Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have no razorbacks really.

Pre-counted dice does help a ton to save time, I agree. I have a list with 3 Vultures in it and I have 20 big and 3 little dice out as I never need more than that and that allows me to, at a glance, grab all the dice I need for the Vulture and know which are twin-linked, which are not. That totally does save dice.

@OrdoSean

Yeah, from your perspective I can see that. However, the reason we did use real, tumbled Casino dice is because I have been at tournaments where a player (in one case, the winner of the event) had dice that were loaded. The blow back from that was incredibly bad. One respected TO quit because he didn't want to deal with the nastiness, and there were actually a few attendees threatening to sue the event if they weren't given their money for the ticket, hotel and flight back as they felt they didn't get what they paid for.

Now, that is an extreme example (and no lawsuits were filed to my knowledge), but despite the responsibility for fair play resting on the attendees' shoulders, as we were live streaming the games we were unwilling to risk a similar occurrence at the LVO as it would undermine the integrity of not only the player but us and the game as a whole. We determined it was better for everyone to simply take responsibility for ensuring that the dice were all legit. The fact that they were bigger than you are used to is because in order for them to roll as close to a true statistical average as possible, they need to be that size.

Plus, this means the dice are legitimately rolling as close to a true average as you can get, which theoretically emphasizes player skill over luck. it is also a cool keepsake as you got real casino dice, in Vegas, in an engraved case to show you made the finals!

So, you're welcome, Sean, haha

I got some dice from this little game from hobbytown. I was told to get rid of them and only use chessex large dice. they said they would be better. im using small dice for wound counters now

I don't think it's a trust thing. Though it removes that thought from people's mind. Like I said making me play with dice isn't a big deal. I've played in events that require you to use community dice one pool they provide to each table. I've played in events where they hand you a cube to start the weekend and ask you to use it.

I also get the casino dice. They were cute were in Vegas it's a nice prize to hand to the top 8. I get it. They're just huge and while I get they just huge and technically not great for a dice game because in theory you can manipulate them due to their size and perfection. That's why I'm Vegas games like craps you have to hit the wall so the dice bounce. So I told my opponents to shake them really well and why I shook my hands real well on that big charge roll in the championships. Even though I don't know how to even begin rolling dice like that. But do some YouTube searching and you can see guys rolling 12 every time etc.

But yeah there are tons of little things every player can do to play faster. but a lot of it comes to just practice and relaxation. Because when you tense up you start thinking and not playing.

and, they replace the dice every hour because they chip. TBH the best thing would be free FLG dice, or do what Xwing does, special dice for the event only. like ones where the six is either LVO or the symbol of the event. just an idea. I once had an opponent who used casino dice and he just dropped them on the floor, and they didnt roll much.

 Reecius wrote:

Game Length

We have seen some games not completing which in tournament play is actually fairly common. However, with it on the stream I think we had some interesting third party perspective on it. I have been a proponent of playing tournament games at 1500pts since 5th ed, but players don't like writing lists at 1500pts. However, they also don't like their games not finishing which always makes me laugh as they are directly proportional to one another. Bigger games means longer games. You don't get one without the other.

Allowing for longer rounds makes an already long day even longer. As part of the fun of Vegas is Vegas, we don't want to cut into that if we can avoid it. Plus, if we get the hobby to the point where 40k is fun to watch and draws in large viewership (which is our ultimate goal with this aspect of the business), shorter games are FAAAAAAR more conducive to this. I believe a potential "pro" league for 40k will have to be played at lower points values both for expediency and enjoyment of watching. We'll see how the community reacts to it though, and how it evolves as we go.

Chess clocks though, would also be very helpful but buying enough for 300+ gamers is a daunting investment up front, even at wholesale pricing. In our games though, they help a ton to see who is actually eating up the clock.

Seems like you've talked yourself out of doing anything to remedy the situation. It's a long game at 1,850, and honestly under 3 hours doesn't seem like enough for most armies and players. I get that it'd be better to have shorter games for streaming, but if that's going to be for a "pro" league, that shouldn't prevent you from making changes for the general tournament public; honestly that seems like pointing to a larger series of changes that would need to take place to divide events into "pro" and general public. This also seems like where chess clocks would be divided; think that would take away from the "fun" event aspect.

Not saying there aren't good arguments for not lengthening the day or for lowering the point values, but it really doesn't feel like it's as much value with compressed games. If I'm travelling across the country to play 40k, I'd personally like to play complete games. And "play faster" isn't a legitimate suggestion with armies getting larger and more complex.

but, the event already went from 10 to 7:15 with a lunch break. this is vegas, 7 is where people want to start going out, and lengthening,it out wil make them tired. Im already questioning going to vegas because out of my 3 nights there, I went out once only, dinner and a movie, and while fun, it is also a bummer with so much to do in vegas, if you make people MORE tired, thats gonna be worse.

1750 probably won't make a huge difference in game length however it also isn't far from 1850 either and is also a standard tournament point total.

I don't think people would mind 1750 so much and between 2 armies each having 100 less points you might be able to shave 15min off each game and have more games closer to a 5 round finish at least.

I'd vote for 1750 if it was a vote.

I think 1500 is good TBH and balances things out a bit.

We haven't talked ourselves out of anything, Evan, we honestly haven't even had time to really think it through to a point of conclusion. I'm just spit-balling ideas, here. We need to see what people want to do. As you noted, people need to feel like they're getting value for their dollar but that point varies from person to person.

I don't like writing lists at 1500pts, either, honestly, I like bigger games. But, I accept that with the time it takes to get your pairing (even when we do take the app to the point where it pops up on your phone as we plan on doing), to collecting your stuff, going to the table, unloading your models, playing the game, submitting your scores, and repeating the process, it is quite challenging to get a full length 1850pt game in.

If we played 3hour15min games, we'd have to start round 1 at 8:30am (registration would half to open up at 6:30am day 1, yikes) and end round 3 at around 8pm. That means getting up really early (particularly for Vegas) and ending pretty late for things like dinner with friends, etc.

That's not necessarily the kiss of death but it does detract from the overall experience for many attendees who aren't as focused on the competitive side of the game as a player like yourself may be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Gungo

We used to play at 1750 and it was quicker. However, the community wanted to go up to 1850pts. The trend is always towards bigger armies we've seen. My guess for that is that players feel like they have more tools or a more complete list at their disposal. But it is always ironic when players then get upset that a game didn't finish to a natural conclusion.

I again say, having over 300+ free points in a game does slow it down IMO

I'd rather see less points than more time. Socializing after the festivities is a large part of the con experience for most people, and even for local RTTs, shorter time is easier to navigate with personal responsibilities.

1500-1650 might be a better point value for 7th edition, especially now that free points are a thing. An 1850 battle company is actually closer to a 2250 army and is expected to play in 3 hours. Even for a fast player, that can become difficult.

Reece - definitely is a difficult balancing act; Could make for a 3 day event... or something. I definitely feel the pain. And while the competitive side of me would want to play a game to completion, so would the casual side. That's me; if I travel for a weekend of 40k, I want to play 40k; but that's me.

Yeah, we've even toyed with the idea of 1650pts in the past as a middle ground. Might be worth exploring.

@Hot Sauce

Oh, and one other point on the dice I forgot to metion: The bigger dice are MUCH easier to read on the stream than smaller dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Evan

Totally fair point and I actually agree with your philosophy as a player. I'd rather have play 2 games a day with 4 hour rounds at 2k, personally. But, that doesn't work logistically with the number of rounds we need, etc. As you noted, it is a balancing act.

Oh I know. I just looked and found the casino dice thing was funny, especially with the amount of shots they put out.
To the length thing. a 3 day event is a bad idea IMO, 40k attendence dropped dramatically on sunday. Again cause people want to do vegas. the only reason I didnt go out all sunday was my friends where working the event, but I had fun shooting the gak with him at the front. and they have less room for it.
Also, reece, is it true that your working on a way for it to text the player their next matchup? that sounds so cool.

It's been so long since I played a game under 1,850, particularly with a competitive list building approach. I would be curious how that would shift list building and armies in general. It's definitely an interesting thought. Could also potentially do a 3 day event with one day being 3 rounds, 2 rounds the next, with top 16 playing a third.

Also curious what y'all will do with the Team tournament; personally that might be a bigger draw as well over the singles championship.

Thinking about taking two days to play five rounds of a single game per round is just weird. This game really needs a way to speed up things, as it's just a huge turn off for a lot of people to take that long to accomplish so very little.

 Tinkrr wrote:
Thinking about taking two days to play five rounds of a single game per round is just weird. This game really needs a way to speed up things, as it's just a huge turn off for a lot of people to take that long to accomplish so very little.

IMO this is one of the biggest obstacles to making 40k a "pro circuit" type game and following the ESports model. As Reece mentioned, shorter games are better for viewing, but he also mentioned that players generally prefer the larger lists, that I think require 3+ hour games most of the time. It's hard to do play-by-play commentary and keep the action exciting for an audience without 1.) interfering with the game, and 2.) following multiple games, honestly, as action and big moves are often slow to develop.

 Reecius wrote:
Game Length
We have seen some games not completing which in tournament play is actually fairly common. However, with it on the stream I think we had some interesting third party perspective on it. I have been a proponent of playing tournament games at 1500pts since 5th ed, but players don't like writing lists at 1500pts.

I prefer writing 1500 pt lists, and I think that is the way to go. If you don't go that way, you might be able to get games done if it weren't for 2 main things
1) Gladius. It takes a long time to play and does better if the game ends early, so there isn't an incentive to try to play quickly.
2) Daemon Summoning. It takes a long time, and the warp phase is so complicated that the Daemon opponent can slow them down rather than it being entirely their fault.
Past that most things get chalked up to rules debates, and the rapid release schedule resulting in people learning rules at tournaments. Like War Convocation can fail to finish games, but that is due to it taking hours to read their lists and understand it.

I would much rather that ITC play at 1500, or failing that address the 2 main causes of failure to complete games. I'd rather not expand the rounds, but that is better than not finishing I guess. There is a crowd that likes to play big games. Many of them like to play BIG games, so an separate event playing at 2,500 or 3,000 might alleviate some of the pushback. You could also allow in the Tau'nar, and other models that people get bent out of shape for not being allowed to bring to the championship event.

 Reecius wrote:
The reason we did use real, tumbled Casino dice is because I have been at tournaments where a player (in one case, the winner of the event) had dice that were loaded.....

I support 100% supplying players with dice for the finals. But, I also feel for Sean, as I tend to throw a ton of dice myself (Orks). I know that they are not quite as perfect, but using a simple unopened box of small chessex dice instead of official casino dice would I think address your concerns while still preserving an ease of play.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
Thinking about taking two days to play five rounds of a single game per round is just weird. This game really needs a way to speed up things, as it's just a huge turn off for a lot of people to take that long to accomplish so very little.

IMO this is one of the biggest obstacles to making 40k a "pro circuit" type game and following the ESports model. As Reece mentioned, shorter games are better for viewing, but he also mentioned that players generally prefer the larger lists, that I think require 3+ hour games most of the time. It's hard to do play-by-play commentary and keep the action exciting for an audience without 1.) interfering with the game, and 2.) following multiple games, honestly, as action and big moves are often slow to develop.

Well the other problem that isn't discussed, is that when the game grows as a sport, you need to introduce more rounds, and with the current set up you can maybe get one or two extra rounds in, but it's not very optimal otherwise.

I mean I'm no stranger to multi-day events, I've gone to two day Magic events, but the difference is that day one was 10 rounds (which they then capped to 9 rounds per day because that was exhausting) with only like the top 200 out of thousands qualifying for day two and day two I played only 6 rounds as I didn't make top 8. What happens with the ITC when it starts having to consider things like that, as it obviously doesn't require thousands of players to require more than say 7 rounds to have any reasonable results, already the five round structure is showing limitations as we saw quite a lot of players have Top 8 records but narrowly lose on breakers.Not to mention you're only playing one game a round, so there's even more variance there.

I think the first step is really trying to push faster play, as in you have to make the majority of your actions in a turn off of what you figured out either during your opponent's turn or off the top of your head. That would actually push it as more of a spectator sport because all of a sudden errors in play are more common which makes for more colourful commentary. You can even have a structure where turns get shorter over time, that way you accommodate larger armies, like Battle Company, since as more models are killed, their turn gets shorter. Think of it this way, turn one is 15 minutes per player, turn two is the same, then turn three and after is 10 minutes only, that's a crunch.

I mean one major skill of games like Hearthstone and Magic is the fast pace required, a lot of times if you're playing online you'll run into the clock and have to just make a decision, and sometimes that decision is wrong and you notice it after, but that's really a test of skill, as it requires you to always be on top of things or you'll simply lose out on too many things. I think 40k could really benefit from something like that, since it would elevate those who can make snap decisions more consistently than others.

There's a fair while till they need to run another round.
9 Rounds gave them 512 players, via swiss pairing. That's a fair amount of growth left.

@HotSauce

Attendance was down Sunday because the 40k champs was over for 97% of the players and the Super Bowl.

@Evan

Yeah, 40k is honestly boring to watch, we've been trying to find a workaround for that all year with Twitch. What we've found is that you need good commentators but not to override the game itself. Plus, faster games are more enjoyable to watch.

We'll figure it out, I'm sure. Just takes time and practice.

@tag

Yeah, supplying dice eliminates any doubt of funky dice.

@Thread

We will expand the Team Tournament, yes. Plenty of room to improve that event! It was good fun.

@Tinkrr : nice in theory but the interactive nature of the game makes it really hard to implement time limits on player turns when I'm dependent on my opponent being fast rolling saves.

Few thoughts:

1. aside from the water thing the venue/hotel was great. It was amazing being so close to the convention area from the hotel rooms. Flamingo was a suprirsingly long trip to get from one end to the other.

2. the water thing was bad but the money costs make sense so blah vegas. Blah. Not sure how to resolve that.

3. Perhaps instead of a physical clock you guys make/use a chess clock app? everyone has a phone after all... Also given that such a competative addition could be a big barrier for new/more casual players it could be somethingt hat stats on game 2. So game 1 is as normal and game 2 on involves the clock. Etc.

4. Any way to see paint scores? I forgot to ask the paint judges afterwords but it would be nice to see any sort of critiques.

5. I vote yes to a somewhat reduced point value, but unfortunately any such reductions do favor summoning/BCs/"cheap" stompas/etc. Still i think it would help and a 1500 BC at least aint really gonna have much in the way of special weapons.

TinBane wrote:
There's a fair while till they need to run another round.
9 Rounds gave them 512 players, via swiss pairing. That's a fair amount of growth left.

You do understand that they're already well above the limit and next year if growth keeps up they'll be at the peek possible performance as the game stands now.

Let's look at Magic's standards for Swiss:

CHART FOR APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ROUNDS OF SWISS TO SELECT THE
TOP 8 PLAYERS FOR SINGLE ELIMINATION:
Number of Players Number of Rounds
17–32 players 5 rounds of Swiss
33–64 6 rounds of Swiss
65–128 7 rounds of Swiss
129–226 8 rounds of Swiss
227–409 9 rounds of Swiss
410+ 10 rounds of Swiss

Now, I know Magic is pretty generous with their rounds, so here's a general explanation of Accelerated Swiss which is used for large events:

Accelerated Pairings
If there are more players in a section than the number of rounds can handle (to determine a clear winner), then "accelerated" pairings are an option for the director.
Players are seeded as above, but in the first round, the players from the top 1/4 of the wallchart play the players in the 2nd 1/4 of the wallchart. The 3rd 1/4 plays the bottom 1/4. Then in the second round, the winners in the top 1/2 of the wallchart play each other, the losers in the top 1/2 play the the winners from the bottom half of the wallchart, and the losers from the bottom 1/2 of the wallchart play each other. (The reasoning is, the higher rated losers from the top half should beat the lower rated winners from the bottom half, which would cut down the number of perfect scores faster). After the 2nd round, all the players are lumped together within their score packs, as in the traditional Swiss method, and the tournament continues as a regular Swiss. The only difference is, there should be 1/2 as many players with 2-0 than there would have been with a straight Swiss System tournament. So up to 64 players could be handled in a 5 round tournament.

I'm just saying, mathematically the LVO can't keep up with how Swiss works as a format already, and if it keeps growing it can strain itself for maybe one more event before it collapses on itself. This is a very important aspect to consider.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
@Tinkrr : nice in theory but the interactive nature of the game makes it really hard to implement time limits on player turns when I'm dependent on my opponent being fast rolling saves.

Saves should be rolled pretty much instantly. "Here's what I rolled, here's the dice that wounded, I'm handing them to you, please roll them now in this tray." Harsh, but it has to happen.

Edit: Also less likely to have funky dice as it's hard to make good rolling dice also roll poorly D:

 Reecius wrote:
40k Champs Results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ETH4LZ17noFBWCh32AmSgH5kASnQhNZQrBXduWn30aU/edit?usp=sharing

Some analysis of these results based on Primary Faction.

Facinatingly Renegades lead the pack. Eldar are super strong, and the Weakest army based on Primary Faction? Grey Knights! Who would have predicted that? Dark Eldar regularly regarded as one of the weakest Codexes is actually above average.

Maybe for Next ITC season we could track faction based on which faction is the largest in the army rather than where the warlord is.

Thanks for the break down tag!

tag8833 wrote:

Facinatingly Renegades lead the pack. Eldar are super strong, and the Weakest army based on Primary Faction?

Renegades placed 5 out of 7 players in the top 50, that's the highest placing army with the lowest number of players, the second closest was Dark Angels, though most of those were hybrid Space Wolves lists as I've seen in my great list project so far.

Eldar are the best faction with a large player base, with a much greater representation in the top 50 than any other army. Tau and Space Marines (not counting Dark Angels) being the runners up at a tie for number of players in the top 50.

I really want these Renegade lists, they're my white whale because they're not an army anyone considers for the most part, but they did exceptionally well.


Edit: What's more interesting is going to the top 20 from the top 50, Marines and Tau don't change at all in terms of percent representation, Necrons go up a bit, and so do Eldar. Edlar go from 26% to 30% from what I remember.

Edit 2: Eldar and Space Marines had similar number of players, almost twice as many as Tau.

First remember lvo is the largest 40k event so it doesn't need major changes. It's good alraady. I'd say put 1650 1750 1850 up for vote and let actual attendees vote. I'd prefer 1750 simply because I like to keep the game as large and manageable as possible. And playing 1750 at my flgs doesn't feel much different then 1850 to me. Also I like the parity with other tournament standards.

And then try to think other ways to speed up the tournament. For instance let's take the idea that was alraady used this lvo and expand it. You alraady had pairings online for the tournament. What if someone made an app for an ITC events that not only displayed pairings but also gave you your table number and allowed you to roll for who goes first or who deploys first. Id you can somehow squeeze in warlord traits, psychic powers before the game. Then most of the oregano setup is skipped. The person who needs to deploy first can quickly get to the table and begin setting up, when they are done the other player sets up, each player does thier scout moves. Place objectives, Roll a d6 to seize and begin the game. Saving a good 10-15 a round.

The problem with the above is someone needs to create the app. This is something I've wanted for a long time a decent 40k game app. I know it's not likely but it would speed up tournaments.

LVO was excellently run. The team tournament was great and the FLG staff was flexible on the comp rules to make sure everyone could play. My team didn't have its sixth player until 8:30 that morning so they allowed us to duplicate a faction within the team.

The two things I'd like to be looked at for improvement are:
(1) either a smaller points value or a scaled penalty for not reaching 5 full game turns

(2) a composition change for the rules that disallows CADs for any factions that have faction specific detachments. With all the new releases, virtually everyone has either a unique force org (i.e. Leviathan detachment), a Decurion style detachment and a host of smaller formations. I suspect that would make the game more fun overall as it eliminates easy unit spamming and makes it much harder to stack multiple effects to create death stars. It would also lead to a lot of variety in units being fielded. Gladius would still have its relative free points advantage but that can't be changed without an overall points reduction that prevents you from fielding a Battle Company + Aux choice.