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.

Has there been any thought given to doing away with random game length for higher point tournaments? I don't have any clue what the results are looking like, but if people know that at 1750-2000 points you'll be stopping after 5 turns there will be less people getting screwed by an unnaturally stopped game.

I can think of plenty of reasons that might not work, or might not even help at all, but I'm curious if its been considered?

 tomjoad wrote:
Has there been any thought given to doing away with random game length for higher point tournaments? I don't have any clue what the results are looking like, but if people know that at 1750-2000 points you'll be stopping after 5 turns there will be less people getting screwed by an unnaturally stopped game.

I can think of plenty of reasons that might not work, or might not even help at all, but I'm curious if its been considered?

I don't like it because of 2 main reasons:

1) You can stall if you know exactly when the game is ending, especially if you are ahead.

2) Fixed game lengths favor the more mobile army who is going 2nd. Fast armies have a huge and unfair advantage in objectives-based games if they go 2nd. And people will be crying broken once again to Necron Air Force armies.

 tomjoad wrote:
Has there been any thought given to doing away with random game length for higher point tournaments? I don't have any clue what the results are looking like, but if people know that at 1750-2000 points you'll be stopping after 5 turns there will be less people getting screwed by an unnaturally stopped game.

I can think of plenty of reasons that might not work, or might not even help at all, but I'm curious if its been considered?

Good Players will adapt to anything but having a random game length is better for tournaments in my opinion. There is a lot of clock watching when you know it will end. Random also gives someone a chance who may be losing to go all out for that turn 5 win, draw, etc if they know they are going to lose if it goes to turn 6 or 7.

At the Indy Open we used 1750 points and 2:15 minute rounds. We had only 4 games go over and 2 that mattered for pairings. Be it we only ran a 64 man event. What we did to keep the time flowing though was a few things:

We posted pairings 15 minutes early and allowed players to do everything to begin the game except roll for seize and start the game. This does a few things. For players who really want to ensure they get all the time they always finished. We also had a 30 minute break or an hour break in between. If a game needed to go over they lost part of their break. After 30 minutes in each round I made announcements that if they aren't on turn 2 they are moving to slow. Gentle prodding helps and reminds people they should be playing at a particular speed. The problem with 6th ed in my opinion is starting late with all the pre-game warm ups we have to do. I.E. Roll for this power, this boon, this warlord trait, etc, etc. Giving players 10-15 minutes to get this done before your actual playing time was the key to staying on track every round. If games were going to slow I was advised of the situation and personally made an appearance to observe and coach accordingly in a positive manner.

If games were going over, my judges and I stood at the table watching and if a game was obviously one sided ensuring the game was completed quickly. We only really had to do this 4 times.

My $.02.

Spaguatyrine

How much time did you allow between rounds? We've always allowed 15 minutes and that has been fine, but this last time around it wasn't enough.

And no worries at all on putting in your two cents, don't be shy. Your experiences can only help us get better.

Y0ou could always allow for say 20 minutes before rounds but allow players to start early if they are read y to go. There really are only so many things you can do with so many people without taking the entire week to run the darn event.

Has anyone ever tried a single elimination event over one day? I know this i8sn't practical for travelers but it would be interesting ha ha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Here's a perfect example for you, at the recent event that included FW that I attended I faced an Avenger Fighter from Aeronautica. The model has two las canon barrels and two auto canon barrels mounted on its wings similar to a dakka jet. I assumed it was twin linked weaponry YET I STILL ASKED.... Low and behold the G-damm thing had 2 auto canons 2 las canons and an avenger bolt canon... Oh wait and a heavy stubber out the rear! It pays to ask when someth9ing doesn't ;look right and I bet you Allen will not make the same mistake ever again. This also would have given him an opportunity at the event to voice his opposition to his none WYSYWIG model before it was a major issue in game.

Conclusion: Both players share blame here.
.

You mean your opponents model was WYSIWYG? It is a good thing you got to the bottom of that!

Actually no I asked to read the unit entry in is book and saw the picture first, his model arrived in the mail that morning and wasn't fully assembled! Rather then make an assumption I then asked about it rather then read through the whole section as I figured it was faster. Guess what? He was more then helpful and gave me more then enough information about it including its weaknesses. Either way you are now dodging the main point which is you share responsibility for not asking questions and making assumptions about an unknown model at an event that you knew included FW. Like I said before, what if it had a lower AP sub munitions round? You would still have lost your squad do to a stupid error.

 Red Corsair wrote:


Actually no I asked to read the unit entry in is book and saw the picture first, his model arrived in the mail that morning and wasn't fully assembled! Rather then make an assumption I then asked about it rather then read through the whole section as I figured it was faster. Guess what? He was more then helpful and gave me more then enough information about it including its weaknesses. Either way you are now dodging the main point which is you share responsibility for not asking questions and making assumptions about an unknown model at an event that you knew included FW. Like I said before, what if it had a lower AP sub munitions round? You would still have lost your squad do to a stupid error.

Your opponent had a FW model and you asked him about the FW rules. My opponent had a GW model and thus I did not have to ask him about it's FW rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reecius wrote:
How much time did you allow between rounds? We've always allowed 15 minutes and that has been fine, but this last time around it wasn't enough.

I think what you had was a perfect storm of little problems and they all added up to be a big problem

Because everything was packed in it took a while to make your way to the scores table to get your pairings, then back to your table to get your army and then find your new table. So you were short on time to start, and as we said, 6th edition takes a little longer to play. Because of that a lot of games ended due to time being called and so everyone wrapped up at the same time and then made their way to the scoring table. Frankie was overwhelmed and then it took a while to get the scores all in, and then the next round started late, etc.


What the Indy Open did was nice because there is so much you have to do in 6th even before you start the game that getting pairings up 15 minutes early meant that they really had 2.5 hour rounds which seems about right.

@Blackmoor

I agree. It was a layering of little things that became a bigger thing.

Lesson learned though, we wont make the same errors again.

The feedback though has been overwhelmingly positive, so people had a lot of fun. Even the people who said their experience was less than awesome, or even bad, gave really good feedback on why they felt that way that we can use to improve and grow.

I like the idea of building in an extra 10-15 min between/at the start of rounds for setup and deployment. They do this at Battlegrounds in MA, and it's always been nice. Having that extra time is especially helpful in a large event with a big hall where you need time to find your table and move your army over, while a huge crowd of other gamers carrying display boards are doing the same thing.

It reminds me of one of my pet peeves at GTs- folks who don't push their darn chairs in when they walk away from their table! The aisles are choked enough as they are, folks!

And one last thing on time...


I think "us" as players need to do more to be proactive as far as time management goes. That means keeping track of time like timers or cell phones, have an army that can play fast, and if not have a system that speeds play. And then if falling behind encouraging and motivating our opponents to hurry up.

 Reecius wrote:
How much time did you allow between rounds? We've always allowed 15 minutes and that has been fine, but this last time around it wasn't enough.

And no worries at all on putting in your two cents, don't be shy. Your experiences can only help us get better.

Two years ago we did 2:30 and I realized that people got finished at the 2:30 minute time most of the time. I then went to adepticon, and nova, and realized that people play to the time that they are given a majority of the time. I also went to a bunch of RTT's as well as ran some and played with different time frames. What I found is that whatever time I had whether is was 1:45 minutes in smaller point levels or longer time in larger ones, most of the players still finished within a few minutes of the time alloted. So I helped support a local tournament that I played in where they were given 2.5 hours for 1500 points. I finished all of my games in 1 hour and sat and was astounded that even strong players were taking over 2 hours. I then decided to try cutting the time down and building in that extra 15 minutes in the break to 30 minutes. The players got finished in 2:15 for the most part.

So out of testing I realized that most people will finish in the time you allow them if they have the time to set up first. I.E. the pre-warm ups I was talking about. Gamers never listen when you give an announcment when the next round starts so I asked my staff to tell everyone to be in the ballroom since pairings will be up 15 minutes before the round starts. Worked out failry well. I am also a little pushy with people who are late or who are playing so...in a kind of nice kind of not way.....

I also couldn't have done it without a great team tho. LOL.

I would love to make it out next year depending on the timing. I assume we run in the same month so that will be hard to do.

Spaguatyrine

 Blackmoor wrote:
And one last thing on time...

I think "us" as players need to do more to be proactive as far as time management goes. That means keeping track of time like timers or cell phones, have an army that can play fast, and if not have a system that speeds play. And then if falling behind encouraging and motivating our opponents to hurry up.

I tried, Allan, I tried. The cell phone just keeps ending back up in my pocket though.

My watch battery quit on Wed before the BAO. So, I took *two* different watches (a Timex and an Elgin)to Fry's because replacing that one last year was a pain ... and Fry's did not have any batteries in stock that matched 'em. WTF.

For the next few casual and even the next RTT games at G.E., I'm going to actually bring it out and try to consistently get turns done in 12 minutes. Since I'm not playing MSU DE, and using SW/IG, it ought to be do-able.

I agree with Blackmoor in regards to the Hammerhead with railguns proxied as plasma cannons. It's not his responbility to ask and I think a lot of people would overlook it - his opponent should have told him. To me the bottom line is conversions shouldn't be allowed to represent Forge World units or upgrades in general.

In regards to the event I think it is has provided many lessons for other TOs. Hopefully people will learn from it.

There were a ton of proxies there in all directions. Stormravens, whole demon armies. How was this hammerhead such a problem lol?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=544282525592319&set=oa.430292797046560&type=1&theater




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heated rules debate,

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=544266128927292&set=oa.430268767048963&type=1&theater

Well, the issue with the Hammerhead is that a Railgun is a different weapon entirely from a plasma gun.

Now, I would have immediatly guessed it was a Forge World upgrade, but that it was a Twin-linked Railgun.


Basically, if Forge World is allowed and I see something that isn't what normally comes on a GW kit I willl ask what that thing is.

Right, I asked about it in just a few seconds while looking at his army in between rounds. We all play 40k here and a lot of us were at the BAO, it seems entirely unreasonable for anyone to have not asked at some point before the game started.

Specially in the later rounds on day 1 or anytime day 2, it was evident that there was a ton of "leniency" for all things conversions, FW or just because.

Silly to throw a fit about the Hammerhead, but all the other count-as driving around or flying around was ok? I dont think there was a lot of staff around at the event but the packet and website seemed to hint that they had a plan to deal with count-as and modeling issues....

but if you can drive blackmoor off the table with complicated rules discussion and ambitious drive to win the game and the tournament, then more power to you!

yenhoi wrote:

Heated rules debate,

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=544266128927292&set=oa.430268767048963&type=1&theater

I didn't know Meat Loaf was there!

yenhoi wrote:
Right, I asked about it in just a few seconds while looking at his army in between rounds. We all play 40k here and a lot of us were at the BAO, it seems entirely unreasonable for anyone to have not asked at some point before the game started.

The responsibility falls to the player who is using a "Counts As" model to let their opponents know what the model represents. Counts As gets taken to too much extreme. I've seen an entire army including the list "modeled and labeled as" Dark Angels, but yet in the details of the list it was using Space Marine rules. The opponent never said a word about it until the game was well underway. Modeling cool stuff and having "fluff" built in is all great. However, it is one more item that the opponent must track. While Allan could have asked, it is not his responsibility.

Modeling cool stuff and having "fluff" built in is all great. However, it is one more item that the opponent must track. While Allan could have asked, it is not his responsibility.

Copied and pasted for truth. Exactly what Greg said. I expect my opponents to tell me during army list discussion whenever something is proxying for something else.

yenhoi wrote:


Right, I asked about it in just a few seconds while looking at his army in between rounds. We all play 40k here and a lot of us were at the BAO, it seems entirely unreasonable for anyone to have not asked at some point before the game started...

Silly to throw a fit about the Hammerhead, but all the other count-as driving around or flying around was ok? I dont think there was a lot of staff around at the event but the packet and website seemed to hint that they had a plan to deal with count-as and modeling issues....

Okay so you and your friends know due to familiarity with each other since you play together in a local setting. I fail to see how that translates to a large event with lots of players showing up from out of town. It takes all of a couple minutes to explain to your opponent what is your Forge World you brought to play. Is that asking too much? This would help to facilitate the Tourne packet you mentioned and make Forge World more acceptable to a greater number of players (IMO).

I think part of the problem was that this was the first big GT with Forge World and like a lot of other people am not in the habit of asking if they have any forge world. As the rules packet stated, they must go over all of their models that are not WYSIWUG.

For example:


Lyzz's army is mostly converted and you have no idea what most of her units are. At the begining of our game she went into great detail about each of her units and what they represented. That is why I had no problem with her proxies/models.

Its just as easy to ask and not be pissed lol.

Is that a picture frame used for a display/ carrying case?

Looks like, it's actually a relativlely cheap way to make a display board. I made a display board from a cork board from Target that cost $7.99. Just add some sand, flock, and paint and you're set!

Bummed I couldn't be there this year, hopefully I can make it next year!

Lyzz's army is easy to understand.

Screamer=screamer
Jellyfight/shroom=pink horror
Giant winged thingie=bloodthirster
Chariot=herald of Tzeentch on a chariot
Anything left=flamer

 schadenfreude wrote:
Lyzz's army is easy to understand.

Screamer=screamer
Jellyfight/shroom=pink horror
Giant winged thingie=bloodthirster
Chariot=herald of Tzeentch on a chariot
Anything left=flamer

The tentacles were screamers as well.

The point Blackmoor is making is that she explained it all very thoroughly.

Counts as with a clear explanation an done uniformly to make it not confusing:
Counts as with guns that look exactly like something that could be a viable choice from the codex (ia /fw book):

yenhoi wrote:


Its just as easy to ask and not be pissed lol.

Fail.

The modeler with the converted army bears the responsibility of full disclosure of his army and any count-as models.

However, with that said, if you factor in playing 6-7 games, people forget. It is very easy when you are fatigued to forget about mentioning one of your proxies/count-as units. In that case, it can lead to some nasty surprises in the middle of a game like it did in Blackmoor's game.

So while it is the responsibility of the party with the conversions to disclose, I'd say it's just as important for the other party to not assume and just ask if a model looks weird or out of the ordinary.

Not allowing Forge World proxies would solve everything. Twin linked railguns fails the rule of cool (IMO).

Or require everyone to submit a picture of their proxy/counts as for the judgement of the organizers. It would take a little extra time, but I think it would go a long way to helping solve some issues.

Of course you should also require everyone to explain what everything in their army is.

I think in addition to requiring a picture sent to the judge for approval, it may be a good idea to include a picture of what is what in your army list, and also to explain to your opponent what "counts as" what. That said I am opposed to ever using exisiting codex weapons to "count as" something else in the same codex. I.e. If say a razorback had a funk gun so you put a rail gun on top of it...that is ok, but doing the same on a tau vehicles is not. There is just an expectation that when you see a Rail gun (or melta gun etc) in an army that contains said weapon, that What you see is what it really is.