned horde route, which is going to be hard almost no matter the point level).

 RiTides wrote:
Makes it easier to get an army painted up for a GT, to boot (unless going the afore-mentioned horde route, which is going to be hard almost no matter the point level).

Too true.

1500 is faster to play, easier to paint, cheaper to build, easier to transport, and with the general downward trend in point costs isn't even that much different than 1850 two or three years ago.

The only downsides to it are pretty heavy speculation about how it will influence the meta (but the meta isn't balanced now anyways) and people just liking higher points for whatever personal reasons. But logically I think the practical considerations come down strongly in favor of 1500. I only wish more TOs would break the mantra of "it's what we've always done".

Reecius wrote:1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, it's all 40K to me, personally. List building is more fun at higher points for sure as it feels more "complete" but it really doesn't make much difference. The best players still win at any points levels.

1500 is infinitely more realistic from a logistical point of view. You can provide time for a leisurely game with less time than a round at a higher points level allows for.

So what I am hearing you say is the BAO will be 1500 points this year.

Redbeard wrote:I don't think slow play is nearly the issue people are making it out to be. Of the games that I've not finished, deliberate slow play really has not been a factor.

What has been a factor is how many extra rolls are required in 6th, and certain armies that exacerbate this. IG can get pretty bad, especially with 1st rank/2nd rank on blob squads, and then rolling all those dice again the next turn as they get charged. In one tournament game, between the two phases, my opponent rolled somewhere over 200 dice to-hit, plus all the subsequent wounding, saves and FnP rolls, to deal something like 2 wounds to my unit of plague drones (in cover, with endurance cast on them).

I don't want to see events get to the point where you can't introduce yourself to your opponent or make any small talk without being accused of slow-play. Gaming is primarily a social activity, and we shouldn't be forced to be heads-down all game because some people want more points in the game.

Slow playing has only ever been an issue in 3 of my tournament games in all the years I have been playing. The vast majority of games that don't finish are unrelated to slow playing. Some of the assertions made about needing to be stricter about slow playing "cheaters" are coming from non-tournament players. The issue with slow games is the game itself is slower, not that players are purposefully slow playing.

One thing to consider that is not on the list is simplifying missions. At least for the W/L GT's. I think if missions were straight up book missions you wouldn't always see the dominance of the newest armies at the top as well as the time needed to play missions would speed up.

Players wouldn't need to think about 2-3 levels of objectives (KP/objectives/value of units in table quarters). They would have one thing on their mind........KP............Relic...........Objectives. Perhaps that would speed things up.

When there is just one mission, an army that doesn't have all the fat trimmed out of it can compete against the net lists because there is one thing to worry about. They don't need to worry about KP, and getting my HQ to enemy deployment zone, AND grabbing the relic.

I know playing the book missions seems a little boring at first, but Ive played a lot of 6th edition, and generally playing straight up book missions has produced the closer games, and closes the gap of codex creep a little bit compared to the multi-tier missions.

I don't want to de-rail the thread too much, but simplifying missions is something to consider, I figured Id throw some points out there why book missions are ok as Im sure some folks would be opposed to it right from the suggestion.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
One thing to consider that is not on the list is simplifying missions. At least for the W/L GT's. I think if missions were straight up book missions you wouldn't always see the dominance of the newest armies at the top as well as the time needed to play missions would speed up.

Players wouldn't need to think about 2-3 levels of objectives (KP/objectives/value of units in table quarters). They would have one thing on their mind........KP............Relic...........Objectives. Perhaps that would speed things up.

When there is just one mission, an army that doesn't have all the fat trimmed out of it can compete against the net lists because there is one thing to worry about. They don't need to worry about KP, and getting my HQ to enemy deployment zone, AND grabbing the relic.

I know playing the book missions seems a little boring at first, but Ive played a lot of 6th edition, and generally playing straight up book missions has produced the closer games, and closes the gap of codex creep a little bit compared to the multi-tier missions.

I don't want to de-rail the thread too much, but simplifying missions is something to consider, I figured Id throw some points out there why book missions are ok as Im sure some folks would be opposed to it right from the suggestion.

You do actually bring up a good point. Mission complexity can add a lot of time to a game. In 5th we had lots of complex missions but 5th played faster than 6th. 6th has slowed the pace of the game down significantly and by not adjusting mission design at tournaments to reflect this TOs may be exacerbating the issue without even realizing it.

I for one have always been in favor of simpler missions.

Simpler is fine however several book missions as written are terrible for tournament play. Relic is bad, scouring is bad, big guns is not significantly different than crusade.

Some of the book missions just require a minor tweek to make them tourny compatible. The scouring you just require each player places an objective in their own deployment zone, one in opponents, and one in no mans land. Big guns and the other multi-objective mission could just have the rule, you have (x) amount of objectives, and could be tweeked further that they are put in specific place (center of the 4 table quarters for example).

I dont really think any of the book missions are bad, they just require folks to play differantly. The relic seems to be what most folks are afraid to play, and it is a very extreme mission (as there is one sole objective you either have or you dont), but that doesnt make it bad per say. This mission I enjoy because you are faced with the dilemma of going after the relic early and risk being shot dead after making that move, or waiting till late game......but your opponent may grab it before you your plan can completely unfold. The entire mission you also have first blood in the back of your head as the game may come down to that. If you lose first blood, now you have to figure out how to get line breaker/slay the warlord as well as keep your opponent from getting any of the other bonuses.

I think the scouring is actually one of the most interesting to play as not only do you have the multi ponted objectives, but the 3 bonus points (line breraker etc...) as well as the Fast Attack kills give up a point towards scoring as well. In fact if a few friends and I get together for a team game over some beers, the scouring is usually what we play as the game can change dramatically in the last couple turns as small scoring units hop out to try to grab objectives hoping for the game to end.

When you play the scouring with hammer and anvil deployment with 2-2-1 on your side, you'll know why some don't like that mission. It wouldn't be as bad on a long edge deployment but it can be quite a hike across a long board to contest/take objectives while still holding yours.

ForgeMarine wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, it's all 40K to me, personally. List building is more fun at higher points for sure as it feels more "complete" but it really doesn't make much difference. The best players still win at any points levels.

1500 is infinitely more realistic from a logistical point of view. You can provide time for a leisurely game with less time than a round at a higher points level allows for.

Reecius, big fan (love the battle reports, jealous i don't live near your shop), but I have to disagree a little in terms of the best player mostly winning... Most of the best players will bring the best armies, so naturally they compete. With that said, here are my thoughts on why longer rounds are needed at higher point levels (and im afraid this same problem exist at lower point levels for the reasons below):

2.5 hour rounds really really benefit some of the current stronger armies (in my opinion) as they know exactly when they have to expose their weaker units, which tend to be their scoring units. Without random game length (as there usually isnt in 2.5 hours round tournaments) the current Tau and Eldar armies know exactly when they have to push their relative small and vulnerable points investments (usually 2-3 squads of kroot or guardians) onto the objectives, with the rest of their points able to be spent on further bolstering their offensive output. Additionally, denial units can play for turn 5 (such as a riptide), able to stay out of assault range for most the game only to jettison onto an objective turn 5 with only the possibility of a 1 round assault phase (if they went 1st). This is really troublesome for some other armies which have to make greater points investments into scoring units (which typically don't have the strongest offensive capabilities) or fear loosing them quickly to the fire/range capabilities of the current top armies.

First off, thanks for the nice letter! I appreciate it.

You make some excellent points. Game length is one of those very nebulous topics that is hard to nail down as every person you ask has a different idea of how to do it. For example, Blackmoor has been quite vocal on his belief that games need to be longer. I understand and agree to a point but the view we have as TOs is a lot different that the view players have. Players think about the immediate here and now of playing a game and wanting it to be as competitive and fair for them and their specific play style as possible. I totally get it as I was a very vocal tournament goer before becoming a TO.

The issue is that as a TO you are faced with the realities of logistics. You have the space to run the event for X hours, you have X amount of rounds you want to play, you have X players, you have X players that are new and going to play slow no matter what, etc. etc. etc. At the end of the day you are left with having to create an arbitrary time limit that fits into the limitations you are working with. We do our absolute best to provide the best ratio of time to rounds but sometimes we simply don't have a choice on the matter. It comes down to the players to be conscious of the time limit and learn to play within it to the best of their ability. Otherwise, we end up changing the time limit every time someone makes a valid point about why it should be changed (and there are lots of them).

I don't think changing time limits to be a bit longer, or point levels to be a bit lower, would be reacting to "every time someone makes a valid point about why it should be changed", though.

This is more like a critical mass of 6th edition + codexes that take longer in certain phases + point costs of units in general going down = need a bit more time, or a bit less points, to fit the constrained schedule limitations that you refer to.

If time is the limiting factor, or number of rounds, then that just leaves reducing point levels. I'd be up for changing any of those factors, whatever each TO prefers really... as long as it's not stressful to fit a game in within the time limits for the average tournament player. At Nova, it sounded like it was a bit stressful, so that's just a good piece of feedback / datapoint to take and improve upon for future events now that it's showing itself to be an issue with the current 6th edition meta.

Hopefully I'm not talking out of school here, a lot of folks posting here are more "intense" tourney players, but many are also voicing similar views... and as a "casual" tourney player, not being rushed and stressed out to finish a game is one of the most important factors for me, even though I'll prepare as best I can to be ready to play quickly.

I'm also a fan of 1500 point tournaments because I would like to go to Grand Tournaments solely as a modeler and painter, and I want to converse with each of my opponents during the game. I'm the guy who always asks 'what toughness are your space marines?' many times during a game. Then I like to ask about really cool models in my opponent's army and how he converted, painted, based them and so on. I think we could actually finish a game in two hours if the points were lower.

Also, the argument that we will be seeing a lot more horde armies with the release of new Ork and Tyranid books is a good one, and those armies definitely take more time to play.

 Reecius wrote:

ForgeMarine wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, it's all 40K to me, personally. List building is more fun at higher points for sure as it feels more "complete" but it really doesn't make much difference. The best players still win at any points levels.

1500 is infinitely more realistic from a logistical point of view. You can provide time for a leisurely game with less time than a round at a higher points level allows for.

Reecius, big fan (love the battle reports, jealous i don't live near your shop), but I have to disagree a little in terms of the best player mostly winning... Most of the best players will bring the best armies, so naturally they compete. With that said, here are my thoughts on why longer rounds are needed at higher point levels (and im afraid this same problem exist at lower point levels for the reasons below):

2.5 hour rounds really really benefit some of the current stronger armies (in my opinion) as they know exactly when they have to expose their weaker units, which tend to be their scoring units. Without random game length (as there usually isnt in 2.5 hours round tournaments) the current Tau and Eldar armies know exactly when they have to push their relative small and vulnerable points investments (usually 2-3 squads of kroot or guardians) onto the objectives, with the rest of their points able to be spent on further bolstering their offensive output. Additionally, denial units can play for turn 5 (such as a riptide), able to stay out of assault range for most the game only to jettison onto an objective turn 5 with only the possibility of a 1 round assault phase (if they went 1st). This is really troublesome for some other armies which have to make greater points investments into scoring units (which typically don't have the strongest offensive capabilities) or fear loosing them quickly to the fire/range capabilities of the current top armies.

First off, thanks for the nice letter! I appreciate it.

You make some excellent points. Game length is one of those very nebulous topics that is hard to nail down as every person you ask has a different idea of how to do it. For example, Blackmoor has been quite vocal on his belief that games need to be longer. I understand and agree to a point but the view we have as TOs is a lot different that the view players have. Players think about the immediate here and now of playing a game and wanting it to be as competitive and fair for them and their specific play style as possible. I totally get it as I was a very vocal tournament goer before becoming a TO.

One of the reasons why I make these posted to make TOs aware of the issues out there.

Most TOs run one event a year and they are isolated (for the most part) from other tournaments so they might not be aware of the issues until after their tournaments and at that point it is too late.

The problem is that the game changes and TOs think that they will just do the same thing that they did last year and everything will be ok.

A lot of things have changed in the game in just the last few months (think about how many codex releases we normally get, and think about how many we have had this year) and now round times are a lot larger issue than it was in the past. TOs do not realize what problems are out there until after their events, and I would like to make them aware of the issues before hand.

When you spend $50- $100 for a tournament you want to play games of 40k. A tournament is pointless if you do not get full games in and players are just winning by who has the last turn.

The issue is that as a TO you are faced with the realities of logistics. You have the space to run the event for X hours, you have X amount of rounds you want to play, you have X players, you have X players that are new and going to play slow no matter what, etc. etc. etc. At the end of the day you are left with having to create an arbitrary time limit that fits into the limitations you are working with. We do our absolute best to provide the best ratio of time to rounds but sometimes we simply don't have a choice on the matter. It comes down to the players to be conscious of the time limit and learn to play within it to the best of their ability. Otherwise, we end up changing the time limit every time someone makes a valid point about why it should be changed (and there are lots of them).

That is what I was talking about in my first poll. Is it better to have 6 full games, or 8 games that end on turn 4-5?

The 'best way' to make sure more tournament games come to their natural conclusions will vary by tournament. For some events this will mean significantly reducing points values; for some it will mean extending round length; and for others it will be implementing battle point systems that allow for a clear winner with fewer total games played.

The GTGT 2013 used a multi-layered approach to protecting the integrity of game results:

-At 2000pts with Forge World and dual force org, we used 3-hour rounds.
-We were and continue to be firmly against a hard 'dice down' rule, so when time is called at the top of a turn the full game turn is still finished.
-Players who failed to finish a game within their allotted time limit were given a warning; additional failures to complete games resulted in escalating penalties.
-To make things fun and comfortable for everyone, there were 3 rounds per day in our Swiss format. Top players going into the second day were the only participants who might have been required to play four rounds in one day. In the case of up to 124 players we could've determined a single winner based on Swiss games by requiring only 16 players to play an additional round on Sunday.

This strategy created a situation where participants were given generous time allowances, slow play was discouraged through tournament policies, and only those players with a legitimate shot at becoming our overall Tournament Champion faced the possibility of a four-round day (although the possible extra round ended up not being required). We had very few games fail to reach their natural conclusions as a result of these efforts.

 RobPro wrote:
When you play the scouring with hammer and anvil deployment with 2-2-1 on your side, you'll know why some don't like that mission. It wouldn't be as bad on a long edge deployment but it can be quite a hike across a long board to contest/take objectives while still holding yours.

Precisely it is the random objective points that is the issue of the scouring. When 2 objectives in your deployment zone are 1 and 2 points and your opponent gets 3 and 4. The way to fix it is have fixed objectives with fixed values or at least fix the 1 and 4 and have each player place a 2 and 3 pointer.

So we have a few ideas running through this topic at this point. I like all these points and want to respond in detail but this leaves this post a bit long since this thread has gone in so many directions. For those wishing to focus on a particular point, 1 is about balance and point limit, 2 is about tournaments and missions, and 3 is about slow players and time limits.

1: Balance and points limits. In 5th ed and earlier editions, as put forth by MVBrant and others at the time, larger point games benefited the game because the best FOC in a codex would get maxed early forcing players to spend on the weaker FOC, which toned the best codexes back a little. Now this is not the case, as the allies rule grants a HUGE amount of slots for your primary army so you never run out of 'good' FOC slots. Like Target said, 1850-2000 is not enough to prevent spamming the best FOC slots in this edition, unlike in 5th.

We would need ~2500 points with no second primary detachment to balance the game in 6th ed like 2k did in 5th. Since this is not feasible in a tourney setting, 1500 has no real downside other than the psychological effect of having veteran players trying to cut some of their tried and true 1850 lists down to 1500. While you can play the same style of list at 1500, it needs to be done from the ground up. Trying to cut 350 from an existing list will mean you are never going to be satisfied with the final result unless you lucked out and had exactly 350 points in a redundant FOC slot. What does it mean? The first 1500 'BIG' tourney will suffer some flak, but once people have 1500 point lists made up the second 'BIG' tourney to run 1500 will not really have any issues.

2: Mission style in tournaments. I believe book missions rolled randomly played between 2 identical people over multiple games are extremely balanced. So if you and your friend play a lot of games with the same armies, the random missions generate a lot of balance over multiple games as while one person may suck at relic he may be awesome at the scouring, keeping the play interesting between you two over a series of games.

However, in tournaments we do not have the luxury of multiple games versus the same opponent to produce a winner of a series of different games. This means that a mission that favors one list style over another can not be used in a tournament, as while the relic mission may be balanced as one in a series of 6 games normally, because the players and list change each round during tournies the series counter is effectively 'reset' making each book mission on its own inherently unfair for single game tournament play.

This means that tournament mission goals needs to be very similar to each other to minimize the bad match up effect, and the missions need to be known ahead of time so no player gets surprised with a mission win condition they can not possibly win. Yes, we all like variety, but they play football and soccer with the same win condition each match for a damn good reason.

So for example, some of the Nova missions succeeded here and some failed. Nova had some missions where if you won objectives, literally nothing else mattered--not the secondary, not the tertiary, not the bonus points. Thus armies designed to win only on objectives and only when lucky enough to be going second beat armies that were much more balanced with a single die roll--the roll to see who goes first. This may be fine if the defeated armies had some chance to come back from this loss in later rounds after the unbalanced army fails to advance further, but in Nova style a single loss can knock you out of placing ANYTHING--Bracket, overall or ren man.

Thus, missions with balanced victory conditions played over and over are the best for tournament play. I like kill points, standard objectives and some alternate (Relic/scouring/Emp will) objectives all being played at once personally. BAO has a pretty good setup I believe personally, but I am sure there is room for some kind of improvement somewhere.

3: Slow players. Here there is no 'correct' answer because the solution is an interpersonal one. No one wants to be the bad guy for rushing a player, but some people WILL be offended if labeled or punished for slow play, and their entire tournament experience can be ruined as a result. Whether this comes from a judge or another player doesn't matter, whether it's warranted or not also doesn't change the fact that you ruined a paying customers fun. It should be noted that some people do require a little more time, or perhaps there is a bit of a language issue requiring slower verbal communication but their opponent doesnt get it, and talks faster and faster in an effort to hurry the other along. Thus blanket sanctions against slow players can never work, and rushing someone can have an opposite effect to finishing a game on time.

On the other hand, yes some people intentionally slow play, but what about SPEED play. If you are literally on the cusp of starting another turn depending if you rush through your current turn or play normally, and if by playing normally the game will end leaving you the victor/loser, are you obligated to cut corners during your turn so your opponent will win/lose?

IE, you find out there is 5 minutes before the 15 min dont start a new turn warning. You have 90% of your shooting but are off the objectives, your opponent has only a handful of models left but they are on the objectives, scoring him the win. If you were to shoot, based on previous turns it will take over 15 minutes to resolve everything, thus causing the game to end. If you were to play normally, taking your shooting phase, you would lose the game. Instead you simply move and end your turn, knowing with next turn's movement you can win the game and your opponent has no shooting to speak of so their turn should only take a minute since he has no actions.

In this situation, one player still changed his play style to manipulate the time left in a round to secure a win. This isnt slow play, but such a practice is surely not what a TO wants happening.

While not ideal for 40k, only a dice down time limit for each players turn will ensure that every single game finishes on a random turn length in an allotted time. AKA, if you have 15 minutes per player turn, and half way through your shooting phase your 15 minutes are up, all the hits you just rolled dont get to roll to wound, and that close combat your models are locked in doesnt happen this turn. Your opponent immediately begins their movement phase. Now, this is a terrible way to play the back and forth nature of 40k, but by god the games would finish on time every time.

@DevianID

1.) Points limits are mostly similar at 1500+ it just shifts the meta and makes it more difficult for some armies to make a TAC list depending on the points.

2.) On missions, every mission type (especially repeated similar missions) can be gamed, i.e. I build a list to specifically win those missions. THE whole point of the Tiered NOVA missions is that if you don't think you can win primary you play for a tie, and try to win secondary or so on...this is no different from BAO where if I build an army that is good at KPs and can tie down the other 2 objectives I win. There is no perfect mission set up, but I prefer variation from round to round because if forces armies to be good at everything not just one or 2 things.

3.) People going to tournaments need to be expected to be able to finish their games in the alotted time. If you go to an event knowing you cannot do this, you are a slow player, even if you are not purposefully "slow playing" if you expect not to get in a full game and play as such you are at an advantage. Turn time caps don't work....at all. Turns in 40k are not even length, turn 1 or 2 typically takes more time than turn 5-7 might take because less models are on the table. Furthermore, it allows for all kinds of abuse. Say I am nearing the end of my turn time limit and declare a charge, lets say you then take a long time to overwatch and so my turn ends before I can roll for my charge....how is that fair? Or say I do make the charge but no one gets any attacks...I can hide in close combat, but then say you time it out so there is no assault phase on your turn....horrible horrible idea. The only way 40k can ever work by timing people (and it is very wonky) is to use chess clocks for each player, and have the time alternate everytime a person is acting (moving models, rolling dice, etc.) That said no one plays like this, noe one practices this way etc...so it won't happen.

Essentially the real solution is that we all act as adults, stop trying to slow play, learn to be able to play our armies in a way where we finish games in the apporpriate length of time. AS I said before...the best solution right now is this.

1.) TOs match up points level with round time (2k should not be under 3 hours, I would say 1500 should be at least 2:15 if not 2:30).
2.) TOs need to make sure players are aware of time remaining in the round.
3.)TOs need to make sure there is enough time between pairings being posted and the round start time.
4.)TOs should incentivise finishing games (either through reward, or penalty)
5.) Players need to be proactive in addressing percieved slow playing. IF it has take your game an hour to reach turn 2 in a 2.5 hour game, you might want to let a TO/Judge know so they can monitor your game.

COuld rushing a slower player ruin their fun..sure...will that player winning the game on turn 3 ruin other peoples fun yes...which one of these things is against the format of the event?

Blackmoor,

For AdeptiCon, we talk about all this stuff all the time internally, and specifically lowering the point value to 1500 has been a hot topic of discussion for the AdeptiCon 40k crew going for well over a year. It was heavily debated in 2013 and again now for AdeptiCon 2014. For all the reasons and more discussed here. These discussions never really go away, just like Forgeworld inclusion..

Additionally, besides all the changes to 40k that have happened during the past year, a lot of changes will occur before the next AdeptiCon. Frankly changes that can have huge impacts on game play 6+ months into the future. While not being privy to the details and gazing into our crystal ball we have to make event decisions now, and in many cases live and defend them, for an event that will not occur for another 197 days.

It is easy to say, just add 15 minutes to the rounds or to the prep. But for established events, or really any event those 15 minutes have to come from some place. For an event that has 8 rounds that is an additional 2 hours you have to find in an already demanding schedule. So why 15 minutes does not sound like much, 2 hours over an event weekend is a huge chunk.

So I think you are on track, there is a definite cost associated. It is either time, point values, comfort levels, or living with a percentage of games that do not come to a natural conclusion. So it is about finding a balance that is acceptable given the current state of a changing game.

I think the largest issue is that people _think_ they can play a full game (or perhaps just do not care) when playing horde, when they are simply incapable of doing so. These people need to know their limits and either practice or play a more streamlined army. If I am capable of finishing all of my games in a 7 round tourney with 180 model guard army, as an infrequent 40k tournament player, then there is no reason tourney vets cannot do the same.

I do think there are a subset of people who design armies for the sole purpose of playing to a turn three win by first blood stall out, but those buttmunches are easily spotted. The onus is on the organizer to crack down on these guys.

By finishing all our games do you mean the games finish or you only use 1/2 the allowable time? Futhermore, what is the round length for these events. While agree that people need to practice playing their army as quickly as need to finish the game (practice speed rolling, group dice, make sure you have good measurement tools etc.)

As for the second part of your statement this is where I disagree. The onus is on the opponents of these players to make sure the organizer is aware of the issue. IF that play is in my event, and his first opponent says, nothing, then his second opponent only complains after the conclusion of their game, there is really not much I can do.

This is one reason why I have slow play penalties at my events. IF you bring an army that you know won't finish your games, you won't be able to win the event.

Well Blackmoore was one of the people who played against me in that tourney, he could give you an accurate picture. I did time myself the round I played a BA guy, since Blackmoore raised this exact question, himself, and I was taking shorter turns than he was. Of course I was consciously pushing myself to be as fast and efficient as possible and had practiced the list prior to the tourney, basically avoiding doing non critical things that had no impact on the game. I think the round length was 2 1/2 hours (4 games one day, 3 the next) and that's certainly what I practiced at. For posterity, I will state that my army was 2 decked out blobs, 2 penal legion units, two units mounted in Vendettas, an ADL, and one Manticore. I kept blobbed up all day and avoided moving the blobs, unless I had to. They also saw close combat nearly every game I played, except the one against Blackmoor (and we were the first people done that round).

As for where the onus lies, a good TO is walking the room and checking all the games. I really do not want some unobservant guy without the experience to recognize slow play making rules calls in a tournament, personally. You are correct in that if a player waits until after the game to complain, then there is nothing a TO can do, but such is the nature of passive aggressive players. Really, any TO worth his salt either knows who the problem players are in advance, or can spot them a mile away. Its all about having the testicular fortitude to step in and say "Hey, taking this long on your turns is unacceptable. Step it up, please." to keep the intentional stallers in line.

I have no problem saying that the problem I have is with players expecting a TO to pick slow play out of 16-120 tables, when they are unwilling to bring it up themselves. IF I am walking around and letting you know how much time has passed, is it that hard for a player to turn to me and say, "hey this guy is playing a bit slow." or "I fear we might not finish, can you watch for a second."

The notion that upon glancing at a table for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, I should instantly see the slow players is obtuse. I need to watch play for a bit, what if they are just now playing slowly to make an important decision.

Sure at a local event I might know which guys notoriously slow play. But at larger events where players I am not 100% familiar with show up how do I know that?

Essentially what I am saying is that if you as a player are unwilling to turn to a judge and try to do something about slow play, how does that suddenly make it my responsibility? Sure late in a round, if I see a guy rolling one save at a time, I might say, hey, pick it up you guys need to finish. But why have you as his opponent not been saying that all along.

Even at a smallish GT (say 32 Players) with long rounds (3 hours) I as a TO can spend on average 11 min viewing each game, this assumes, I don't spend any time on rules issues, communicating with other tournament staff etc. So if I view your game for 11 min broken up into 1 or 2 min chunks who is better able to make the slow play call? You who are part of the game for 3 hours, or me who is there for 11 min?

I find it insulting from players that assume the TO should handle everything. I have put enough time in the schedule to finish games, a penalty in place for those who don't consistently. After that it is up to the players (unless I see something obvious) to come to me and say..."hey this guy is slow playing can you do something about it." At which point I will do so, and I will be more attentive to that player.

I can be as observant as you want, but if the player does not slow play when I am at the table, or it is your turn, or any number of other things I will not be able to accurately make any call other than a blanket "you guys need to play faster" when I find the game on turn 2 after an hour +.

To me players really need to step up their responsibility for finishing games. Be proactive, and you will get results.

Breng, if a mission is solely won on a single primary mission, and you lose that mission because of an odd match and your opponent going second despite your best effort to try to tie it, that mission is not balanced for win loss tournament play. A mission where all secondary win conditions are rendered pointless if you meet one primary condition simply punishes some armies and rewards others. In a win loss format each match needs to be fair for players. It's like a football playoff game granting 8 points for field goals for 'variety.'

As for timed player rounds, I made it clear in my post its a horrible idea. However, the part you missed was that if someone pays you to play in your tournament but has a handicap meaning he plays a bit slower, rushing them or forcing them out of the hobby is bull crap. A solution that punishes people not intentionally slow playing but instead just trying to have fun is no solution.

Also, a game that ends on turn 4 misses assault phases and shooting phases the same way a timed player round game misses combats and such. As for your criticism that players will 'game' a timed player round system, again the point was that they are already 'gaming' time limit games. The advantage of player timed rounds is that they 1) always finish and 2) provide more chances to identify a slow player as 'slow play' will have to occur at obvious times, such as when rolling overwatch to stall a close combat.

An actual solution to slow play needs to first remove the win loss format. If you lose to a slow player in round 1, and complain, its too early to tell if your opponent is certainly a slow player. If that slow player is discovered on round 3 to definitely be slow playing people, the bracket win loss system is too damaged at this point to retroactively grant players from rounds 1 and 2 who won their other games a 3-0 record. Now with a battle point system, you can add in a few points here and there to people who lost to players who, over the course of 8 games did not finish a majority of them. Sure it doesn't make up for losing the game, but in a battle point system it can be enough so that if you won your other games the loss to a slow player can put you in position to still win the event.