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.

Yeah to jump on everything. LVO was fantastic. I thought it was the best last year and it was even better.

As much as the food was pricey I dont think it was any more pricey than running downstairs last year at the flamingo to the food court.... except it was in the hall so we didnt have to run anywhere.

The thing about Reece and those frontline boys is they push to make it bigger and better, and more fun and more prizes for everyone. I need to pay attention this year and go to more Itc events than lvo so I can earn one of those sweet glass trophies for best army. The attention to making it better and the willingness to talk and take feedback is why I tell everyone I can that if they can go to one 40k event a year it should be LVO and if they have to pick another it should probably be something else Reece runs. Frankly I wish I lived on the west coast so it was easier to go to their events.

Now it does help that they keep letting me play on the championship table....

I, too, strongly support smaller point games for all the reasons above and more. competitive 40k already has a hard time attracting new talent; more models are a bigger hurdle.

That said, 1850 is institutionalized with huge inertia. Changing the scene or even just the ITC overnight isn't possible. But maybe give ITC Tournament Organizers the option to host events with smaller points. Let local groups experiment for a year then check back in 2017.

axisofentropy wrote:
That said, 1850 is institutionalized with huge inertia. Changing the scene or even just the ITC overnight isn't possible. But maybe give ITC Tournament Organizers the option to host events with smaller points. Let local groups experiment for a year then check back in 2017.

If they change LVO, other events will follow suite.
ITC is a pretty permissive League. I could run an ITC event at 250 points or I could run an event at 3,500 points, and they'd welcome it. I've played in 1500 point ITC events.

Most TO's are like me, and just ape the format of the big events. So as long as LVO is 1850, we are inclined to run 1850. If LVO switched to 1500, we would probably switch. Even if Wargamescon, and BAO stayed at 1850.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So what was the ruling for targeting with Tesla Spheres?

Seriously, I'd appreciate this answer.

@Reece - thanks for the detailed answer on the water/food front. As I suspected, I didn't fully understand the situation. Sounds like a nightmare.

To me it begs the question - how important is it that the event is in Vegas? If you could reduce the price of the weekend by a few hundred dollars per player, would that not be attractive?

Probably just me, but I didn't find the attractions of Vegas particularly attractive!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ thread - regarding game timing. I struggled to finish games on time. Out of 9 games played, I think I finished 2 on a dice roll. Why? Well, I don't think Im a particularly slow player. I know my rules and my army (in 9 games I never had to refer to the BRB, or my Codex once). And, to be fair, none of my opponents were playing particularly slowly either. But, games take longer than they used to. psychic powers, summoning, overwatch, flicker jumps, MSU armies with free stuff, etc, etc just takes longer.

What's the answer? I wouldn't like to go to 1,500pts. i've always found that pretty restricitve. 1,850pts is the 'standard" in most tournaments in the UK, driven by the ETC. However, we usually play 3hr rounds. That little bit of extra time, really makes a difference towards the end of a game. My preference would be to start earlier (I was so jet lagged I was up at 4am most mornings anyway!!) and finish later. Sure it means a 9am start and an 8pm finish, but so what? It's a gaming weekend.

1850 is fine but yeah there are a LOT of lists / players who struggle to finish within the time of 2:45 (which SHOULD be enough time).

Clocks are too expensive and people prefer 1850.. I vote steps are taken to making games that don't finish at a natural conclusion being more costly. Something like a yes/no option during the scoring process and too many "no" answers results in another penalty.

What if they are slow? What if they have a large army? Well, I would say to both of those IF they are slow they need to speed up in a tourney and if they have a large army play faster.. time IS a part of the game and taking it for yourself is selfish and bad for the game. Giving incentive to finishing games on time/faster is better for everyone.

As someone who watched 5 of the games on the Twitch stream I must say Casino dice should be required, you could actually see what was happening! Good call on that for the top 8 by the way Reece, cool little prize.

Also, watching the Twitch streams made me become a believer that in these big events there needs to be either a drop in points to 1500 or an increase in time for the rounds. I would vote for a drop in points personally.

Local events where 90% of the players know each other anyway can easily stick to 1850 but these big GTs where people don't all know each other well and haven't played 30+ games with each other get bogged down fast.

iNcontroL wrote:
1850 is fine but yeah there are a LOT of lists / players who struggle to finish within the time of 2:45 (which SHOULD be enough time).

Clocks are too expensive and people prefer 1850.. I vote steps are taken to making games that don't finish at a natural conclusion being more costly. Something like a yes/no option during the scoring process and too many "no" answers results in another penalty.

What if they are slow? What if they have a large army? Well, I would say to both of those IF they are slow they need to speed up in a tourney and if they have a large army play faster.. time IS a part of the game and taking it for yourself is selfish and bad for the game. Giving incentive to finishing games on time/faster is better for everyone.

I disagree. Forcing people to play faster is only part of the answer. What can result is a rushed "sloppy" game, which is deeply unsatisfying. Additionally, it leaves no time to get to know your opponent and have a bit of banter over the table. One of my games finished at the end of turn 4, but we agreed that if we had played faster we wouldn't have had nearly as much fun.

We switched to smaller games (1,500-1,650) about a year ago, and it's been great.

In addition to tournament games reaching a natural conclusion, they're also a lot more pleasant as you have more time to socialize with your opponent and you don't feel so rushed during your own turns (and bored during your opponent's turns).

As for the enjoyment of making lists at a smaller points level, I actually really like it. It's a lot more challenging, and it makes the standard power combos less of an auto-take since you don't have the room to properly back them up.

I don't think lesser points will change anything for bigger tournaments, unless it's a drastic points cut. People will still find ways to stall.

Clocks on the other hand, that should be the focus. Something like a penalty if you stall more than the agreed time per turn or so.

Everyone around here plays 1500/1650 for tournaments and apart from some Daemon players we nearly always get to turn 5 or later.

My feedback re: game time would be that yes, some people are just slow. But lowering point values can *only* serve to help, and it shouldn't matter to players competitively (or otherwise) if points are lowered - everyone is now using lower points, so we're all being treated equally. The fact of the matter is, there are many reasons games don't finish:

1) The players are new and not familiar with their army. This can be because they're legitimately new, or because they army-hop too extensively and never get into a rhythm.

2) The players think too much (similar to #1). This is the most frequent cause of slow games I've seen. It's not generally how many models a person has, it's how many decisions they have to make and agonize over. The players that go fast are the ones you watch just take their turn seemingly almost without pause. Adding in 30 seconds here and there to make multiple decisions in a turn just bloats your time.

3) Points are too high - AKA, we all have too much stuff. The current 1850 armies would put to shame most 2500 point ard boyz lists from 3 years ago. There's a real resistance in the tournament community to lower it because "but I need answers to every situation!" "you can't build a balanced list at (insert lower points value)". The fact of the matter is in our current environment, you can't build a list that handles everything at *any* points value, you have to accept there are some matches that are worse than others and learn to play them.

4) Active slow play - a player just doesn't want the game to come to a natural conclusion. While I've seen it happen, this is truly rare. Most slow play is not malicious.

I'm an experienced player and have played Tau for years, all of my games got to 5 (though two had to be agreed to be finished on 5 due to time being arguably a bit short for 5), and one on 6. 3 of those were natural conclusions (game over/concession/etc.) on 5. Two should have been rolled for RGL and weren't.

If it were me, the things I would look at correcting/changing are:

1) Lower point values to 1500. There will be resistance at first, but I remember a time when we only played 1750, and 2000 points came along and was derided as "ugh you just want to play with your ard boyz army!". And then 2000 was adopted and eventually 1850 came in and everyone cried the sky was falling and they couldn't possibly build a balanced list at 1850. Same story - people will adapt. We come to events for the people, not for a specific point value.

2) Penalties - while I don't like these, because generally slow play is not malicious, having a policy in place that makes sense isn't a bad idea. I'd say something like:
-If the game ends on Turn 3 or less, both players are awarded a loss.
-If the game ends on Turn 4, both players are issued a warning (make a note next to their name in the scoring/etc).
-If at the end of the day a player has 2 or more warnings (since we play 3 in one day and policing in between rounds isn't feasible), they are docked (insert point value).

The obvious problem with penalties is, you can end up penalizing someone who isn't at fault (the other guy in the game). What if you have the bad luck of running into a couple slow opponents, and are unable to get them to speed up? Should you now be penalized? Penalties in reality almost prevent a player from making the top bracket cut, so they shouldn't be taken lightly.

3) Chess Clocks! I would love these, but I'm unsure how realistic they are logistically. Unless we can find a cheap alternative, it's going to be hard.

4) Dice. I used to hate event provided dice, but I've become a believer. I also don't think Casino Dice are needed at- all. As an army that typically rolls a lot, casino dice would/do slow me down considerably. Remember, the goal isn't to make sure dice roll 100% accurate/fair (and Casino Dice don't unless thrown a certain way, and due to their large size are the easiest to manipulate with rolling tricks. If someone is motivated enough to bring loaded dice, they're likely motivated enough to watch some youtube videos on how to roll to get desired results). Your goal is to make sure all players are on an even playing field as far as dice go, and that no one has rigged dice (or the semblance of them). Buy in bulk, chessex or other easy to read dice (white on black, blakc on white, etc), and leave a pile on every table (include the nominal amount in the tournament fee, we're talking a couple dollars). Those dice never leave the table, they're there when you show up, they're at your next table when you arrive. Now there isn't any argument about someone using loaded dice, you're both using the same event provided ones each game.

I had a great time, third time at LVO and it's one of the events I enjoy the most every year. The only drawback for me was that I got to pay Sean twice on seemingly the only table with no cover, ha ha. Stupid warp hunters...

I'll chime in as well about the point level and agree with what's been said so far, a lower point game will lead to more games finishing on time. I play very quickly but rolling 2+ saves with re-rolls backed up by reanimation protocols takes up time and I only got beyond 5 turns in one game out of seven. I think we'll look at lower point events at our local store to see what difference it makes to everyone's enjoyment level.

I would genuinely be intrigued by 1500 point tournaments, in part for faster speed, but it also changes the math around a little. Gladius and War convocation (back of napkin guessing here) will have much less to work with. Combi-detachments in general become tougher to field. Lords of War and other high cost single models become much more of a liability in a list, even a Wraithknight. It isn't a magic button to make everything sunshine and roses, but it presents some different challenges, and opens up the board a bit, making deployment and early maneuvers more important.

I'm personally not a fan of penalties because it takes two. That said, if you do, I would also want a recommended time frame for the game, so even a less experienced player can look at the time and realize they're behind. I would also want a policy of mid game reporting; offer some suggestion like if your game isn't to turn 3 by X time, get a judge. As above, slow play can come from a variety of factors, but if it's one sided, the faster player needs a way to get help.

Chess clocks I'm really not a fan of. The accountability would be nice, but players that are slow because they're thinking through turns often forget things, and the clock will definitely be one of them. It seems more suited to top table games, but top tables generally have less issues with time as both players are usually experienced enough to play quickly.

I'm also not a big fan of event dice just because I'm superstitious and like my dice. I also like being able to stack my dice in convenient quantities for rolling, which depending on the number of dice per table, could be impossible while passing dice back and forth. That said, a designated, lipped dice spot at the side of the table for both players could be really convenient.

Almost every FLGS tournament is 1500pt, because most people DONT want to spend an entire day playing a 3 round tourny. Im definitely in the field of people who dont feel like playing the 3rd/4th game of the day when it finally rolls around.

I think 1500 would alleviate that. The issue is people dont get to bring ALL of their toys that they want (myself included). But it definitely raises the stakes.

I don't have any plans for an LVO trip, but I'll echo that I would prefer 1500 to 1850 any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Reece, Frankie, and all other staff.
Thank you. The tournament was so fun. You did a great job. I was very pleased. The water cost was annoying, especially as warm as they kept it. That was them, not you. So much fun, beautiful armies, great people, keep it up front line. Well done by the 40k community as well.
More time per round, or lower points would be good for me, but I am not a tournament regular, and play Orks, double whammy. But I got to turn five or higher in all but 1 game (stinking fish ead Tau). Thanks again.

I think the answer to finishing more games on time or at least playing through the 5th turn is a complicated answer, but I think that incentivizing or disincentivizing/penalizing is going to be 1 of the biggest factors.


Yes rushing a player will cause for more sloppiness or less of an enjoyable time. But it's a fine line. Some people are there to compete, others are there for a good time.

If my games continually failed to make it to turn 5 I would be highly annoyed, or if I didn't make top 8 because a game didn't finish I'd be upset. I am all for fun times but I still want to do the best I can.

I think if you impliment an Xpt value penalty to your overall score for each game failing to make it to turn 5 will keep people from slow playing and help people be more mindful of time.


I love 1850 games, it allows for the fun toys but also makes for hard decisions on what you bring.

I would be all for 1500 again. It's still enough points to get the things you want, but it limits some of the shenanigans and makes the games faster and tighter.

Most non-championship games are not actually 1850. The Adepticon Friendly, for example, is 1500 and very, very well liked (well, for other reasons as well, but that's part of it).

Another vote for 1500, or 1650... I don't really see the point of 1750 because it's not that different from 1850 (just one less MSU drop for most armies).

Another idea, people are not constantly checking their phones for times. What if you had a giant effing timer projected on the wall showing tim?

Reece, just supporting our discussion on Sunday morning. As much as I love to play with my toys, I think a move to 1500 points would be good for the community. Steve is running the next Contest of Champions in March at 1500 points. We'd be happy to share lists and general feelings from participants. It also allows us to run a 4 round event in 1 day which I'd love to see be the new standard for RTTs.

Well steve is running an escalation tournament, so I dont think thats fair.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well steve is running an escalation tournament, so I dont think thats fair.

It's actually an escalation series of 6 tournaments, each one however stands on its own. I don't see how that has anything to do with fair... If anything the participants will have the ability to compare and contrast points values from 1250 to 2500 over the course of each year. This is the 15th year that the event series has been run, but the first year it is running every event as an ITC event.

1,500 could be a really good change. Not only would it be faster, and potentially allow the LVO to get in an extra round, but it's also a lot better for newer players, which this game needs desperately.

As someone who is in the process of painting and building an army, it's fun to make the 1850 lists and cram a ton in them but it's horrifically daunting to actually complete it.

1500 points would be rad and definitely a step in the right direction for both finishing games on time AND growing the game through twitch casting.

I *LOVE* all the work that went into the stream this year with casting and camera angles and keeping it trucking through all the various issues that popped up (mostly audio problems from what little I watched). Kudos to the twitch crew for all that! Casino dice look lovely from the twitch stream, but unfortunately I think they're a bit too cumbersome to roll in the quantities that you need for 40k. Given that the optimal way to roll casino dice is two at a time, that'll make the shooting phases drag on a bit. Who knows, maybe it sorts itself out with the drop in points?

Of course, this is ITC, so we all know it'll be up to a poll anyway

I too think 1500 is the way to go and I believe many people also think that way.

Penalizing people who dont finish is a silly thing to even consider and out right hostile towards high model count armies.

1850 is completely arbitrary, there is no need for that level of points, especially given the amount of free points now and the "apocolypse-ization" of 40k.

I had an awesome time at the LVO. So I don't think I experienced the con itself as much as I would have liked due to being first timer in Vegas AND it being Super Bowl weekend. Still so much fun to be had.

I'd echo a lot of the statements both positive and negative as far as the event, but add overall it was amazingly smooth for such a large tournament. Kudos to FLG and the TFG podcast and friends who were the TOs.

My concerns with the running of things, such as they are, do tend to tie into the current time discussion.

First, the rounds weren't really 2:45. In fact for most of us they weren't even getting 2:30. It was difficult as hell to find tables due to the layout and tiny print and hard to read table number signs. I had trouble and yet still waited another 10+ minutes for my opponents to also arrive. Also turn wrap up/ time split was called to end games at 2:30 by my estimation. However it appeared you could play 2:45 under certain situations (the stream I assume). No issue with this to be honest, just think its disingenuous to say the round time was 2:45.

To improve in this area? Have larger signs at each row so you can quickly figure out where to go yet still keep the cool but hard to read table number signs. Also take advantage of that kick ass software and let people play more of the available time.

Second, I love the software that was used as a player and from the sounds of it things worked well for the TOs also. However it felt like it was relied upon to much for announcing round start and that pairings were up. Rounds and pairings just sort of happened. Announcements were yelled out but rarely heard. Its more of a polish thing then a major area but I think this also affected the actual time people got to play.

To improve in this area?More info available, announcments via text, email or the website, a projector with time, and such.

Finally, and this has nothing to do with time but more the direction that 40k has been going. It was interesting Sunday when I was trying to find out who won what that no one bothered to post who won ren man, or best in faction or best appearance. Also to even score appearance you had to be in the hall Friday morning from 8-930 or so (although this is not quite true, you could get it judged later but this wasn't announced). I think this is indicative of an overall issue with 40k events now a days. The appearance side of things feels tacked on, even if it was awarded generously. No idea how it is scored in between 3 colors or master class, what if any does display or conversions factor. Its not transparent at all. Also heard a rumor that if you brought the same sort of army to the event as previous you couldn't win an award for it. Whether true or not the lack of transparency makes it hard to know. Also lack of transparency makes it hard to improve ones score. I just wish there was more of a focus on what is more important to me and many other 40k players -- being a whole hobbyist.

To improve in this area?
1. More transparency on paint judging, expectations and such. Are conversions a thing that matter to the score? Display? If you are leveraging one judge and no rubric then maybe have him post on FLG his criteria and examples of the numbers.
2. Spread the paint judging around some. Have several time slots available and have people sign up. There's the entire day Sunday that many attendees aren't involved in anything particular.
3. Have the bloggers and twitch feed folks take some time to showcase the well painted armies, interview the artist and what not. In general make appearance a bigger deal and I think it will help solidify the event as the best 40k singles in the world.

Thanks for reading and hopefully these are read as constructive critique they are intended.

I didn't attend the LVO, but I'm a big fan of the ITC circuit and how's been able to bring the community together.

I would also join the movement for 1500 point games. I haven't changed my play style, but I've been finding games harder and harder to finish. I think this stems not only from the increase in free points, but how detachments interact. Most detachments have some sort of command benefit so we have a lot more interactions of rules. By dropping the points, not only do we deal with less units, but a lot less rule interactions from multiple detachments.

Also, with more and more units being able to assault turn one or after entering from reserves games are starting to utilize all the phases at an earlier portion than before.

I think shorter games would also increase participation. It's a lot easier to sell to significant others that you might be gone half or 3/4th of the day than being gone the entire day. If you need less points to field an army, the barrier to participating in a tournament is lowered. Plus, with less points being needed to field a new army, people might want to try more armies and this could drive sales for host game stores.

Finally, and this has nothing to do with time but more the direction that 40k has been going. It was interesting Sunday when I was trying to find out who won what that no one bothered to post who won ren man, or best in faction or best appearance. Also to even score appearance you had to be in the hall Friday morning from 8-930 or so (although this is not quite true, you could get it judged later but this wasn't announced). I think this is indicative of an overall issue with 40k events now a days. The appearance side of things feels tacked on, even if it was awarded generously. No idea how it is scored in between 3 colors or master class, what if any does display or conversions factor. Its not transparent at all. Also heard a rumor that if you brought the same sort of army to the event as previous you couldn't win an award for it. Whether true or not the lack of transparency makes it hard to know. Also lack of transparency makes it hard to improve ones score. I just wish there was more of a focus on what is more important to me and many other 40k players -- being a whole hobbyist.

To improve in this area?
1. More transparency on paint judging, expectations and such. Are conversions a thing that matter to the score? Display? If you are leveraging one judge and no rubric then maybe have him post on FLG his criteria and examples of the numbers.
2. Spread the paint judging around some. Have several time slots available and have people sign up. There's the entire day Sunday that many attendees aren't involved in anything particular.
3. Have the bloggers and twitch feed folks take some time to showcase the well painted armies, interview the artist and what not. In general make appearance a bigger deal and I think it will help solidify the event as the best 40k singles in the world.

Paint judging is a very involved process, and frankly the paint judges are all extremely good painters who can glance at most armies and say "that's definitely not winning" and move on. They narrow it down to a relatively small number of the best armies, then judge those in detail. They do have a rubric. The way paint judging is handled is dictated by the logistical difficulties involved with an event this size.

The paint judges are also cool guys who are more than willing to chat about how to improve your painting and such, too.