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.

If games are not reaching their natural conclusion, there are 3 things that can be done. So the question is, which of these is the best course of action to address the problem?

#1. Lower the point limit.
Pros: It seem that lower point games take less time to finish, but how low do you have to lower points before most games finish naturally?
Cons: In the past there has been a lot of pushback with this as points started to creep up to 2000 point games. These days with 6th edition codex’s lowering point limits you get more bang-for-your-buck, but people still want to play with all of their toys.

#2. Increase the time of the games.
Pros: Although this is not a cure-all, it will help some games finish on a dice-roll instead of one where both players know it would end on turn 5, or make a 4 turn game into a 5 turn game etc. Also people underestimate how time will help because of the way that 40k works. Most of the time is spent on turns 2-4 and turns 5+ normally play much faster.
Cons: There are only so many hours in the day, and if you increase the round times you might have to drop the numbers of games. In tournaments with a win-loss format this means that a single undefeated winner might not be possible.

#3. Do not change anything.
Pros: It is easy to do.
Cons: Some games not finishing naturally.

#4. There is not an issue with time, only slow players.

At Nova only 2 of my 8 games ended due to time. No need to change anything from my perspective.

#5. Enforce rules about slow play.
Pros: minimizes the problem of deliberate stalling, allows a solution to the problem before the game reaches the time limit.
Cons: requires tournaments to provide sufficient judges who are willing to do their job properly, which may not be a viable option for smaller events.


But other than that, lower point limits. Extending game time isn't an option when you're already using up the entire available time for an event, so that leaves lower point limits. And no, wanting to play with all your toys is not a very good reason, a big part of building a list is the fact that you can't have everything you want and have to make intelligent sacrifices to stay within the point limit.

I'm strongly opposed to shortening game time as it penalizes some armies (Orks and Nids for instance, who are already at the bottom) and rewards fast playing gunlines (which are fast because they ignore 2/3 of the game)

Personally my vote is for smaller points. This game is already losing its skirmish roots, lets not exasperate the problem. Maybe even cut slots proportionately if need be.

It seems the only time this is a real problem for me is if one or both players don't know the rules or aren't familiar with the opponent’s (or their own) codex.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
At Nova only 2 of my 8 games ended due to time. No need to change anything from my perspective.

Some people think that not finishing 2 games in a tournament is unacceptable.

 Peregrine wrote:
#5. Enforce rules about slow play.
Pros: minimizes the problem of deliberate stalling, allows a solution to the problem before the game reaches the time limit.
Cons: requires tournaments to provide sufficient judges who are willing to do their job properly, which may not be a viable option for smaller events.


But other than that, lower point limits. Extending game time isn't an option when you're already using up the entire available time for an event, so that leaves lower point limits. And no, wanting to play with all your toys is not a very good reason, a big part of building a list is the fact that you can't have everything you want and have to make intelligent sacrifices to stay within the point limit.

I agree that penalizi slow play is part of the solution, however, I think the impetus falls on the players more than the organizers. As a judge I cannot possibly monitor time on every table, but if a player makes me aware of slow play I can intercede.

Breng, what do you think about this idea mentioned in the last thread to help alert judges to slowplay?

SCP Yeeman wrote:
I haven't been to the bigger of the 40k GTs like Adepticon or NOVA, but dont most have long posts with table numbers on them? What if along with the table numbers, you had a round counter on them as well? I think this could alert the judges as to what round some games are on and maybe they can give some encouragement to pick up the pace.

You could have rounds 1 and 2 be colored red. This would be to show that the game is in its infant stage. If 30 mins are called, and a red card is still up, the judge should go over and see what the deal is. Rounds 3 and 4 could be yellow while rounds 5-7 could be green, meaning everything is good and the game is getting to the right number of turns.

 RiTides wrote:
The idea of a red/yellow/green card per table would help there:

Red: Rounds 1-2
Yellow: Rounds 3-4
Green: Rounds 5+

A judge walking around could look for red cards with 45 minutes left and tell those players to hurry. Honestly, if "dice down" is acceptable to end a round, "dice down" to end a slow-playing turn should also be possible.

Players are resistant to chess timers but you can't have one person taking 1 hour 45 min out of a 2 hour 15 minute game. I think there are solutions: the card idea, chess timers, longer rounds, etc.

Another idea with chess timers- just have them count UP. Then you have a record of how much time a player has used. Combined with the card idea, a judge then inspecting a red card would not have to be subjective- he could call "dice down" on a player if they had used over 65 - 70% of the time and the game was still on turn 2-3 at the three quarter game time mark.

I think there are solutions and practicing timed play for 40k and making it part of the culture could be good, if applied correctly and not just copy pasting another game system's timing rules.

For the poll, I voted longer round time, but a combination of a slightly longer round time, and slightly lower point level, also works. As well as the idea posted here... I think it could really help shepherd those inevitable few tables that are far, far behind the rest (and alert TOs like Breng77 to them automatically).

1500 point GTs here and there would be a nice, refreshing change of pace!

 RiTides wrote:
Another idea with chess timers- just have them count UP. Then you have a record of how much time a player has used. Combined with the card idea, a judge then inspecting a red card would not have to be subjective- he could call "dice down" on a player if they had used over 65 - 70% of the time and the game was still on turn 2-3 at the three quarter game time mark.

The issue with chess clocks is that 40k's actions don't divide neatly. For example, who spends time when you're rolling saves against my shooting? Who spends time if you have a dispute over rules/LOS/etc? Simply counting time for each player's turn is unfair because of these factors, while trying to measure it precisely would make the chess clocks slow the game down and provide endless opportunities for arguments.

I think the issue can partially be fixed in the setup of the tournament itself. Bear in mind I'm coming from the "increase game time" camp.

1) Make sure you have a realistic expectation of how long the games will take. I've seen "we'll start at noon and end by 8 and play 3 2k games" before, and it's simply not possible. A 2k game can take 3+ hours to play, not including setup and pairings. So, when you decide your start/end times, make sure you have enough time for a full game.
2) Make the admin stuff as efficient as possible. As soon as the last game finishes, you should be able to have your pairings for the next round up within 5 minutes. Whether it's a spreadsheet or a dedicated program, it needs to happen fast so people can get on with the next game. More about why in item 3...
3) Don't take breaks. If you allow enough time per game, most tables will finish before that one that takes the full time does. So that's when everyone who just finished can go grab lunch, or use the bathroom, or smoke. If I just finished a game 30 min early, I don't need a special hour and a half break to eat. Instead, that extra time can give me a longer game or get me home earlier, both of which are very good in my book.

 greyknight12 wrote:
3) Don't take breaks. If you allow enough time per game, most tables will finish before that one that takes the full time does. So that's when everyone who just finished can go grab lunch, or use the bathroom, or smoke. If I just finished a game 30 min early, I don't need a special hour and a half break to eat. Instead, that extra time can give me a longer game or get me home earlier, both of which are very good in my book.

But then if you're one of the people playing right up until the deadline you're playing for 5+ hours without a break even if you finish your next round early. I agree that taking an hour and a half for lunch in a one-day tournament is a waste, but there needs to be at least a bit of a break between rounds and at least one break where everyone can plausibly get some food.

 Peregrine wrote:
#5. Enforce rules about slow play.
Pros: minimizes the problem of deliberate stalling, allows a solution to the problem before the game reaches the time limit.
Cons: requires tournaments to provide sufficient judges who are willing to do their job properly, which may not be a viable option for smaller events.


But other than that, lower point limits. Extending game time isn't an option when you're already using up the entire available time for an event, so that leaves lower point limits. And no, wanting to play with all your toys is not a very good reason, a big part of building a list is the fact that you can't have everything you want and have to make intelligent sacrifices to stay within the point limit.

How would you suggest doing this Peregrine?, the few ways that have been suggested locally have not been good enough IMO and I feel its a very hard thing to enforce.

I think lowering the points limit would be the way to go. I actually like 1500 more than 1850 and I bet you'd have a higher % of people finishing in 2 hour rounds with fewer points. It's not just orks or bugs, any high model count army takes a while for turns if you move, space out, and shoot/assault/run/etc bigger units, its the nature of the beast.

 RiTides wrote:
Breng, what do you think about this idea mentioned in the last thread to help alert judges to slowplay?

SCP Yeeman wrote:
I haven't been to the bigger of the 40k GTs like Adepticon or NOVA, but dont most have long posts with table numbers on them? What if along with the table numbers, you had a round counter on them as well? I think this could alert the judges as to what round some games are on and maybe they can give some encouragement to pick up the pace.

You could have rounds 1 and 2 be colored red. This would be to show that the game is in its infant stage. If 30 mins are called, and a red card is still up, the judge should go over and see what the deal is. Rounds 3 and 4 could be yellow while rounds 5-7 could be green, meaning everything is good and the game is getting to the right number of turns.

 RiTides wrote:
The idea of a red/yellow/green card per table would help there:

Red: Rounds 1-2
Yellow: Rounds 3-4
Green: Rounds 5+

A judge walking around could look for red cards with 45 minutes left and tell those players to hurry. Honestly, if "dice down" is acceptable to end a round, "dice down" to end a slow-playing turn should also be possible.

Players are resistant to chess timers but you can't have one person taking 1 hour 45 min out of a 2 hour 15 minute game. I think there are solutions: the card idea, chess timers, longer rounds, etc.

Another idea with chess timers- just have them count UP. Then you have a record of how much time a player has used. Combined with the card idea, a judge then inspecting a red card would not have to be subjective- he could call "dice down" on a player if they had used over 65 - 70% of the time and the game was still on turn 2-3 at the three quarter game time mark.

I think there are solutions and practicing timed play for 40k and making it part of the culture could be good, if applied correctly and not just copy pasting another game system's timing rules.

For the poll, I voted longer round time, but a combination of a slightly longer round time, and slightly lower point level, also works. As well as the idea posted here... I think it could really help shepherd those inevitable few tables that are far, far behind the rest (and alert TOs like Breng77 to them automatically).

I think instead of cards something that might work is a turn counter, think A frame design with cards for each player with turn number on them, have the cards collored (as you described), that way the players can just use it as a turn counter while also communicating some to the judge. I think the issue with just having cards is that it adds something for players to try to remember that is not integral to their game (oh yeah we reached the end of turn 2 time to change our card.), if it is a turn counter so at the end of the turn I flip the card to turn 2 it is a bit more natural. You could also design it so that each player has a counter and they flip it at the end of their turn, that way the judge can even tell top or bottom of some turns.

It is an interesting idea and I might try to work it out for my GT next year. That said it is also important that players take responisbility for themselves, if they feel they are getting slow played they should call a judge early, so that he can be aware.

Still not a fan of chess clock, I have considered timers for each table just to make it obvious to players what the remaining time is. I find when you keep players up to speed on the time they finish more consistently.

Okay, just a turn counter, no chess clock then . I'll be thinking about the design of one, that the players could see the turn number as well as the judges (ie the number facing in and out). Should be doable they might even make something as a teaching aid that would work.

The problem is the number of players that don't even realize how slow they play.

The turn counter I was thinking about would be something likehttp://soccer.epicsports.com/images/detail/13620/view.html The idea would be to have the numbers colored, on the side facing the players it would be numbered 1-7, then color code the numbers to let the TO know what round they are on ( you could either use the red, yellow, green, suggested or different for each turn) Then have the players flip the numbers over the top, once fliped the color on the back would let the To know what round it was

SO Tun 1 would be red (so nothing flipped or red is round 1-2) , turn 2-3 would be yellow (that way yellow would be turn 3-4) Turn 4+ green, that way green is turn 5+.

You need to add an option for both, more time & less points. A mix of both would probably yield the best results. I would say a turn timer would be good ala chess, but then how would you handle things like tau overwatch etc? 3hr rounds minimum are a must at 1750.

My personal opinion is that games are in fact much slower due to 6th, for a number of reasons:

-More interactions between players during the game (overwatch, interceptor, etc)
-Intense pace of releases means people don't have ready-set solutions to new books, and take time figuring it out (or trying to) during the game
-Premeasuring leading to some players measuring inordinate amounts of potential angles and movements in order to make a decision, rather than just moving and getting going

In 6th I've had 2 games called due to time up until NOVA, one went to 5, the other went to 5 but went significantly past time. However, in that game we were told not to worry about time and just to play to finish, so we went played carefully/joked around more than we should have admittedly.

At NOVA, I felt I got slow played by opponents who I consider friends/I know in 4/9 games I played, with all of those ending on 4. I timed my turns to ensure it wasn't me, but opponents took ridiculously long turns 1 and 2 (45 minutes + for their half) due to indecision primarily. If I were to receive a penalty for slow play in these games (with how sour i already was that I couldnt get my opponents to hurry up) I may have lost it :-p.

Overall I feel the solution is a bit of everything:

-Lower the point values to 1500-1850 at the very most. Some events are still 2000. The higher point limits were justified by folks in 5th as "you need higher points to balance codexes which are older and overpriced, so that they can also take answers to everything". With the rapid codex updates, lowering of point values, and allies in particular, any army can pretty much take an answer to anything at almost any points value - the "balance" between 1500 and 2000 is no different in my eyes.

-Extend round times to 2.5-3 hours. It aids in games finishing, it makes the day feel better and you get to know your opponent without feeling like you're sprinting.

-In the opening remarks of a GT, as a judge/organizer, make a little comment/speech about what slow play is and how it won't be tolerated. From what I've seen, when this is done it's in everyones mind while they play, and the players who don't realize they play slow will intentionally speed up to avoid this label (enacting some self policing).

Just my thoughts!

I think day 1 you play 3 games at 3hrs each. Get your top players in a bracket using some combo of BP & WL. Then do what you gotta do single elimination style to get your 1 winner. Or some other hybrid format. Note this is a response to both your polls.

I also agree that 2k is too much for a single player tournament. More LOS blocking terrain would also help cut back on indecisive players.

I voted that there really isn't a problem with the games, just slow players or situations that drag play (rule hangups).

If I had to choose between option 1 and 2, I think lowering the points is the most effective solution. I hate it because even at 1850, I have a real hard time getting the toys in to get a list to do what I want it to do, but I'd rather make that sacrifice than drag tournaments out longer.

Here is the thing about slow play penalties though.

Would you be upset after 2 games you got docked point because you got slow played?

Sure of course you would.

Would this (I hope) cause you to inform a judge about the slow play prior to the game ending?

The thing I keep hearing is "I got slow played" but having run events, players never seem to bring this up until the game is over.

If you knew you would get penalized more than likely when your opponent was taking a 45 min turn you would get a judge, because you don't want to get penalized.

I agree that this should be combined with events making changes to make sure ample time to finish games is available (currently I run 2k points with 3 hour rounds).

Saying slow play won't be tolerated is meaningless if there is no penalty in place for dealing with it.

If a player comes to me after a game, and claims they got slow played what as a TO do I do about it?

DQ the opponent? Only Dock them points?

If I tell people, we don't tolerate slow play, you will have x penalty assessed for each game you don't finish.

Say -5 Battle points for first game
-10 for second etc..

Then players will self police.

If I say slow play won't be tolerated and no players come forward and complain that they are currently being slowplayed. As a TO my hands are tied.

What you need to provide is both incentive for players to complete games, and incentive for players feeling that they are being slow played to speak up about it when it is occuring.

Part of this is having appropriate time, part of it is sending the message, that penalites will occur for slow play, part of itis making sure players are made aware of the round time, and part of it is following through with those penalites if need be.

Players don't self police, in theory including sportsmanship is supposed to be self policing...people don't take it seriously. They need to be given a reason to self police.

"Hey, if you don't finish your games, and you don't let me know about the slow play, you get hit for it just like your opponent."

That said an increasing penalty should mean that if you get slow played 1-2 games it is not a huge deal if you slow play 8 games....you won't place.

Good ideas in the forum:

Smaller points are good, to not be able to take all the toys and make tough decisions.

The card system or at least some easily seen turn counter and some guidelines of where people should be at a given time.

Many of these games should go smoothly, new players in tournaments WILL drag the game on, it is just identifying those intentionally trying to slow the game not someone new to the rules (who deserve some mercy).

It is the large use of contentious rules and strange combinations to exploit that cause the biggest slow downs as rules and FAQ's are referenced.

Hi

While the net effect would be the same, isn't it psychologically better to award a bonus for reaching natural completion than issuing a penalty for not reaching that conclusion?

For example, the tourney I used to run awards 5 points if you submit your army list one week early for review. If you want the points, send it in.

Spit-balling:
What if you awarded points for each turn completed. It would probably have to be a sliding scale with a bell shape. It would need to be significant enough for players to desire to play to at least turn 5 when evaluated against a sure turn 4 victory. I should note that it does nothing for pure-win loss formats unless you had a threshold that would result in disqualification at a certain point.

Assume 30 battle points per round as the comparative value.
Points per turn:
turn 1 complete: 1 points
turn 2 complete: 2 points
turn 3 complete: 3 points
turn 4 complete: 6 points
turn 5 complete without die roll finish: 12 points
turn 6 complete without die roll finish: 13 points
turn 7 complete: 15 points
die roll finishes on turn 5 or 6 and tabling: 15 points.

This incents players to reach turn 5 consistently with a moderate bonus for making it farther than that. In a points based-event, there is a significant impact on placement for failing to complete games.

The downside is that you could end up with group of players deliberately dragging other down threats to their favorite player by aiming for a 3 turn tie, in the same way that you get block voting for painting at some events, and sportsmanship sandbagging of people as well. On other words, the typical horror stories for BP tournies.

Of course, there is always the issue of mutually beneficial dishonesty on the part of players, but *shrug* there isn't much to be done about that.

Other comments on comments:
Peregrine - can you ball park for me the ratio of tables being played on to judges you envision for there to be an adequate number there to oversee slow-play and all other issues? Is it one for two, one for five, one for ten? I am trying to assess whether this is a realistic expectation or not. (BTW, I agree with you on the chess-clock stuff 100%)

Cheers,
Nate

I have several issues with awarding points rather than a penalty.

1.) It ammounts to the same thing. If I don't get the points it nets out to being a penalty if everyone else does. Say other max point winners get 20 for the win + 15 for finishing naturally they max at 35. If I only get to turn 4, because I get slow played it costs me 9 points even if I max out.

2.) I would need to rework battle points entirely to make the point spread meaningful. I work with a 20 point max. So if I were to award 15 points for finishing your game 42% of the total score gets awarded for finishing games.

3.)I'm morally opposed to providing incentive for doing something people are supposed to do. You don't deserve a bonus for finishing your games, you are expected to finish, finishing should be the norm.

4.) It is does not really increase for repeat offenders. My current penalty gets worse for each game you don't finish. This system is likely to cost someone an event by failing to finish one time.

5.) Harder to police. It is easier to track then games don't finish, than it is to track natural conclusions.

Essentially either the award for finishing has to be so significant that it takes over the game, or it won't matter.

Either way could work but the ammount of book keeping is larger for awarding points to everyone rather than penalizing the (hopefully) few people failing to finish.

Pretty simple answer in my opinion...

Lower the points limit to 1500.

There are multiple benefits to this:
1. This disallows unit spamming and forces players to make hard choices with their army composition.
2. Games will go quicker.

In my opinion the only reason tournament players whine, bitch and moan about lower points is because it forces them to make the hard choice (#1) and significantly drops the power level of most, if not all of the staple tournament lists being played.

 oni wrote:
In my opinion the only reason tournament players whine, bitch and moan about lower points is because it forces them to make the hard choice (#1) and significantly drops the power level of most, if not all of the staple tournament lists being played.

Or perhaps they recognize that lowering points levels increasingly emphasizes the rocks-paper-scissors aspect of the game.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 oni wrote:
In my opinion the only reason tournament players whine, bitch and moan about lower points is because it forces them to make the hard choice (#1) and significantly drops the power level of most, if not all of the staple tournament lists being played.

Or perhaps they recognize that lowering points levels increasingly emphasizes the rocks-paper-scissors aspect of the game.

I don't know Danny, most people would consider me in the tournament player camp I'd imagine, and I don't think the game gets any more RPS at 1500 versus 2000.

Yeah 1500 points won't have the effect people claim on the top armies. IT certainly does not discourage spamming.

Eldar serpent spam at 1500 looks much the same as if does at 2k.

Tau don't lose a whole lot.

What 1500 really cuts down on is allies in a lot of cases.

I agree with Danny though that 1500 leads to less TAC lists and more extreme builds.