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 think we should, b/c there is no such thing as a "serious" tournament that involves grown men playing with plastic dolls :p

I'm really hoping 6th comes with the rules from the playtest leak for reserves, game length, and objectives. After doing quite a bit of playtesting with them, our group found they worked nice and made for a more enjoyable game with more tactical options. The only thing I'd change is I'd leave the ability to contest in place, as it encourages more aggressive play.

I don't understand the need to know prior to the end of the turn. Eldar can star engine in the shooting phase, jetpacks can move 6" in the assault phase. Rare pocket cases sure but what do you gain from knowing the roll beforehand, why do you want to roll before the bottom of 5 like normal?

And if you don't know till the end, if the TO makes the roll secretly and writes it down for any games at the bottom of 5 to go look at and everyone is in cubicles or rooms or something so they can't see their neighbor's game ending or continuing, why? Why bother with the extra manpower or logistics or the seclusion? If a game is close enough to be determined by the game ending or continuing how is it any fairer that they all have the same result? One guy loses, one guy wins. There isn't an inherent advantage for any one army or player, the objectivity of the tournament isn't compromised by variable turns between tables.

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

It already is. You're trying to fix something based on the faulty assumption that a game which goes 6 turns isn't as fair as a game that goes 5 turns.

In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

As someone who has faced annoying "Full reserve skimmer flight lists"

I love random turns, you want to park right in front of me? Eat my melta!

I enjoy the randomness of when the game might end, you know it's close but you just cannot be sure...

Dayvuni wrote:In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

In one-on-one games, who cares? it's totally fair to both of you. But when numerous peoples tourney standings are being affected, not just a single games decision, it is totally different in impact.

If the TO gave everyone the same amount of time, you'd feel no guilt at all about winning right? Everyone else got the same deal.

Jancoran wrote:
That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

They did get the same chance: one game.

Everyone played one game.

Oversimplification is not a defense.

But you're still assuming a game that ended sooner or later than your game is somehow less or more fair, but it isn't. It is the exact same fair, no matter how it 'feels'. Assuming the number of turns even has an impact on who wins or loses the result will still be one guy winning and one guy losing. It might seem unfair if you lost but it would seem equally unfair to the other guy if the roll went the other way and you won. Everyone getting the same number of turns is irrelevant to rolling individually because no army or player is favored by the game length, the 5 turn game on table 1 is equally fair to the 7 turn game on table 2.

By definition 5 is not 7. So no.

By your stated logic right here, it would be okay for me to rule that you are allowed an added 100 points to fight with in your game? The terms of the engagement are not equal here.

So. Keeping it random is what we ALREADY agreed to do. So continuing to argue FOR it makes no sense. We already agree.

So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

If you roll for everyone then it is either effectively not random or is a logistical nightmare.

If you announce the roll in advance of the players reaching that turn, then the point of rolling is defeated in that the players know exactly when the game will end and can take what would normally be massive risks on the last turn if they are going second knowing they aren't in any danger.

If you don't announce it in advance then you must watch every single game and notify each table they have reached the end without notifying any of the surrounding tables. You can't just notify the whole tournament at once after a given period of time because certain games are going to have turns that take longer than others, so while your announcement may be at the perfect time for some tables it will be too early for others dropping them into the first situation.

None other than logistical ones but it's not any fairer than individual rolls. You can't equate a random game length to an extra 100 points then say you think it's fair in the same post.
If the random game length is fair the variable length between tables is also fair because there is no change in fairness between a short and long game.

Which player does a randomly determined 5 turn game favor?
Which player does a randomly determined 7 turn game favor?
If the answer to both is neither, and it should be, then variable length between tables is fair.

So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

You've never played skimmer heavy armies at all have you?

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

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

Still trying to talk down the argument, are you?

Why not simply admit that you were wrong and the game is not balanced to hold objectives over multiple turns?
Yeah, it's much easier to discredit the opposite, than actually answer to valid arguments.

However, maybe you simply have a look at the battlemissions? There is a mission which is called "Scorched Earth" or similar, for CSM. It's exactly the scenario which you have proposed, infantry models near one of the (3+d3) objectives collect points, with bonus points for last turn.
From playing this scenario multiple times, I have found it to be very broken in the current context. An army with units that can just sit on an objective while being effective (Space Marines, IG, Space Wolves, Eldar) have a great time and ramp up points so fast, that they pretty much are unbeatable by turn 5, except by getting tabled. Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

And even that mission has a random game length.

Jancoran wrote: if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

As an example, at my last tournament I ran a Terminator heavy Grey Knights army. Due to keeping units in reserve and a very low model count, I finished my games sometimes an hour or more before other players.

What am I supposed to do? Just pause the game for an hour until everyone is ready for the single roll? What if I want to get lunch, or spend some time checking out other armies, or see how my buddies game is going? It seems like a lot of inconvenience for no tangible benefit.

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

What.

Orks: Standard orks with T4, or grots going to ground

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

Dark Eldar: Wracks, even standard warriors.

Blood angels: Tac squads, assault squads

Grey knights: Terminators, strike squads, purifiers.

Be prepared.

Jancoran wrote:
So then you seem to be saying that if we keep it random and roll for everyone and used the same result for everyone this would cause...what problems?

A logistical nightmare, mainly. Plus a GREAT deal of frustration amongst players, even MORE pressure on people to bring smaller faster to play armies, this comping against hordes yet again, so they avoid the pressure of everyone waiting on them and only them to finish turn 5 so they can finish their game that started earlier.

Or, you can try the insane approach, whereby you segregate every single table so they cannot see or hear if others are still playing. You then need to go to every table, when theyre ready for a turn 6, to tell them if they get one. All without letting any other table outside of the one youre addressing know any of this, to avoid making it effectively fixed length.

All for zero tangible benefit.

So, a "serious" tournament would not try this, as quite frankly you would look incredibly stupid no matter what you did.

Or, you keep the status quo - both players know it is random game length, both know they roll the dice, and it exactly as fair for them as it is for another player.

In other words - given your entire premise is flawed (that random game length between tables is unfair) trying to build a workable strategy from a flawed proposition is doomed to failure.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

What.

Orks: Standard orks with T4, or grots going to ground

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

Dark Eldar: Wracks, even standard warriors.

Blood angels: Tac squads, assault squads

Grey knights: Terminators, strike squads, purifiers.

So you can leave those units out of the fight and still win? You must be an amazingly good player.

You have one of those units, true. The armies I mentioned before can easily leave three or more of those units sitting in the backfield with their thumbs up their backside without losing anything. If a GK leaves a squad of terminators and a squad of purifiers in his deployment zone and does nothing but shoot with them, he is not going to kill anything. Same for orks fielding three units of gretchin (maybe doable in a BW list, impossible in all others). As far as I know BA don't use tac squads and assault squads and outside of razorspam, assault squads are required elsewhere.

Kaldor wrote:
What am I supposed to do? Just pause the game for an hour until everyone is ready for the single roll? What if I want to get lunch, or spend some time checking out other armies, or see how my buddies game is going? It seems like a lot of inconvenience for no tangible benefit.

Saying no tangible benefit is disingenuous. The benefit has been explained and it is a tangible benefit.

But you make a good point. You are right. I play reserve HEAVY so I experience the same thing and that's legit. It would inconvenience a select few players more than some others.

There is no tangible benefit, it hasn't been explained at all. Individual rolls are the same as TO rolls except it's a logistic nightmare getting the TO to do it.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

I wasn't aware 18" (at best) was "across the board". Warriors can get a single 36" range gun - but that hardly matches C:SM or many of the other gunline type armies that can just sit on one objective and blow me off the others.

Jancoran wrote:

Dayvuni wrote:In serious tournies everything should be the same, same turn legnth, game type, point value. So yea, I won a big game on a dice roll and it didn't feel good because had it been one more turn I would be gone. Didn't feel fair.

That is the feeling I have had on occassion too. Both those who win AND those who lose are affected by the fact that others got a chance they did not.

In one-on-one games, who cares? it's totally fair to both of you. But when numerous peoples tourney standings are being affected, not just a single games decision, it is totally different in impact.

If the TO gave everyone the same amount of time, you'd feel no guilt at all about winning right? Everyone else got the same deal.

And they also should use the same codex as they aren't all equally balanced if complete fairness is what you are striving for.

Actinium wrote:There is no tangible benefit, it hasn't been explained at all. Individual rolls are the same as TO rolls except it's a logistic nightmare getting the TO to do it.

While you are...intintionally...ignoring the benefit, I am willing to concede (and already SAID) that it could be a logistical problem. Here again, you're focusing on all the problems instead of being a solutions guy. That's not helping.

Maybe it's just my attitude in general, but I feel like you need to look towards how TO do things and how TO make things work instead of focusing all your energy on the negative. People who say you can't win with a Swooping Hawks army makes me want to go out and win with one (so i did). Not because it's easy nor the "best" way. Just because I tire of the absolutism so many gamers seem to fall prey to. I get real bored of listening to superlatives all the time.

I am personally interested because, while I will not be doing it for our current tournament (and may never institute any of this), I am interested in ways to make players feel like their wins really mean something.
While those who lose semi-consistently will take their wins any way they can, fair or not, those who win consistently have another goal: legitimizing themselves as elite. The one camp just wants to win once in a while so they can make sense oftheir investment. The other camp doesn't concern itself with winning anymore. They've already proven they can do that. Instead they concern themselves with the level of the competition. The harder the better. Neither one is wrong, actually. They are just in different places, with different goals.

Some here have said that they have moved on in a tournament when they feel a better person probably should have (in essence). I have heard people espouse support for fixed length (though in the minority) in this very thread and others. So what I hear is that the opinion isn't unanimous as you think it is.

So then.

What say you to 6 rounds + Random game length?

It is part of the game, you are playing that game, it should stay. Skill is dealing with variables not removing them.

Drew14 wrote:It is part of the game, you are playing that game, it should stay. Skill is dealing with variables not removing them.

QFT. It affects the way you play the game.

rigeld2 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels or even Grey Knights, which do not have a bunch of units that can sit back and take potshots across the board, have about no chance to win by collecting mission points.

Tyranids: Warriors, termagaunts

I wasn't aware 18" (at best) was "across the board". Warriors can get a single 36" range gun - but that hardly matches C:SM or many of the other gunline type armies that can just sit on one objective and blow me off the others.

Than be aggressive in taking the objectives, I know which mission you spoke of before, the Chaos Pillage mission now that I looked it up from my editions. Be aggressive, by the rules you still collect points even in combat so long as you have something touching it. Pull them off, assault them and force them off while keeping a token task force on your own.

You have one of those units, true. The armies I mentioned before can easily leave three or more of those units sitting in the backfield with their thumbs up their backside without losing anything. If a GK leaves a squad of terminators and a squad of purifiers in his deployment zone and does nothing but shoot with them, he is not going to kill anything. Same for orks fielding three units of gretchin (maybe doable in a BW list, impossible in all others). As far as I know BA don't use tac squads and assault squads and outside of razorspam, assault squads are required elsewhere.

Than get up and be aggressive, the battle mission Pillage allows you to take points even if you are in combat and next to it with your own.

Jancoran wrote:
What say you to 6 rounds + Random game length?

How is that different from 5-7 rounds random? It's the same, but with one more round guaranteed.