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.

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

Armies and rules have also changed a lot as well, for instance, in 3E you didn't have wound allocation gimmick multi-wound model units, and fewer multi-wound model units in general. Many of the issues present now didn't exist or didn't exist in the same ways.

Also, armies that can fit lots of high performance specialists into few points or that run deathstars often tend to do much better at somewhat restricted levels than armies that rely more on generalist units that lack the survivability of deathstars.

For instance, being able to run 3 kitted ML long fang squads, a Rune Priest and two grey hunter units at 750pts against an opponent fielding just two troops and 1 HQ that individually may be more capable but can only do so much each round, is obviously going to favor the more specialized SW army, whereas at say 2000pts, the power of those long fangs is diluted as they can't continue to expand on that strength and those generalist units that the SW opponent is running get to play off each other much better.

Same reason why games above 2000pts with 1 FoC (like the old Hard Boyz) tend to massively favor IG armies, as they can still add more tanks and more dudes as other armies run out of FoC slots, because the IG can still build on their strengths where as others are basically just tossing in more upgrades and flair instead of more meat.


So yeah, at 2000pts everyone usually can have their cake and eat it to. At 1500 many armies can basically just scrape off the top layer of frosting and still eat it, while others are having to make do with a cupcake.

I find army themes also are generally better expressed with more points, as you have room to fit in the fun and fluffy stuff on top of the stuff that you "need".

Yes themed armies With more "fun" stuff could be fielded (and would certainly be refreshing), but I don't see the extra points used for this as much as I see them used to build one of the popular 2000pt netdeck lists for the codex in question is...

Sadly, I don't see fluff or "theme fun" factoring In to many tournament lists these days...

Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

To me this implies that a tournament organizer might take more extreme measures in addition to a lower point limit. For example, in addition to the 1500 point limit, a more restrictive and different than standard FOC. For example: 2x HQ, 2x Elite, 4x Troops, 2x Fast Attack, 2x Heavy Support... and the 1500 pt limit.

CT GAMER wrote:Yes themed armies With more "fun" stuff could be fielded (and would certainly be refreshing), but I don't see the extra points used for this as much as I see them used to build one of the popular 2000pt netdeck lists for the codex in question is...

Sadly, I don't see fluff or "theme fun" factoring In to many tournament lists these days...

To quote don_mondo to me: You need to get out more. Down here in Texas we have a lot of themed and non-net deck list building, and it turns out to be fun until those lists become net lists. I'm playing Tau for the Alamo GT this weekend because no one else was scheduled to take Tau. Should be fun. Yeah, playing for fun isn't dead here.

yakface wrote:

This topic particularly irks me because I feel that people don't really appreciate the impact of what they propose. Too many people have the attitude of: well if I can do 'X' or my buddy can do 'Y' then everyone should be able to, without thinking of what message such an overall change actually sends to both current tournament players and those considering attending tournaments for the first time as well.

Before I get too far into this, let's look at a few incontrovertible facts (this is going to be 40K-centric since its what most people talk about when this issue comes up):


FACT #1: There is no mention of time limitations in the rules for 40K.

Instead, players are allowed to choose any force from any codex in any legal configuration they choose. Taking a 20 model Palladin army is just as acceptable as taking 200 model Tyranid army.

Counter-fact: There is no mention of composition in the rules for 40k, either,
and yet many tournaments have them. Why? It's part making the tournament
fun and part logistical. I think it's silly to use that fact to counter timed turns.

FACT #2: It takes longer to complete a turn when you have more models to move, shoot, fight close combat with.

Yes, some veteran gamers have practiced enough with their horde armies to be able to move at blazing speeds, however the simple incontrovertible fact remains that it just takes more physical time to pick up and move more models and roll more dice for more models then it does when you have less models in your army.

True, but if you run a tournament you have to have fixed time limits of some
sort in order to keep to a schedule. Are you saying it's fair that larger armies eat
up more clock on both ends of the game? I think people should try to play
with a chess clock to see what would happen with their turns.

FACT #3: Tournaments are not reserved just for veteran players.

Well, I suppose someone could create a tournament where only veteran players were allowed, but in general tournaments are supposed to be for everyone to attend. And more importantly without having a fresh influx of new tournament players, eventually you wouldn't have tournaments anymore!

Clocks are good for newer players as well. A newer player doesn't know
when their opponent is a slow player or stalling for time. The clock makes
all of that objective.

Players of any skill and background should be allowed to pick any legal army and bring it to a tournament and have the same reasonable expectation to play and finish their games as those who bring tiny model count armies if for no other reason than that the game is written to allow both types of armies!

I'd argue that a player of any skill and background should be able to
deal with a clock. They're already dealing with a round timer. Again,
I argue that a newer player can and will be played for time without
knowing it.

If a regular-joe non-veteran gamer isn't able to finish any of his games at a tournament with a horde army and he's moving and rolling dice at the same speed as the guy with the 20 man army, then the problem is not with him it is with the tournament.

Whether you realize it or not, the ballooning of point values in games while keeping tournament round times roughly the same has created a 'meta-game' element that essentially punishes players for taking larger model count armies and rewards those who bring small model count armies.

Then you figure out what a "reasonable" time is. Part of this is a push to
making events single-day events. I have never done a multi-done event in
my life, and I don't ever intend to. It takes a lot of time for me to commit
to single day events as both an organizer and a player.

I also think single-day events fit the criteria for being "open to newer players."

Therefore, players are pushed away from large model count armies and into small model count armies by this tournament meta-game change that does not exist in the actual rules for the game.

And again, this is just a fact of tournaments. A lot of tournaments
I've seen use custom scenarios and other things to keep game play
fresh, exciting and fun. Getting to play four turns to completion is also
beneficial to keeping game play fresh, exciting and fun.

Just as an example, I've heard that PP specifically have reduced the time limits allowed in their events to help 'push' people away from taking infantry-based armies and instead relying more on jack-based armies.

A chess clock changes that. There were plenty of infantry heavy armies
this past year at Adepticon.

Whether or not that is actually true (I don't know myself), is really irrelevant because the point is still valid. When you reduce time available to play, players will feel the need to go for smaller model count armies.

I think Redbeard proves that that's false, or at least, I'd like to see him
play under a chess timer to see if that's false or true.

1) All armies start to look and feel the same.

Yep, there's a reason why you keep seeing more and more Paladin-spam armies and less and less Tyranid armies. Yes there are other factors involved besides players not wanting to have to deal with unfinished games, but that factor no doubt helps to contribute. I think we all hate and lament playing against similar army builds multiple times throughout a tournament, yet that's precisely what improper time constraints on tournaments help to promote.

I think this is also a problem with game and scenario design. I don't know
what the fix is for 40k tournaments.

2) This meta-game change ends up affecting the power levels of non-horde armies as well.

Some army builds are actually countered by horde-type armies. However, if improper time constraints in tournaments helps to push players away from taking large model count armies then all of a sudden players cognizant of this fact now no longer have to take those types of armies really into consideration when constructing their armies. This in itself helps make certain army builds much more viable then they would be if you had a ton of high model count armies running around tournaments.

This I'm not familiar with as I don't play 40k.

3) It isn't fair to players who naturally play horde armies.

Imagine Timmy goes out and starts playing Tyranids because he loves the models. After years he's built up a nice awesome beautiful army and now he wants to play in tournaments but when he does so he struggles to complete his games because of how many models he has to move and shoot with in relation to how much time is allocated for each game.

Now, some people will simply say that Timmy should switch to a different army or change his army build to include less models. However, why should he have to? What if Timmy likes his army and in his home games with no time-limit he has no problem doing well with the army. Why should a player be denied the ability to play a perfectly valid army type simply because other tournament players and organizers want to keep pushing the points limits of their games up to an unrealistic level in comparison with the time allocated for each round?

The answer is of course should be that a player shouldn't have to do that. If they are playing a valid army and they are playing at a normal speed that everyone else is playing at there should be enough time in the tournament round to complete their game. And if there isn't enough time then the tournament needs to either lower their point level or increase the amount of time allowed for each round.

What about players who have to play against a slow timmy?

I think the discussion has to be based around what we think is fair.

Equal points are fair.

Equal number of turns is fair.

Maybe learning to play a horde list faster is fair. After all, horde lists
should feel frenetic and crazy to play anyway in the name of full immersion.

Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.



----

Is a player with a horde army blazing through his movement, shooting and assault but still taking 30 minutes for a critical turn where lots is going on 'slow playing', while a player with 20 models takes only 15 minutes for his turn even though he may be taking his time to really consider where to move, etc, isn't?

If so, then we've got some serious, serious problems with the perception of what 'slow play' actually is.

Let's figure it out. Run some players on a chess clock and see how much time it takes.

Sorry missed the rest of your post yak. Will have to read later.

malfred wrote:
Counter-fact: There is no mention of composition in the rules for 40k, either,
and yet many tournaments have them. Why? It's part making the tournament
fun and part logistical. I think it's silly to use that fact to counter timed turns.

Malf,

My commentary about the issue with timing players was aimed squarely at the game of 40K rather than gaming in general. I think it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable (and fun) for games to be designed with timed rounds or chess clocks in mind, with Warmahordes seemingly being a great example (although only knowing of this from reading and talking to people about it).

When it comes to 40K, additional composition requirements for tournaments is almost a non-existent concept at this point and time.


But let me break down the difference between 40K and PP when it comes to timed rounds to show you what has happened:


With Privateer, they created a game that was supposed to be centered around Jacks with other elements as support but over time this had changed to the point where Infantry heavy armies were apparently rather more powerful than Jack builds. So PP clearly addressed this issue quite a bit with their Mk2 rules, but also (and I can't remember where I heard this but I thought it was somewhere reliable) that they chose to also keep the time limits pretty tight for their tournaments to again help steer people towards taking smaller model count armies, which would naturally mean more Jacks.

This isn't to say that people can't still take high model count armies to PP events as you so rightly point out, but it is something that I'm sure requires a bit of extra skill and practice to do....but here's the kicker: This are all decisions decided upon by the company that makes the game.


Now let's see what has happened with 40K:

The game was written and designed essentially so that some armies tend to function best at being high model count (aka horde) armies, while others are more elite smaller-model count armies. No time restriction component is written in the game rules. Only a standard point limit is recommended, which happens to be 1,500 points, but as with all things GW they make sure to point out that the choice is really yours.

However, over time players continue to buy and paint new models and naturally they want to use more of those models because that's fun to do, so they start whining to their tournament organizers that they'd like to play larger point sizes games. Tournament Organizers capitulate and over time the points levels rise up to 2,000 points becoming the benchmark in some areas and some tournaments like 'ard boyz even sky rocketing up to 2,500 points....and even worse the point levels in the current edition are actually much lower per model then they were when tournaments were first started, so now actually playing an average army with a smattering of different types of models, then a 1,500 point army today is going to tend to be larger than it was 10 years ago.

But despite the increase in points and the decrease in points-per-model, the round lengths for tournaments have barely been increased, because as you say, the practical restrictions of getting an event done in time.

So what this has meant to the 40k tournament meta-game is that over time it has become expected for players to simply have to move much faster if they plan to bring a higher model count army, even though this kind of pressure was never taken into consideration by the designers for their armies. In fact, there are even certain armies like Tyranids that can't even realistically be taken as a small model count army...you literally *have* to play a horde list with them to even have any kind of chance.

Therefore unlike with PP where specific changes were made by the designers to push the game in a specific (desired) direction, with 40K the community as a whole has unknowingly pushed the game in a direction that the designers never meant for the game to be in.


So its a very different can of worms. I don't want to get into how superior PP is to GW when it comes to tournament design (because we all can see how much better they are), but I just keep trying to point out to the 40K community what has happened. Actual 'slow play' should not be confused with players playing fast but having a perfectly legal and acceptable 40K army, and if anyone thinks the latter should be punished (by relegating them only to experienced players who can handle moving everything incredibly fast) then they are attempting to address the symptoms of the problems instead of the cause.


The cause is that 40K is now expected to be played at a points level that doesn't equate with the amount of time given for rounds when you take into consideration the wide array of different army types AND player skill levels that should be welcome at 40K events.

As we aren't magically going to start finding more time in each day, that means the real solution to this problem is to: reduce the number of points played in most 40K tournaments.

The problem is, people don't want to hear or believe it. They want to believe that because they've played the game for 25 years and are super quick with them and their friends that its totally okay to marginalize horde armies for newer players because 'they can do it'.

Unfortunately that mindset only helps to keep marginalizing said armies which is one of the (several) reasons that certain army builds get played much more often than others. But to blame this entirely on GW for poor scenario or game design isn't fair, because the COMMUNITY here has pushed external factors into the game that weren't meant to be there and then try to blame the game and other players (besides themselves) for the issue.

yakface wrote:
When it comes to 40K, additional composition requirements for tournaments is almost a non-existent concept at this point and time.

Wow. When did this happen?

But let me break down the difference between 40K and PP when it comes to timed rounds to show you what has happened:


With Privateer, they created a game that was supposed to be centered around Jacks with other elements as support but over time this had changed to the point where Infantry heavy armies were apparently rather more powerful than Jack builds. So PP clearly addressed this issue quite a bit with their Mk2 rules, but also (and I can't remember where I heard this but I thought it was somewhere reliable) that they chose to also keep the time limits pretty tight for their tournaments to again help steer people towards taking smaller model count armies, which would naturally mean more Jacks.

This isn't to say that people can't still take high model count armies to PP events as you so rightly point out, but it is something that I'm sure requires a bit of extra skill and practice to do....but here's the kicker: This are all decisions decided upon by the company that makes the game.

True enough. However, I always argue that just because warjacks and
battlegroups are meant to be the centerpiece of any good army, infantry
can and should play their part in a battle game. Centerpiece should not
equate with using them in large numbers all the damn time.

(in case you're wondering, I fall on the side of Warmachine being a
wargame and not a warjack-centric one)

Now let's see what has happened with 40K:

The game was written and designed essentially so that some armies tend to function best at being high model count (aka horde) armies, while others are more elite smaller-model count armies. No time restriction component is written in the game rules. Only a standard point limit is recommended, which happens to be 1,500 points, but as with all things GW they make sure to point out that the choice is really yours.

This happens in Warmachine as well. Except, because we build our armies
based on templated models rather than upgradeable ones, we use the large
collections to do ridiculous things like require pseudo compositional type things
like requiring players to play a set number of lists throughout an event (this
happens only at the big cons thus far).

However, over time players continue to buy and paint new models and naturally they want to use more of those models because that's fun to do, so they start whining to their tournament organizers that they'd like to play larger point sizes games. Tournament Organizers capitulate and over time the points levels rise up to 2,000 points becoming the benchmark in some areas and some tournaments like 'ard boyz even sky rocketing up to 2,500 points....and even worse the point levels in the current edition are actually much lower per model then they were when tournaments were first started, so now actually playing an average army with a smattering of different types of models, then a 1,500 point army today is going to tend to be larger than it was 10 years ago.

I see, this is a TO issue as the tournament scene is not necessarily tied
to the design team.

But despite the increase in points and the decrease in points-per-model, the round lengths for tournaments have barely been increased, because as you say, the practical restrictions of getting an event done in time.

So what this has meant to the 40k tournament meta-game is that over time it has become expected for players to simply have to move much faster if they plan to bring a higher model count army, even though this kind of pressure was never taken into consideration by the designers for their armies. In fact, there are even certain armies like Tyranids that can't even realistically be taken as a small model count army...you literally *have* to play a horde list with them to even have any kind of chance.

Sounds like a challenge I'd like to see how much time horde armies
actually use over the course of the game.

Therefore unlike with PP where specific changes were made by the designers to push the game in a specific (desired) direction, with 40K the community as a whole has unknowingly pushed the game in a direction that the designers never meant for the game to be in.


So its a very different can of worms. I don't want to get into how superior PP is to GW when it comes to tournament design (because we all can see how much better they are), but I just keep trying to point out to the 40K community what has happened. Actual 'slow play' should not be confused with players playing fast but having a perfectly legal and acceptable 40K army, and if anyone thinks the latter should be punished (by relegating them only to experienced players who can handle moving everything incredibly fast) then they are attempting to address the symptoms of the problems instead of the cause.

Different game styles, I suppose. A Warmachine game can end suddenly (as
I keep finding out to my chagrin at big events) and so have no set number of
games. 40k games are intended to be slugfests that end after a set number
of turns.

The cause is that 40K is now expected to be played at a points level that doesn't equate with the amount of time given for rounds when you take into consideration the wide array of different army types AND player skill levels that should be welcome at 40K events.

As we aren't magically going to start finding more time in each day, that means the real solution to this problem is to: reduce the number of points played in most 40K tournaments.

Interesting. Or switch to two-day events (which I've said I hate)

The problem is, people don't want to hear or believe it. They want to believe that because they've played the game for 25 years and are super quick with them and their friends that its totally okay to marginalize horde armies for newer players because 'they can do it'.

Unfortunately that mindset only helps to keep marginalizing said armies which is one of the (several) reasons that certain army builds get played much more often than others. But to blame this entirely on GW for poor scenario or game design isn't fair, because the COMMUNITY here has pushed external factors into the game that weren't meant to be there and then try to blame the game and other players (besides themselves) for the issue.

I want to see how much time people use for these games. Chess
clocks are remarkably fair in that you're tapping over your time
for different things. I guess that would have to become a habit
in the tournament scene.

malfred wrote:Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.

Agreed here... or perhaps 6th edition will be designed with tournaments in mind?

What... I can hope, right

Looking forward to trying out my first chess clock warmahordes tourney soon! I do think they just wouldn't work for 40k the way the game is currently designed, or if they were used would influence the kinds of armies taken and result in an unfortunate even Larger shift towards marines 24/7. And that would be a bummer... but at the same time, there has to be a good solution to give players their "fair share" of the time during a game.

The other problem with chess timers is that your opponent must do things "on your turn" in 40k, like attack back in combat, that doesn't usually happen in warmahordes (with the exception of special rules like counter charge or the like).

Not sure what the solution is, but there needs to be one! Smaller point levels or longer game times is a good start.

RiTides wrote:

malfred wrote:Not that there aren't problems with chess timers, but I think fair
timing is just something 40k tournaments have to figure out.

Agreed here... or perhaps 6th edition will be designed with tournaments in mind?

What... I can hope, right

Looking forward to trying out my first chess clock warmahordes tourney soon! I do think they just wouldn't work for 40k the way the game is currently designed, or if they were used would influence the kinds of armies taken and result in an unfortunate even Larger shift towards marines 24/7. And that would be a bummer... but at the same time, there has to be a good solution to give players their "fair share" of the time during a game.

The other problem with chess timers is that your opponent must do things "on your turn" in 40k, like attack back in combat, that doesn't usually happen in warmahordes (with the exception of special rules like counter charge or the like).

Not sure what the solution is, but there needs to be one! Smaller point levels or longer game times is a good start.

However, chess timers allow you to "tap over" time to let your opponent make decisions.

Yeah, which makes total sense for my Hordes games. However, for 40k I just see a problem with things like combat where it's not totally clear whose time it should be under... or else you'd be flipping the button back and forth quite rapidly as one person rolls to hit/wound, the other allocates and makes saving throws, rolls to hit/wound, then back to the first player to allocate and make saving throws.

I would be very interested to see it attempted, I just unfortunately don't see it working as excellently as it does for warmahordes... and think that the key would be an improvement to game design in the coming edition, or else TOs continuing to have to mitigate it like they are trying to currently.

Or maybe another idea that we haven't thought of... yet!

The idea of clicking time back and forth during interactive Phases of 40k is almost mind n umbingly absurd on its face, and there is still no expectation of equal time in the current 40k rule set. Implementing the concept of equal time is army comp. now people will have to take units with simpler rules as to save time. Anything with a complicated mechanic or multiple rolling or is time consuming would need to be rebalanced in points to make it fair for this arbitrary false concept of equal time.

Works for blood bowl. It is absurd on its face for 40k and game breaking. Basically it means play marines as you have less rolls, less randomness and will consume less time.

Right- which comes down to (mostly) game design, I think...

Part of the issue of 40k tournaments and imposing time restrictions is that it isn't chess. Chess is a symmetrically balanced game where there are only two distinctions, players skill and who goes first.

40k is at best asymmetrically balanced, though in reality 40k is a game that comes closest to being balanced when both players chose their armies on how "cool" an idea or model was. You have too many players who go into a tournament or even average games with the perspective of creating as much imbalance in their favor before a games even started. This just accentuates the inequities of different armies.

I think what tournament organizers need to ask is "what is the goal of this tournament?"

Is the goal is to test how good players are when everyone is min-maxing? Or is it to see who plays best with a balanced army? Is it to determine who the best player is? Or is it just for fun?

If its 'ard boys, the whole thing is based on a premise of "too bad"... so you can really implement anything, waving that "eff you" finger proudly.

When it comes to tournaments often enough its hard to enforce basic rules let alone ones that require either special equipment or a constant observer for every table.

If implemented the simplest way to do time restriction would be to have a tournament organizer calling "time" every so many minutes, where if a player isn't done, "too bad" and you go onto the next players turn and making a few wait a minute. At that point fairness is just about making sure that the time given is sufficient for horde armies. The point of a time limit, is that it forces players to think ahead, prioritize, and not dilly-daddle. As long as the rules are announced ahead of time and people know to expect it, people who bring armies too cumbersome to deal with it, only have themselves to blame.

I wouldn't mind, UNLESS they were trying to force me to hurry up

jwolf wrote:

To quote don_mondo to me: You need to get out more. Down here in Texas we have a lot of themed and non-net deck list building,

Id love to see some example lists/pics

It has been stated, but to reinforce--chess clocks dont work in 40k. If there is an issue with players not finishing games, it is something that TO's need to address, either by isolating intentional slow play or adjusting points/time limits. Players should not feel it is their 'right' to enforce a time limit on their opponent, as no such 'right' exists and only animosity between players results when one starts harrassing the other to play faster.

As to the current 'meta' of 40k, it definately favors small/elite armies over hordes via tournement structure. Not only does a small elite army take less time to move around, it also is easier to transport, cheaper, easier to paint, and thanks to having fewer models the details of the models stand out more than the 200+ identical models of a horde.

tfgguy wrote:I wouldn't mind, UNLESS they were trying to force me to hurry up

That's a highly subjective and self-centered basis... For anyone who's taking too long, that's precisely what its intended to do, hurry them up. The question:' is it justified?"-I think that on the basis that the tournament is a limited duration event and its success and the fun of the guy playing against the slow player is dependent on the slower player to hurry up, it is justified. This is a question about fixing the status quo, where the very assumption is that slow players are not acceptable... and while people might not like a time limit, a time limit is likely preferable to excluding armies of a certain type or size or excluding those players who do take to long. It at least gives players a chance where they might have none.

Nothing could be more unappealing to me than timers. I have seen people playing warmahordes game the clock to win... It doesn't really add anything positive to the tourney scene IMO.

Timers are absolutely perferct for warmahordes tournies. If you don't play the game, it's understandable that it might be unappealing to you... but it is as perfect a match for warmahordes as it is a subpar one for 40k.

-666- wrote:Nothing could be more unappealing to me than timers. I have seen people playing warmahordes game the clock to win... It doesn't really add anything positive to the tourney scene IMO.

People game the round clock in 40k too.

It's probably the same guy playing both games, in fact.

RiTides wrote:Timers are absolutely perferct for warmahordes tournies. If you don't play the game, it's understandable that it might be unappealing to you... but it is as perfect a match for warmahordes as it is a subpar one for 40k.

Been watching on how Warmordes play out and yes timers would work well in that system. As far as timers for 40k? Been there. Done that. It is a different meta of list building I liked it as it is another way and method of sharping your skills in game play. I like playing Comp armies and 1500 point armies list as well for the same reason.

Well all of this is going to be moot when 6thED comes out as the present way of playing will be changed. I believe that the model count is going to be larger, the army lists are going to be bigger and the game is going to slow down even further.

I see the problem, but it's weird.

I played an IG foot army yesterday with my armored company at 2000 pts.

He had upwards of 300 models, I had 20 (one chimera, 10 LRBTs, 8 Guardsmen and a HWT).

My turns took longer than his, and the whole game ended with his victory in an hour and forty minutes or so.

Why is this a problem for everyone else? This has been my repeated experience.