Switch Theme:

Incomplete Games = Double Tourney Forfeit: Pros & Cons  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Would you attend a WH tourney where incompletion up to Turn Five led to a double loss?
Yes
No

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





Berkeley, CA

A few weeks ago, I had a mini-freakout when I heard that the final game (of five matches) at the top table didn't complete its fourth turn. I'm not going to tell the where & when, but lets say that both players used the same faction with a (very) similar list, that there were forty players there, and that the "top" players couldn't finish to an acceptable fifth turn, but less an natural conclusion.

This freakout entailed me declaring that such a final game outcome was unacceptable; that BOTH players should lose (forfeit) their game; and that, if they were both under such a threat of mutual loss, they would definitely have finished their games.

Now, I have played Hoard Orks in both Fifth & Sixth editions, I'm fat, and not spry. However, I have only once not finished a tourney game (other Ork player against whom I neglected to turn to screws of efficacy). I have always known to organize my dice; have decided play during my opponents turn;, have not fussed about rules that didn't matter; have completely given up on combats that were obvious or irrelevant; and basically not acted as though I had unlimited time to vacillate on the perfect move.

I know that this solution is draconian. However, I put a GREAT importance on complete games, as opposed to perfect games, and that I know my solution with train players to organize their habits towards that end. I think it's a question of moral hazard: if you don't have the incentive to complete a game, you won't strive to do so.

(Also, I am very suspicious to chess clocks as a solution: see this discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558290.page).

Those are my thoughts; would like to hear yours.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/07 19:39:19


Paul Cornelius
Thundering Jove 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





While 40k is "not meant for tournament play", I do believe that reaching a random turn length conclusion is key to crowning the most deserving winner.

There's been several polls and discussions about round times, tournament point levels, and chess clocks this year.

It's obviously a hot topic and deserving of serious consideration.

Starting turn 5 knowing there will be no turn 6 due to time gives an enormous advantage to the player who went 2nd. Games really need a random ending to maintain whatever balance the game was meant to have.

My blog - Battle Reports, Lists, Theory, and Hobby:
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Agree ^^

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/21 16:09:43



7000pts
(In Progress)

"I don't need to hold a single objective to win any of the missions" -FlingitNow 
   
Made in us
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





Berkeley, CA

 hyv3mynd wrote:


Starting turn 5 knowing there will be no turn 6 due to time gives an enormous advantage to the player who went 2nd. Games really need a random ending to maintain whatever balance the game was meant to have.
Right. I should revise myself: ending naturally (i.e., randomly) on Turns Five, Six or Seven is the goal which I demand to meet; ending (unnaturally) on Turn Five is semi-acceptable; not getting to or not finish Turn Five is UNacceptable, and demands censor.

Paul Cornelius
Thundering Jove 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





My thought would be if you are going to do it on the top table, then you should do it on every other table as well. If you want to go to not finishing = DQ, it should be that across the board. Just good luck policing it. The solution as always is to fix point value and round time. Penalties for not finishing kind of work but in general you will just piss players off when they feel like the other guy slow played etc.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






'knowing this is the last turn' regardless of if it is turn 3 or turn 6 gives an advantage to the person who went second. I see no difference to the game ending on turn 4 or turn 6 if the game ends due to time and not a dice roll off. Being in the bottom of a turn and being able to tactically make decisions with no fear of reciprocity changes the game. If I can shoot one unit off an objective and move units into super exposed locations which if I had another turn, I wouldn't do is an issue.

So playing to 'turn 5' doesn't solve the issue of 'this is the last turn' if the game didn't end naturally via diceroll even on turn 6 or 7. You would have to punish all games which don't end naturally regardless of turn they were on when time was called.

If it was a top table, they should have just let the game continue and a judge should have been hovering to identify slow play. If it was just a slow game due to mechanics, especially if it is a top table (IE: later game) then let them finish.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




i say both players should have been tied to a stake, flogged and be forced to watch as a steamroller flattens their armies.

My question is why does it matter to you if the table next to yours doesn't get to the same number of turns in a round? As long as there is a winner who cares how many turns the game went? (barring of course intentional slow play by one opponent)

Honestly I don't think I'd enjoy a game with you. You are coming across as the type of player who rushes his opponent and would constantly tell him to hurry up even if he is playing as fast as he can. I myself field orks and just finished the models to field a 180 boy 6 troop slot footslogger list backed up by 2 full sized mobs of Kommandos. Any bets I'll ever be able to finish a 6 turn game in 2 hours?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Boss GreenNutz wrote:
i say both players should have been tied to a stake, flogged and be forced to watch as a steamroller flattens their armies.

My question is why does it matter to you if the table next to yours doesn't get to the same number of turns in a round? As long as there is a winner who cares how many turns the game went? (barring of course intentional slow play by one opponent)

Honestly I don't think I'd enjoy a game with you. You are coming across as the type of player who rushes his opponent and would constantly tell him to hurry up even if he is playing as fast as he can. I myself field orks and just finished the models to field a 180 boy 6 troop slot footslogger list backed up by 2 full sized mobs of Kommandos. Any bets I'll ever be able to finish a 6 turn game in 2 hours?


There are those who feel you shouldn't be allowed to participate in tourneys and the tourney should have artificial comp limiting builds which may have time consuming mechanics from participating in the event.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





actually unless both players start the turn knowing it will be the last turn, there is a big difference between ending on 4 and ending on 5+. IF "time" is called say at the end of the top of 4, and you play out the bottom, there is a chance that the player with turn 1 did not prepare for the possibility of the game ending.

IF you go to at least turn 5 both player play the game with the idea that it at least could be the last turn. Now if both players are certain turn 4 is the last turn there is not a huge difference, it is just like playing say turn 7, except there tend to be more things alive.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




nkelsch wrote:
Boss GreenNutz wrote:
i say both players should have been tied to a stake, flogged and be forced to watch as a steamroller flattens their armies.

My question is why does it matter to you if the table next to yours doesn't get to the same number of turns in a round? As long as there is a winner who cares how many turns the game went? (barring of course intentional slow play by one opponent)

Honestly I don't think I'd enjoy a game with you. You are coming across as the type of player who rushes his opponent and would constantly tell him to hurry up even if he is playing as fast as he can. I myself field orks and just finished the models to field a 180 boy 6 troop slot footslogger list backed up by 2 full sized mobs of Kommandos. Any bets I'll ever be able to finish a 6 turn game in 2 hours?


There are those who feel you shouldn't be allowed to participate in tourneys and the tourney should have artificial comp limiting builds which may have time consuming mechanics from participating in the event.


I agree. I'd never bring an army of over 220 models on foot to a tourney. I was merely pointing out that I believe the OP comes across that he even rushes "casual" games on beer and pretzel night..
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Also, time limits are not intended as Comp they are intended as a logistics issue, if your LGS is only open say 8 hours, guess what, you are not running 3 hour rounds (nor should you run say 2k points). Unless your opinion is that you should be able to play and not finish games past turn 3 or 4 and go in knowing this will happen due to model count, at which point I say play faster...find methods to do so(I have seen them.)
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Breng77 wrote:
Also, time limits are not intended as Comp they are intended as a logistics issue, if your LGS is only open say 8 hours, guess what, you are not running 3 hour rounds (nor should you run say 2k points). Unless your opinion is that you should be able to play and not finish games past turn 3 or 4 and go in knowing this will happen due to model count, at which point I say play faster...find methods to do so(I have seen them.)


Actually, the issue usually with high model count armies are not the movement phase, usually involves the 'dice rolling' phases. Like gunlines shooting tons of shots which are designed to shoot tons of attacks which will be saved by armor saves and such or close combat attacks in large numbers.

The issue is rolling a single lascannon and wounding and no save takes half a dozen of bolter shots to have the same effect for the same points... but one takes drastically more time. Add those up and you basically find any mechanic which relies on 'high number of dice, low chance of success' becomes a much more time intensive mechanic than the 'low dice, high chance of success' alternatives.

Also, anything with rerolls slows down mechanics a lot.

The reason why 'large model count' is always targeted is because people get more upset when they have to wait for non-interactive actions. The person may be moving at a fast pace, and the non-interactive nature of movement may get someone pissed off for waiting 4 minutes for movement, but ok with a 17 minute shooting phase.

I once played a green tide against an I. Guard in a tourney, and he accused me of slow play. The slow phase was his shooting phase as his massive number of slow shots smashed into my cover saves. So it is all a matter of perspective, but it is very hard to 'nail down' whose fault it is. And removing 'slow mechanics' from the game changes the META. The more aggressive the time punishment may be, the more the meta shifts to small powerful units.

So the whole discussion of 'bring stuff you can play fast' often fails when two armies with conflicting mechanics cross paths.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





it comes down less to game mechanics than it does to the little things IME.

Bringing a Tac template if you want to spread orks out 2" coherency.

Bringing Multi-colored dice for different shots, and saves.

Bringing deployment trays for your squads (I have seen boyz units magnitized to trays that were placed on the board then spread out to save time.)



Having pregrouped dice for saves (different colors with known numbers so you can grab dice quickly and not need to count as much, so I need to take 20 saves, well each color of dice is 5 dice so I grab 4 colors and roll. If I need say 17 I grab 3 colors and 2 dice.)- or share dice, tournaments with presupplied dice help here, you roll hits and wounds I pick up and roll saves.

Both players need to do these types of things, and it helps imensely.
   
Made in us
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





Berkeley, CA

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
i say both players should have been tied to a stake, flogged and be forced to watch as a steamroller flattens their armies.

My question is why does it matter to you if the table next to yours doesn't get to the same number of turns in a round? As long as there is a winner who cares how many turns the game went? (barring of course intentional slow play by one opponent)

Honestly I don't think I'd enjoy a game with you. You are coming across as the type of player who rushes his opponent and would constantly tell him to hurry up even if he is playing as fast as he can. I myself field orks and just finished the models to field a 180 boy 6 troop slot footslogger list backed up by 2 full sized mobs of Kommandos. Any bets I'll ever be able to finish a 6 turn game in 2 hours?


Regarding your first paragraph: a very good point, and doubly good because I have some libertarian instincts about minding my own business. So, barring some hypocrisy, let me argue I want to influence the culture to the importance of fast, organized and deliberate play; and to the avoidance of plodding, fumbling, over-thinking misplay. If the culture changes generally, my enjoyment will increase singularly.

As to you not liking playing against somebody like myself: it is possible. However, while I do put a primium on completion, I do have some sociable habits towards that end: helping my opponent move, and asking for help; allowing to opponent take backs when te mistake was obviously a result of fast play (e.g., not moving a unit, forgetting to shoot, etc,); not quibbling over rules that don't majorly impact the game; allowing the destruction of whole units just to move on. However, if mismanaging your dice, forgetting your stats, and pondering your moves Ishtar norm (I.e., doing the opposite as recommended for horde vs. horde), I would not enjoy playing against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, on causal game nights I play causally.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/21 18:50:30


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.

IMO there is not a good argument against giving both players a DQ if they do not at least get to a turn 4.

#1. Knowing that they have to get at least to a turn #4 motivates both players to speed up. Right now there is no motivation for fast play because there is no penalty in place if the game ends early.

#2. Some people say that someone should not get a DQ because of someone else slow play. In my experience now that you have a stick to get them to move faster, instead of the carrot of a turn 2-3 win, then you will see people play faster.

#3. I also hear that someone will tank a game and play slow to give both a loss. Most players think that they will win a game and play accordingly. The problem is that slow play abusers time the game so it will end in their favor. This way they will have to at least play most of the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/21 22:13:20



 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.


That would never happen.

#1. When do you realize you are losing, turn #3-4? Then you start to slow play?
#2. Most people are not jerks
#3. If you are beaten you are beaten.
#4. People who slow play do it to win, period.

You are not a tournament player, but people are motivated by manipulating the rules to win, not get a loss along with their opponents. There is nothing in it for a player to have both players lose.


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon






 Blackmoor wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.


That would never happen.

#1. When do you realize you are losing, turn #3-4? Then you start to slow play?
#2. Most people are not jerks
#3. If you are beaten you are beaten.
#4. People who slow play do it to win, period.

You are not a tournament player, but people are motivated by manipulating the rules to win, not get a loss along with their opponents. There is nothing in it for a player to have both players lose.


Lets say last game of a GT, two 5-0 players are the last ones left. Whichever one has the most points would benefit from a mutual loss, as he would likely win a Battle Point tiebreaker. And if he's losing, forcing it into BP tiebreakers can't hurt him at all.

But, I do overall agree with Blackmoor that that is incredibly unlikely to happen, I don't think it would at all. Still I don't like the idea of auto losses.


 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





ft. Bragg

Yeah I agree here, I think what the OP was upset about was a situation where two top players may have colluded to a "draw" and splitting whatever prize support was there for top 2 positions. Where as the number 3 going into the final may have been able to take over the 2 spot with a win (and a loss by the top table player). It happenes alot in competitive play across alot of game genres.

Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you" 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





I think we need a bit more information. How much time was allowed per round and what was the point level of the game?

If we're talking about 3 hours to finish a 1500 point game then yes they should be disqualified. If it's 90 minutes for a 2k game then the problem wasn't the players.

I've seen a number of tournament reports recently where a LOT of games failed to have a natural completion.

There are several issues involved. Starting with the fact that 6E just takes a bit longer to play a regular game than 5E did. Between warlord traits, random psychic powers, challenges, overwatch, etc.. there is just more going on.

To "fix" this, TO's need to either lower the point values being played or extend game time.

Lowering point values isn't normally what people want. So, extending game time seems like the most reasonable way forward. Of course, you can run into problems depending on where the tournament is held as it might mean extending how long a store is open..


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




purging philadelphia

 Blackmoor wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.


That would never happen.



I disagree, I usually travel to tournaments (as alot of people do) with a group or team of 5-6 teammates. If we're all in the running going into later rounds of a tournament, and you have a decent shot of winning and I get paired up against you, whats to stop me from looking at the game, playing to draw a minor win but failing that come turn 2(in my experience you can gauge your chances of winning a game roughly by turn 2, not saying thats decisive but you have a rough estimate) just slowing the game down in the shooting/assault phase starting turn 2 and forcing a double loss? It gives my teammates a chance of winning by knocking you out of the event, at the cost of a game I felt I had a good chance of losing anyway. While I understand you thinking it wont happen because players at tournaments want to win, I think the team/social dynamic throws a major wrench in that viewpoint.

I genuinely think that the notion of forcing a double loss for players who cant get through turn 4 is crazy. I wouldnt pay to go to an event that had this rule, based on the rationale above and other things like general bitterness etc. It just wouldnt be worth the risk of this happening. It'd also really screw up win/loss tournaments; how do you resolve this if it happens after bracketing in NOVA format etc.

2013 Nova Open Tournament Champ-
2014 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/13th overall
2014 NOVA Open Second to One
2015 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/10th overall

I play:
all the 40k

http://www.teamstompinggrounds.com
https://www.facebook.com/teamsgvideos
http://www.twitch.tv/sgvideo
@teamsgvideo

writer for http://www.torrentoffire.com/
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 jifel wrote:


Lets say last game of a GT, two 5-0 players are the last ones left. Whichever one has the most points would benefit from a mutual loss, as he would likely win a Battle Point tiebreaker. And if he's losing, forcing it into BP tiebreakers can't hurt him at all.


In that situation... you let the top table 'play on' with supervision of a judge. People are often adults and want to finish games. I would rather allow people to fudge on time, especially in later rounds than a 'dice down' type set-up which was handing out harsh penalties.


My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

thanatos67 wrote:
 Blackmoor wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.


That would never happen.



I disagree, I usually travel to tournaments (as alot of people do) with a group or team of 5-6 teammates. If we're all in the running going into later rounds of a tournament, and you have a decent shot of winning and I get paired up against you, whats to stop me from looking at the game, playing to draw a minor win but failing that come turn 2(in my experience you can gauge your chances of winning a game roughly by turn 2, not saying thats decisive but you have a rough estimate) just slowing the game down in the shooting/assault phase starting turn 2 and forcing a double loss? It gives my teammates a chance of winning by knocking you out of the event, at the cost of a game I felt I had a good chance of losing anyway. While I understand you thinking it wont happen because players at tournaments want to win, I think the team/social dynamic throws a major wrench in that viewpoint.

I genuinely think that the notion of forcing a double loss for players who cant get through turn 4 is crazy. I wouldnt pay to go to an event that had this rule, based on the rationale above and other things like general bitterness etc. It just wouldnt be worth the risk of this happening. It'd also really screw up win/loss tournaments; how do you resolve this if it happens after bracketing in NOVA format etc.


No offense but if winning a tournament is that important to a group of people you can have it. And that's the most polite way I can respond to the above.

In regards to the OP in general I'd prefer that proper time frames were given to finish games. That said I wouldn't mind a stick to beat people with if they don't play at a decent speed.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Hulksmash wrote:
No offense but if winning a tournament is that important to a group of people you can have it. And that's the most polite way I can respond to the above.


Sure, obviously that kind of thing is terrible sportsmanship. But it's still handing TFG an easy way to ruin tournaments.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




purging philadelphia

Yeah why do you think I said I wouldnt go to an event that created this scenario? I'm just hating the game, not the player.

2013 Nova Open Tournament Champ-
2014 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/13th overall
2014 NOVA Open Second to One
2015 Las Vegas Open Best Tau Player/10th overall

I play:
all the 40k

http://www.teamstompinggrounds.com
https://www.facebook.com/teamsgvideos
http://www.twitch.tv/sgvideo
@teamsgvideo

writer for http://www.torrentoffire.com/
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.

 jifel wrote:
 Blackmoor wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.


That would never happen.

#1. When do you realize you are losing, turn #3-4? Then you start to slow play?
#2. Most people are not jerks
#3. If you are beaten you are beaten.
#4. People who slow play do it to win, period.

You are not a tournament player, but people are motivated by manipulating the rules to win, not get a loss along with their opponents. There is nothing in it for a player to have both players lose.


Lets say last game of a GT, two 5-0 players are the last ones left. Whichever one has the most points would benefit from a mutual loss, as he would likely win a Battle Point tiebreaker. And if he's losing, forcing it into BP tiebreakers can't hurt him at all.

But, I do overall agree with Blackmoor that that is incredibly unlikely to happen, I don't think it would at all. Still I don't like the idea of auto losses.


If it was the final game on the top table most TOs would have them play it out. And what would really happen is that the players who will win on tables #2 and #3 will then leapfrog the players on table #1 for the win.


 
   
Made in us
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets





Berkeley, CA

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it gives the loser the ability to take the winner down with them. If I know I'm going to lose in this event I'm going to play as slowly as possible and prevent the game from reaching turn 5 so that my opponent also loses.
This is one of those fears that works better in theory than in practice. Ultimately, the vast majority of all slow players (if not all slow players) are honest, but incompetent, and the current system of allowing games to end early DOES NOT ENCOURAGE them to develop skills to correct said problems.

Paul Cornelius
Thundering Jove 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block



Missouri

 thunderingjove wrote:
A few weeks ago, I had a mini-freakout when I heard that the final game (of five matches) at the top table didn't complete its fourth turn. I'm not going to tell the where & when, but lets say that both players used the same faction with a (very) similar list, that there were forty players there, and that the "top" players couldn't finish to an acceptable fifth turn, but less an natural conclusion.

This freakout entailed me declaring that such a final game outcome was unacceptable; that BOTH players should lose (forfeit) their game; and that, if they were both under such a threat of mutual loss, they would definitely have finished their games.


Now, I have played Hoard Orks in both Fifth & Sixth editions, I'm fat, and not spry. However, I have only once not finished a tourney game (other Ork player against whom I neglected to turn to screws of efficacy). I have always known to organize my dice; have decided play during my opponents turn;, have not fussed about rules that didn't matter; have completely given up on combats that were obvious or irrelevant; and basically not acted as though I had unlimited time to vacillate on the perfect move.

I know that this solution is draconian. However, I put a GREAT importance on complete games, as opposed to perfect games, and that I know my solution with train players to organize their habits towards that end. I think it's a question of moral hazard: if you don't have the incentive to complete a game, you won't strive to do so.

(Also, I am very suspicious to chess clocks as a solution: see this discussion: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558290.page)

Those are my thoughts; would like to hear yours.



Have you ever taken into consideration that maybe these two were so equally matched that they really had to think each of their turns through? Not just make snap decisions that could lose the whole game? Did you hear either of them complain about it? I'm going to guess not, as if you had I think it'd been mentioned. As long as neither had any real complaints I don't see the real issue other than you wishing to impose an overbearing opinion on the rest of the competitors. You would be surprised how many games in a chess tournament aren't completed.

Even a mini-freakout is an over reaction to this situation.

Also, just giving up in combats or ignoring rules you deem unimportant does NOT make a complete game. It makes a rather incomplete game as you have skipped a few important processes like following the rules and not giving up. I have had a GK Justicar in power armor last 5 rounds of CC solo against an IG
blob of about 15. Yes, highly improbable but it
happened and they were denied their objective. So not all combats like that are lost causes. Giving up is poor sportsmanship, which IMHO is worse than not finishing turn 5. In a GT I would score a player that gave up in any way low in sportsmanship.

I play a low model count army of GK/White Scars or Raven Wing. Basically everything has two or more shots with rerolls to hit in shooting, and the GKs reroll to hit in CC(I love Prescience! ). So yes, this can take some time to get through a shooting phase, even with multi-colored dice and offering my opponent the chance to roll saves with my wounding dice. If I fight a shooty horde of Irks this can make for either a long game or a low turn count even if we both play efficiently.

Imposing a double loss rule just opens the door for sore losers, teams, and TFGs to manipulate the game and it WILL at some point screw over an honest player. Probably more often than it resolves anything.
   
Made in gb
Death-Dealing Devastator



Essex, UK

The only way to find a solution to this problem is to discard the solutions which cannot work logistically.

Chess clocks won't ever work, because Tau have too much out of turn stuff to do and even things such as wound allocation on large death star units like Seers, Beastpacks, Farsight bomb and Screamers is very important so can take a long time for both players to agree.

Double forfeit can cause intentional slow play from team mates in order to push results for players on other tables.

Upping the time can be abused as well. There was a recent example in the UK of a final round table 1 game not getting past turn 3! 3 hour rounds wouldn't have saved that game from slow play.

Horde armies are not the issue with slow play these days, it is more often than not involving the top tier armies such as Eldar, Tau and Daemons due to their incredible ability to punish mistakes. You have to be so precise with your model placement that it can take an absolute age to deploy and then to move as well. Ever tried drop podding Rune Priests with Jaws and Grey Hunters in front of Tau with Ion Accelerators? That needs to be particularly precise. Woe betide the player who makes a mistake in deploying second against Eldar Serpent Spam..... Oh and rolling powers and rewards for these FMC or Screamer Daemon lists.... Headaches!

I think more judges are the answer. ESPECIALLY for the top tables. Being able to resolve rules issues and LoS or wound allocation disputes quickly and correctly is vital to play time.

I also think bringing back a form of sportsmanship score in terms of speed of game play can help. Marking someone down for playing slowly would not immediately affect someone's score, but if you mark someone down as a slow player (not an intentional 'Slow Player') and they fail to finish say 2 or even 3 games in the allotted time in a 6+ game tournament, they should lose points for their play style. THAT would encourage people to learn how to use their army efficiently and within an acceptable time span.
   
Made in au
Terrifying Treeman






The Fallen Realm of Umbar

I think equity of time is ultimatley a big issue here, for example, if top table is a teq army versus a horde army and it doesn't make it to end of turn 4, then is it fair to lay equal blame at both players feet? It's not as if the teq player can move the horde players army and complete actions for him is it?

DT:90-S++G++M++B+IPw40k07+D+A+++/cWD-R+T(T)DM+
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.

 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: