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 feel if you are going to play a large army you better be able to move it and move it quickly. If you figure most tourneys run 2 to 2.5hrs per game if you push the game out to 7 turns a players turn should take approx. 12 to 13 minutes.

Taking into consideration the first 2 turns usually take approx. 20 minutes and the final two turns take about 8 to 10 minutes if that. Mechers are an exception to this depending on deployment.

As a consideration to your opponent you need to mindful of your own usage of time during the game.

silashand wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Blaming army builds and setting unreasonable 'equal play' time rules for a system where there is no way to fairly give equal time doesn't prevent slow-play, it actually increases it and justifies it.

No it does not. It ensures that each player has an equitable amount of time in which to complete his/her turn regardless the army they bring. As someone else said, if two horde players show up and expect to both get extra time for their turns that is simply not possible. What you are saying is that special consideration should be given for those players who want to bring those large armies. Given the overall time constraints of an event it is the *PLAYERS* who have to accommodate the time limit, not the organizers.

1. 40k is not balanced around a timed game or equal turn lengths. If that was added to the rules, all the codexes would have to be rebalanced. As with any form of arbitrary comp rules, it changes the meta game.
2. No one has reasonably attempted to answer how you allocate 'time' to a specific player for phases that are interactive... If I am a mech army assaulting your horde which means there will be an assault with 120 models in it, since it is *MY* assault phase, is that time counted against me? Is ti counted against my opponent? Or do we just blame the smelly horde player for any and everything? If it takes me 20 minutes for him to resolve casualties during my turn that is my time? 40k shares too much of the phases with both players so it is impossible to claim the game can function with equal times.

TOs need to make games longer and players need to make a distinction between something that takes a longer time and someone playing slowhammer.

I take it you have never actually run an event before? The reason there are time limits is because in order to play 3-4 games in one day you have no choice but to implement time limits in order to accomplish the games and all the other associated tasks such as scoring between rounds, lunch/breaks, awards at the end of the event, setup/tear down, etc. Asking TOs to make the games longer so you can bring a specific army that you know won't fit within the time constraints is naive at best. At worst it's inconsiderate of those putting on the event. They are doing you a favor by providing the event in the first place. The least you could do is show them the consideration of abiding by the limits they place which are there to help everyone have a good time.

Cheers, Gary

The dirty truth is people *WANT* 4 games so a 16 person tourney can have a single winner. If you have a 1-day tourney with 3 games, you can have two '3-0' players. The issue is many places barley get cranking on game 1 by 10am, and lots of places are wrapping up by 7. That is barley 9 hours to play 4 games and lunch and breaks and bookkeeping. This means 2 hour games usually with 10 minutes eaten off both ends. We all put up with it because we want to have fun, but realistically if someone doesn't finish a game it is because the format is TOO SHORT. That is a problem with the event and not with the legal armylists. Don't try to hold 1850-2500 point games under 2 hours. It simply isn't fair.

*The rules are not balanced around time limits.
*Too many actions are shared by both players which makes it impossible to give balanced time to both players as neither player owns the time.
*No one has the right to 'equal time' and such an attitude can lead to people purposefully slow-playing with a fast army to deny opponents actions or superfast playing with a fast army to deny opponents actions.
*Horde armies are not always 'slow play'. They may take longer than mech armies but it does not mean it is unfair. There is no right or expectation for every army to be able to move as fast as pushing 6 rhinos around the board. Targeting or banning horde armies as 'too slow' because the TO doesn't give enough time is unreasonable. Some people will always sigh even if a horde army is played fast because anything longer than pushing 6 rhinos around the board is too long for them.

I have never had a problem finishing *ANY* game with any list if we were given at least 2.5 solid hours to finish. I would rather play three 2.5 hour games with breaks than four 2 hour games crammed back to back.

nkelsch wrote:The dirty truth is people *WANT* 4 games so a 16 person tourney can have a single winner. If you have a 1-day tourney with 3 games, you can have two '3-0' players. The issue is many places barley get cranking on game 1 by 10am, and lots of places are wrapping up by 7. That is barley 9 hours to play 4 games and lunch and breaks and bookkeeping. This means 2 hour games usually with 10 minutes eaten off both ends. We all put up with it because we want to have fun, but realistically if someone doesn't finish a game it is because the format is TOO SHORT. That is a problem with the event and not with the legal armylists. Don't try to hold 1850-2500 point games under 2 hours. It simply isn't fair.

This is just a crock argument. Isn't fair to whom? Do you know ahead of time how long the rounds will be? Yes. Do you know ahead of time if you are expected to finish the games in time? Yes. Saying this isn't fair just means you don't *want* to follow the rules. You can pout and whine all you like about how it's not fair, but everyone is under the same constraints and you are free not to attend. Besides, you keep stating it's not fair to you. What about your opponents whom you deny the chance to play a full game? Is it fair to them that they have to suffer because you feel it's your right to show up whenever and wherever you like and play whatever you like regardless the stated restrictions? Sorry, I know where my sympathy falls in that discussion. If you want a different type of event then run it yourself. But don't go around trying to get people to feel sorry for you because you can't be bothered to try and play games based on the pre-arranged conditions of the event.

You keep saying the rules aren't balanced around time limits. Where exactly do you get this idea from? Certainly not the rulebook. Games are balanced based on point values and relative value in the game. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the rules about saying you have to have a certain amount of time in order to complete your turn. Instead you are told you have to move (if you wish) all your models in the movement phase. You then have to shoot (if you wish) all your models in the shooting phase. And then in the assault phase you resolve combat. NOWHERE does it say you cannot impose a time limit on those phases for the purpose of trying to get multiple games completed in a given timeframe. Sorry, this sounds a lot like "I want to play what I want and if people don't want me to then it's not fair."

*No one has the right to 'equal time' and such an attitude can lead to people purposefully slow-playing with a fast army to deny opponents actions or superfast playing with a fast army to deny opponents actions.

Bull. If the event says games must be completed in 2 hours then it's MY responsibility to meet that requirement if I decide to attend. That is what you seem unable to grasp, that the TOs spell out the rule and if you don't like it or cannot abide by it then you are free not to attend. It's like holding an event that allows only Eldar and Dark Eldar armies that will be pitted against each other. Just because you want to bring your Space Marines does not give you the right to demand you be allowed to do so.

There is no right or expectation for every army to be able to move as fast as pushing 6 rhinos around the board. Targeting or banning horde armies as 'too slow' because the TO doesn't give enough time is unreasonable. Some people will always sigh even if a horde army is played fast because anything longer than pushing 6 rhinos around the board is too long for them.

No one here said anything about banning horde armies. What was said is *IF* the player can complete a game against any other opponent at the event in the allotted time then that's fine. If you personally cannot play your army fast enough (regardless what army that is) then either modify your list or bring a different army where you can meet those requirements. However you choose to meet that requirement is up to you as long as you do meet it. Bringing an army where you know you cannot do so to the event is discourteous to and inconsiderate of your opponents. Denying that fact does not make it untrue. It just comes across as you wanting special consideration. As I have noted before, that is basically saying to your opponents that your personal desire to play the army you wish in the manner you wish trumps their need to actually finish their games even though the event results are based upon games that are actually completed. No offense, but putting your own pet wishes ahead of the needs of potentially every other player you face in the event is poor sportsmanship at its worst.

I have never had a problem finishing *ANY* game with any list if we were given at least 2.5 solid hours to finish. I would rather play three 2.5 hour games with breaks than four 2 hour games crammed back to back.

Good for you. Then run an event like that, but don't tell other TOs they have to bow to your desires when it is you playing in THEIR event.

Cheers, Gary

I am not here to win the tournament. I am here to make you lose the tournament.


Suddenly the game play got better.

Yeah, it can work in reverse too. One of my horde-IG-playing friends was cheated out of a ticket to the Ardboyz Finals in 2009 because his SM opponent in R3 of the Semifinals slowhammered their game to a Draw. Which was particularly frustrating as the SM player couldn't win at that point, and a Draw just eliminated them both.

and this is why compeditive 40k is turning into magic:the gathering! Next off we'll be drafting armies!

Dashofpepper wrote:
And for each individual person: ALWAYS BRING COOKIE SHEETS OR MOVING TRAYS!!! Something to move your models around on between games. There is *NO* excuse for putting your models away and having to get them back out between rounds - bring something to move them on. That's inexcusably rude and as time-wasting as anything else.

the hardcorez don't do that as you might see what's in their army and have a minute advantage in deploying or if they have infiltrators... which is a bit sad really.

About time limits and shared areas (assaults, saves etc)
What about the dice 'massagers'?

... ok so you've 10 saves to make.... >cue 6 minutes of rolling dice<

The dirty truth is people *WANT* 4 games so a 16 person tourney can have a single winner. If you have a 1-day tourney with 3 games, you can have two '3-0' players. The issue is many places barley get cranking on game 1 by 10am, and lots of places are wrapping up by 7. That is barley 9 hours to play 4 games and lunch and breaks and bookkeeping. This means 2 hour games usually with 10 minutes eaten off both ends. We all put up with it because we want to have fun, but realistically if someone doesn't finish a game it is because the format is TOO SHORT. That is a problem with the event and not with the legal armylists. Don't try to hold 1850-2500 point games under 2 hours. It simply isn't fair.

every consider that WHFB and 40k ARE NOT tournament games andd that 1850-2500 pts is waaaay too much. 1500 is the most you can do for a decent tournament but *gasp* then you cannot make THE UBAR NET BILDZ so no one will go rather than make their own army list (and making a decent 1000 or 1500 pt list is part of the challenge) and try to win but while having fun.

Seriously for all the hardcore competitive guys move to warmachine or magic, that way everyone will be happier.

silashand wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Blaming army builds and setting unreasonable 'equal play' time rules for a system where there is no way to fairly give equal time doesn't prevent slow-play, it actually increases it and justifies it.

No it does not. It ensures that each player has an equitable amount of time in which to complete his/her turn regardless the army they bring. As someone else said, if two horde players show up and expect to both get extra time for their turns that is simply not possible. What you are saying is that special consideration should be given for those players who want to bring those large armies. Given the overall time constraints of an event it is the *PLAYERS* who have to accommodate the time limit, not the organizers.

TOs need to make games longer and players need to make a distinction between something that takes a longer time and someone playing slowhammer.

I take it you have never actually run an event before? The reason there are time limits is because in order to play 3-4 games in one day you have no choice but to implement time limits in order to accomplish the games and all the other associated tasks such as scoring between rounds, lunch/breaks, awards at the end of the event, setup/tear down, etc. Asking TOs to make the games longer so you can bring a specific army that you know won't fit within the time constraints is naive at best. At worst it's inconsiderate of those putting on the event. They are doing you a favor by providing the event in the first place. The least you could do is show them the consideration of abiding by the limits they place which are there to help everyone have a good time.

Cheers, Gary

I really dislike what is said in this post, but I find it to be emblematic of what so many players believe to be true.

IMHO, since 40K is designed to allow players to take a variety of army types within the rules then an average player playing with a horde army at an average speed should be able to comfortably finish his games within the allotted time. If he can't finish his games playing at this speed, then the rounds are being set too short compared to the points values allowed for the tournament. Players playing with small armies should be finishing *early*, players with horde armies should not be forced to play faster then anyone else.

Having said that, I think we're getting a bit off topic from the original post, as it was about an opponent who was (presumably) intentionally slow-playing, rather than general commentary about tournament rounds.

So I invite anyone who would like to continue *this* discussion, about general length of tournament rounds vs. horde armies in my thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/341216.page#2352589

yakface wrote:

silashand wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Blaming army builds and setting unreasonable 'equal play' time rules for a system where there is no way to fairly give equal time doesn't prevent slow-play, it actually increases it and justifies it.

No it does not. It ensures that each player has an equitable amount of time in which to complete his/her turn regardless the army they bring. As someone else said, if two horde players show up and expect to both get extra time for their turns that is simply not possible. What you are saying is that special consideration should be given for those players who want to bring those large armies. Given the overall time constraints of an event it is the *PLAYERS* who have to accommodate the time limit, not the organizers.

TOs need to make games longer and players need to make a distinction between something that takes a longer time and someone playing slowhammer.

I take it you have never actually run an event before? The reason there are time limits is because in order to play 3-4 games in one day you have no choice but to implement time limits in order to accomplish the games and all the other associated tasks such as scoring between rounds, lunch/breaks, awards at the end of the event, setup/tear down, etc. Asking TOs to make the games longer so you can bring a specific army that you know won't fit within the time constraints is naive at best. At worst it's inconsiderate of those putting on the event. They are doing you a favor by providing the event in the first place. The least you could do is show them the consideration of abiding by the limits they place which are there to help everyone have a good time.

Cheers, Gary

I really dislike what is said in this post, but I find it to be emblematic of what so many players believe to be true.

IMHO, since 40K is designed to allow players to take a variety of army types within the rules then an average player playing with a horde army at an average speed should be able to comfortably finish his games within the allotted time. If he can't finish his games playing at this speed, then the rounds are being set too short compared to the points values allowed for the tournament. Players playing with small armies should be finishing *early*, players with horde armies should not be forced to play faster then anyone else.

Having said that, I think we're getting a bit off topic from the original post, as it was about an opponent who was (presumably) intentionally slow-playing, rather than general commentary about tournament rounds.

So I invite anyone who would like to continue *this* discussion, about general length of tournament rounds vs. horde armies in my thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/341216.page#2352589

This topic evolved. It went from commenting about rather slow playing was cheating to rather or not it mattered if it was intentional cheating or not. Intent doesn't matter. Tournaments have to end in a reasonable amount of time. If some insane point value, like 2500, is set, then those involved should consider that their horde army just won't be able to finish turns. If it's a typical point value like 1500 or 1850, then a horde player should be skilled enough to be able to compete using only about 50 percent of the time allotted. If he or she is not able, then that person should run something else...a Kan wall or Nidzilla or a tank line instead of the greentide, nid swarm or shooty squad. And there are many reasonable ideas on here, and more unmentioned, as to how a horde player can speed up his turns. If a horde player says they deserve more time, then that's bull. If a horde player says the tournie makes it harder for a horde player...that may be true. Find a friendly game or a smaller point value tournie, or adapt your list.

I have 6 armies. You betcha I make my selection based on the type of tournie being played. Apocalypse? 2 hour time limit? 1850 vs 1000? Each difference means I play/select different. That's part of sportsmanship as much as strategy. If you only play one army type, realize every tournie is not the best fit for you, and don't make others suffer because of your inability to adapt. Get quicker, or adjust your list, or don't attend. I would be quite an a-hole if I brought a tervigon spawning gaunt horde to a 2500 point game...there's no way I could spawn, move, shoot, and assault, roll saves etc in a 2-2 1/2 hour game. Maybe Nidzilla, but not a swarm. Geesh.

Some people on this list seem to have the idea that special considerations should be given to horde players. Why? If enough horde players approach the TO, then maybe the TO will make a special 1000 point tournie or a 2 day one at a higher point value. Or get together with your buds and everyone put 10 bucks in the pot, winner take all, and make your own tournie. If your army or your play speed doesn't fit, dont try to force it or make others suffer for it. Look up sportsmanship in the dictionary, set back and think about it, and you'll see why.

Wow, this thread has certainly gone on much longer than I expected. I guess my questions hit a nerve.

I would like to say that after I emailed the company running the tournament I received several emails back from the owner and the TO that ran the event. They informed me that they had received multiple complaints about this particular player regarding his slow play, constant rules arguments, confusing deployment, poor unit distinction (No easy way to tell units apart from one another in the giant blob of models), and his general poor sportsmanship. They also admitted that this was their failure in that their judge had too many duties during the tournament and was not able to reasonably keep an eye on all of the games. They also failed to implement sportsmanship scores which they agreed was a mistake.

Some discussion has taken place and ways to improve future events are being looked at. This company is somewhat new to running events and mistakes will happen. I think once they have run a few more events and really get into a groove they will be among the best. Their willingness to speak to their players, accept criticism and learn from mistakes shows that they are good people, and I have generally had fun at their previous events.

Thanks very much for all of the opinions, I do appreciate all of the responses in this thread. Some have been eye opening to say the least. There have been several ideas about altering tournament format to make things more fair for people running armies of all sizes, and I have a couple of ideas myself. I'm going to create another thread to discuss proposed tournament time limits and the fairness of timed turns, timed rounds, etc... and anyone that would like to chime in is welcome to do so over there. Anyone that wishes to continue discussing slow play can do so in this thread.

Here is a link to the other discussion thread

Since this discussion has popped up again, I'd like to include an article detailing the exact rules for slow playing in Sprue Posse tournaments.

http://www.chaoswins.com/2011/01/rules-slow-playing-and-stalling.html

If you don't want to take the jump, basically what it says is that having a large model count army and therefore taking more time is not an infraction. But pausing for long periods of reflection between decisions and actions is.

Tournaments should NOT penalize players for having a diverse and in my opinion very cool horde army. Doing so would only eliminate the existence of horde armies from tournaments. If you like space marines versus space marines then that is a great idea, if you like your metagame to be dynamic and varied, then slow playing must only be defined as too much time taken to make decisions.

The other thing these rules talk about is a noticeable change in player rhythm, usually after an impactful game event. For instance if a player is playing at a nice quick pace but then once he gets a 3 kill point lead on you, he turns into molassess, that is stalling, and is not legal. This MIGHT be what the guy is doing. Call over a judge and ask him to watch for clock management.

But having a 120 model army in and of itself isn't a villainous thing to do, in fact its a refreshing change of pace. Your poll is indeed biased, and there was not an appropriate answer for me to click.

Yeah I have no problem with people playing a horde army if they can manage it well and not slow the game to a drag.

Now that the discussion has gone on long enough I'll give the exact situation that I ran into. It was a doubles tournament, and the guy was playing alongside his son (maybe 12-13) who hadn't played the game much before. He brought all infantry Imperial Guard (2x Platoons with 5x Lascannon teams, 2x Autocannon teams, a bunch of Infantry Squads with Missile Launchers and one unit of outflanking Rough Riders) and his son brought foot Necrons (2x 10 Warriors in Reserve, 20x Immortals and the Deceiver).

For all intents and purposes the father called all the shots. Our deployment took 5-6 minutes at most and their deployment took about a half hour, cutting probably 20 minutes into the start of the game. Most of the game he would just tell his son where to move models, and that would be that, however once things got tight and the warriors arrived from reserve, he would ask his son "where do you want them to go?", then when he didn't like the reply he'd say "Are you sure? You realize this is objective based, wouldn't they be better over here?". He basically coached his son a lot more as the game progressed, which slowed things down quite a bit.

At the end of turn 3 the game was tied and time was short. The Deceiver was bearing down on one of our objectives, so we shot most everything at him and the one scoring unit sitting near another objective contested only by a Vindicator. He survived with a single wound, and we assaulted him. The player then moved him out of combat, through our assaulting unit onto the nearby objective after rolling a 2 for the movement. He stated that he did not have to move by the shortest path, and that if the distance rolled was not enough to move him out of combat in the direction he wanted, he could increase the distance until the model could be placed 1" from an enemy model. He was not surrounded, and had a clear path to move out of combat, and he instead moved over the unit toward the objective and increased the distance until he was sitting on top of the objective 1" away from the unit that assaulted him (I still think this is a bit shady but we did not have enough time to question it or call a judge). Our turn was very quick, probably 8-9 minutes to move, shoot and assault with everything, and because it ended with no assault rolls they got another turn and blasted the contesting Vindicator, which left them up 2-1 when time was called. Had we gone another turn it would not have been difficult to wipe out the 3 remaining Necron Warriors holding their objective and put a single wound on the deceiver. We had taken very light casualties.

A full game would have left us plenty of time to secure and hold 3 objectives. Most of his force was centered around one, while the rest came in from reserves near another that was lightly defended. We made a push on the more lightly defended side and used buildings for cover and it was clear that they could not hold it another turn.

Coaching a new player and high model count are not excuses for slow play in my opinion, and from the arguments I was hearing later on in the tournament, this was not something that happened only during our game.

Some one was doing this in a local tourny, we reported it after the first time and the GW manager asked/told politely if he could hurry up the movement and shooting so it is a fair game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldarionn wrote:Yeah I have no problem with people playing a horde army if they can manage it well and not slow the game to a drag.

Now that the discussion has gone on long enough I'll give the exact situation that I ran into. It was a doubles tournament, and the guy was playing alongside his son (maybe 12-13) who hadn't played the game much before. He brought all infantry Imperial Guard (2x Platoons with 5x Lascannon teams, 2x Autocannon teams, a bunch of Infantry Squads with Missile Launchers and one unit of outflanking Rough Riders) and his son brought foot Necrons (2x 10 Warriors in Reserve, 20x Immortals and the Deceiver).

For all intents and purposes the father called all the shots. Our deployment took 5-6 minutes at most and their deployment took about a half hour, cutting probably 20 minutes into the start of the game. Most of the game he would just tell his son where to move models, and that would be that, however once things got tight and the warriors arrived from reserve, he would ask his son "where do you want them to go?", then when he didn't like the reply he'd say "Are you sure? You realize this is objective based, wouldn't they be better over here?". He basically coached his son a lot more as the game progressed, which slowed things down quite a bit.

At the end of turn 3 the game was tied and time was short. The Deceiver was bearing down on one of our objectives, so we shot most everything at him and the one scoring unit sitting near another objective contested only by a Vindicator. He survived with a single wound, and we assaulted him. The player then moved him out of combat, through our assaulting unit onto the nearby objective after rolling a 2 for the movement. He stated that he did not have to move by the shortest path, and that if the distance rolled was not enough to move him out of combat in the direction he wanted, he could increase the distance until the model could be placed 1" from an enemy model. He was not surrounded, and had a clear path to move out of combat, and he instead moved over the unit toward the objective and increased the distance until he was sitting on top of the objective 1" away from the unit that assaulted him (I still think this is a bit shady but we did not have enough time to question it or call a judge). Our turn was very quick, probably 8-9 minutes to move, shoot and assault with everything, and because it ended with no assault rolls they got another turn and blasted the contesting Vindicator, which left them up 2-1 when time was called. Had we gone another turn it would not have been difficult to wipe out the 3 remaining Necron Warriors holding their objective and put a single wound on the deceiver. We had taken very light casualties.

A full game would have left us plenty of time to secure and hold 3 objectives. Most of his force was centered around one, while the rest came in from reserves near another that was lightly defended. We made a push on the more lightly defended side and used buildings for cover and it was clear that they could not hold it another turn.

Coaching a new player and high model count are not excuses for slow play in my opinion, and from the arguments I was hearing later on in the tournament, this was not something that happened only during our game.

Well I don't think he was exploiting the time slots, it was more of he was teaching his son how to play at the wrong time. Teaching during a friendly unimportant game is fine but when people are learning during a tourney is just...wrong...

Not sure if this has already been addressed but . . .

I find that not that many players actually slow play but that a good number of players don't think about their moves during their opponent's turn. I do realize that a close combat phase can effect your decision in the following turn but having a general idea of what you want to accomplish while your opponent is moving, shooting, assaulting, etc . . . is every bit as important as the number count, being a fast/slow player or whatever. I know that if I have to walk away from a table temporarily or pay attention to something else around me, my game turn can nearly double.

I also find that a lot of people who complain about their opponent's game speed don't take into account how their own army can slow down my turn. For example, an army that has feel no pain and an invulnerable save on almost every soldier can have as much to do with slowing me down during my shooting or assault phase, as it does with my actual play speed (and I didn't even mention multi-wound, complex units either with their wound allocations and how that too can make my turn take longer - even though I don't really play a horde army). Neither of these issues seem to be addressed by the regular complaints I see on the forums. Instead, it's always chocked up to slow playing or requests for people to play faster (and there is only so fast someone can play, after that you simply hit a wall).


Having said that, I think Yak has really hit the nail on the head . . . time per game is instrumental in handling time management issues. Heck, 2000 points per player for 2 hours . . . I can see a lot of those games ending without 5 full rounds of game play. IMHO, I feel that 1850 still deserves 2.5 hours simply because some armies are unfairly penalized with larger point allowances and shorter rounds, because of the very nature of their army. Yes, if you play unreasonably slow maybe you shouldn't play in large point tournaments with low time limits. But I can't tell you how many people scream and yell and cry for mommy simply because a player deploys a Green Tide. The sad reality around the 40k community is that if you are playing a foot slogging horde, you are automatically assumed to be stalling or a slow player regardless of your actual play speed. I'm not saying that is what has happened in your particular case but it's something we all need to watch our assumptions about. Myself included.

I didn't answer the poll... it doesn't seem objective. So all Ork and Guard players or non-mech players are basically cheaters?

A fair number of guard players stall, at least in my experience. Ork players are not really helped by slow playing to the degree a guard army is. The IG army is trying to make sure that they never suffer HtH losses and stalling the game out to three turns is a great way to accomplish that. I have seen guard players pull this on a number of occasions and it really irritates me, especially when they have no display board and they take the time to pack up their army after every game so that every deployment phase takes upwards of an hour. I have a hard time believing that this is not deliberate, having played horde armies myself.

Of course, team tournaments are an entirely different animal and that guy was honestly an assclown for dragging his kid into the game without the kid knowing the rules. My wife plays in team events with me, but we always make damn sure she is up to snuff on the rules and tactics to the degree that we rarely even need to communicate during a game.

There is a difference between intentionally playing slow and having a large model count.

If you feel your opponent is dragging his feet, contact the TO. Whether he's playing the Green Tide or a low-count Grey Knights. There is no difference.