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.

Embrace your inner geek wrote:

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.

I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

 DarkLink wrote:

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.

I TO two 50 man events so I am fully aware paint judging is an involved process. Thankless no less (so thank you for paint judging whoever you are, since I failed to do so earlier).

Totally understand the logistic issues -- however these can be managed a bit better. Adepticon does it by having tons of judges (that has its own issues no doubt). There's the entirety of Sunday available for the most part, Thursday night. Lunches, evening. Have people sign up for a particular time to get paint judging for those that care.

If there's a rubric then it should be posted or discussed on the FLG blog. Local ITC events near me (like TSHFT) ask us for our rubric or they use player votes to determine scores (which can be vary problematic) because the ITC format doesn't post their rubric. So just post it, it would help I think in a lot of ways.

Also I am sure they are cool guys and I am sure they are more than capable judges/painters/insturctors and given a different event myself and others may have taken the time to talk to them. But it is a bit easier, especially if logistics is an issue, to have a much info as possible posted up front than expect people to chase them down.

Finally I am gonna requote this for emphasis:

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.

This is a bit scary for a couple of reasons. One, since best in faction is 50% painting, I sure hope they don't blow off armies that might have won despite being non-masterclass. Doubt that happened (Frankie specifically said they would track people down if they were in the running), but again without transparency I have no idea. Second you know what might take some time to evaluate outside of first glances? Conversions. A good conversion won't get noticed because it is so good it looks like a legit model. I have been to events with 'pro-painter' judges who completely miss conversions, its one reason why a good appearance rubric lets you point out what your conversions are. But perhaps they don't even care about conversions? No idea, something that having the rubric available would make super clear.

Agreed that playing within the time limit is an important part of the game. There are some armies (gladius or jetbikes to name a couple) that extremely benefit from a game ending prematurely in most formats. A lot of GT's do already have something on the score sheet asking if the game ended on time or not, hard to say whether it really helps.

One of adepticon's missions in their packet this year mentions objectives being worth a multiple of what game turn the game ends on, which is an interesting way to do it.

I wouldn't mind seeing a GT play at 1500, just to see how it goes. It would only work though if the community got behind it. I do find 1850 fun, but a lot of armies (again gladius, or daemon summoning) are now playing with more points on top of that so in a lot of games you're actually playing something closer to a 2000 point list. Ignoring that aspect of it, the 1850 kind of got established as the itsofacto points around the end of 5th Ed iirc. Maybe we've just reached a point where it's time to trim the fat. Just thinking about points deflation an average marine has gone down several points since then so not even considering free upgrades almost every army has vastly gone up in model count in the last few years.

Again though, it's only worth pursuing if people will get behind it. I'm not sure myself, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go.

I'm going to hop onto the 1,500 train with most of the other folks.

1,500 is enough for gladius/warconvo/decurions/etc to still be used which is perfect as players will still be able to fit in a lot of toys. 350 pt drop is enough to definitely speed the game up by at least 15-30 minutes (and since turns 6-7 are fairly quick) that might make all the difference in the world. Very much worth testing out.

iNcontroL wrote:

I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If the ITC did want to move in the direction of tracking time for each player, almost everyone has a smart phone that includes some sort of timer app. Would be pretty easy to keep phones out on the table and just hit the "start/stop" buttons as appropriate.

However, I don't think that most players would be interested in upping the stress level of the games.

I know that top players look at the tournaments as competitions first, second, third and then maybe social events. This drives the desire for more rounds to get a true winner, clocked games to prevent losing out on valuable points and intense competition that tests their skill. However, most participants are not looking for that level of intensity. Sure, they play to win, but mostly it's just to get away from the wife and kids and pretend to be a super human general for a day or two. For TOs to focus on the 10-20% of players contending for top stops and to ignore the rest makes no sense. It turns off most of the "customers" and that in turn undercuts the size of the event, its prestige and prize support.

Last weekend I played in an RTT where 2 of 3 games I had to be explain to opponents how the general rules work and how their units function. One of those games didn't get past turn 3. It was a pretty frustrating experience, but I would rather those guys come out and participate in the community. Next time they'll be better prepared...and if they're not, we still need them for the event to happen.

[typo fix]

 winterman wrote:

This is a bit scary for a couple of reasons. One, since best in faction is 50% painting, I sure hope they don't blow off armies that might have won despite being non-masterclass. Doubt that happened (Frankie specifically said they would track people down if they were in the running), but again without transparency I have no idea. Second you know what might take some time to evaluate outside of first glances? Conversions. A good conversion won't get noticed because it is so good it looks like a legit model. I have been to events with 'pro-painter' judges who completely miss conversions, its one reason why a good appearance rubric lets you point out what your conversions are. But perhaps they don't even care about conversions? No idea, something that having the rubric available would make super clear.

I don't believe Best in Faction includes paint- the only awards involving painting are the Best Painted and Renaissance Man awards.

iNcontroL wrote:


I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If it was truly about competition, you should be open to allowing horde army types into the meta to perform as they should, as it is, they simply dont have enough time to perform on the level they should. Time clocks make sense in chess where two players have the same army, they make no sense and are unfair in 40k they are extremely prejudiced against high model count armies. Penalizing people is not only silly, its prejudiced against certain armies, and beneficial to others.

If you are going to tell high model count players to just choose a different army, then that goes two ways as its easier to scale down the armies a bit then it is to expect people to choose completely different armies to suit time constraints.

Even with both players only having 100 models on the table between the two of them (which is a very low model count) at 2.5 hours, with zero set up or banter time, that is 15 seconds per turn per model to move, shoot, charge, resolve assaults, psychic and so on to get to turn 6.

That works out to less then four seconds to roll dice, measure, and move per phase per model, and yet you want to penalize scores because of people taking even this small amount of time to play the game?

All these people speaking out do not have to be uber competitive to have their say either, we dont just value the opinions of top 8 players now do we?

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

I've played iNcontrol several times, and I think you're getting the wrong impression- he's not implying that you shouldn't interact with your opponents, only that you shouldn't do it to the point where you cause time issues. Large armies running out of time has been an issue with 40k tournaments for as long as I can remember (since at least 3rd edition), this isn't something new.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

Hmmm... I don't think that is a fair response. Out of 300 competitors maybe 50 had a chance at making top 8. So entering into the event you have a potentially polarized field. To suggest that someone who is playing in the largest competitive event in the world and attempting to win the event shouldn't expect a certain level of efficiency from their opponent is unreasonable. Also, it isn't people who are serious and cordial to their opponents that give tournament players a bad name, it is the disconnect between local meta expectations and tournament meta and the rules meta. It's also rude people, and casual gamers are every bit as rude as competitive players. However, things that are acceptable to one group are not acceptable by the other. Thus we have an expectations disconnect.

A competitive player will find excessive banter that slows the game to 3-4 turns to be rude and inconsiderate. A friendly gamer might find being called for minimally excessive movement or shoddy measurement rude... Just saying...

 FTGTEvan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

Incontrol is an awesome guy and a great sport, so I wouldn't be too concerned. The thing is, this is an event where you try to cram a bunch of games into a limited period of time, and there are in fact people trying to compete for the win. If neither you nor your opponent care, then feel free to take all the time you want, but it's poor sportsmanship to screw your opponents over by slow playing.

I think that you can be both efficient in play and socialize as well, granted there's probably a correlation between how much socialization you do based on how likely you are to make it into the top, not only because you want to play efficiently but I can't imagine that there isn't an element of nerves involved where you're thinking about so many things you don't socialize as much as a result either.

Also, a small update on my list project but I got the top placing Ork list up, which is really awesome. Please keep sending in your lists guys, I don't care if you placed well or not, any list is valuable for record keeping.

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that you can be both efficient in play and socialize as well, granted there's probably a correlation between how much socialization you do based on how likely you are to make it into the top, not only because you want to play efficiently but I can't imagine that there isn't an element of nerves involved where you're thinking about so many things you don't socialize as much as a result either.

Also, a small update on my list project but I got the top placing Ork list up, which is really awesome. Please keep sending in your lists guys, I don't care if you placed well or not, any list is valuable for record keeping.

Could you post the link to the lists again? I'm not sure which page of the thread it was put on. This is an awsome service you're doing by the way. Many thanks.

Relapse wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that you can be both efficient in play and socialize as well, granted there's probably a correlation between how much socialization you do based on how likely you are to make it into the top, not only because you want to play efficiently but I can't imagine that there isn't an element of nerves involved where you're thinking about so many things you don't socialize as much as a result either.

Also, a small update on my list project but I got the top placing Ork list up, which is really awesome. Please keep sending in your lists guys, I don't care if you placed well or not, any list is valuable for record keeping.

Could you post the link to the lists again? I'm not sure which page of the thread it was put on. This is an awsome service you're doing by the way. Many thanks.

No problem, and thanks for the kind words. I'm super happy with how much support I've gotten so far for this project by people submitting lists via PMs.

The link is in my signature if ever needed, but in case you're on a phone and can't see links here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y28px3mgjeergdn/AADDpUf3n_u2QfkiYzDzHSh0a?dl=0

It's a drop box account with a bunch of word pad files that state placing, army(ies), and player name. I'm hoping to do this for all ITC events eventually, but it's really hard to get in contact with anyone in regards to this matter. So I guess I'll just do my best and continue to pester people.

Edit: If this does go well and grows, I can try to even include links to games featured on streams, any comments the list player had, and even links to battle reports in the same file as a list. The more information, the better in my opinion.

I prefer 1850 and think it's well proven not something arbitrarily chosen. It's much more on scale to 7th edition. 1500 seems like a throw back to 'classic' 40k.

The community did specifically vote to make it 1850. It was a while back, and it might come up for revote at some point, but it's not an arbitrary number.

Actually, kind of an interesting question, but how often does the ITC revote on stuff? From the sounds of it there isn't really any revisiting of past issues currently, which could be beneficial on a number of topics after enough time has passed.

 somerandomidiot wrote:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

I've played iNcontrol several times, and I think you're getting the wrong impression- he's not implying that you shouldn't interact with your opponents, only that you shouldn't do it to the point where you cause time issues. Large armies running out of time has been an issue with 40k tournaments for as long as I can remember (since at least 3rd edition), this isn't something new.

LOL evan.. no idea how you got my post so wrong. It's frustrating having to reexplain stupid things to people because they read something and take an extreme conclusion. I wasn't saying you can't have fun, talk or banter.. I was saying if you are there solely to do any one of those things you probably don't care as much about games ending on time as the people who DO and they typically are the more competitive bunch. Please, please for the love of god don't read posts and go "WELL he said something kinda close to what I will pin on him as a rule now!" it's super annoying and makes posting on forums a hindrance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FTGTEvan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
I'm guessing you guys weren't fighting for top 8? Best of? That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter. Additionally, what you say isn't mutually exclusive.. play a smaller army/faster and you CAN banter and finish a game. It isn't like everyone who finished their games never made eye contact and spoke only of the game... not sure how you get there.

Playing on time is part of the game.. it literally is turn based. If someone is stopping that from happening rules encouraging them to be in line isn't crazy.

If that's the way you approach events, that's unfortunate. I was competing for top ranks at NOVA and still was able to enjoy games and interact with my opponents, including your friend Frankie. The idea that you have to be focused only on "results" is, to me, sad, and part of what contributes to the negative perception of tournament gamers.

What I am saying is if you play those horde armies or larger armies the expectation is that you wil need to compensate and play faster. I really don't think this is a wacky or crazy idea.. the idea that you can take any army you want and take as long as you want is ignorant to the general etiquette of the game. Slow playing IS a thing both intentional and unintentional. At 1850 you can take a horde army that COULD take very long to play but to do so under the guise of "don't tell me what army I can and cannot take!" is selfish and bad. This game has a lot of blurry lines and you are currently NOT timed so a "best effort" type of mentality is expected.. that is what I am saying. If rules dictate that you are penalized for not finishing games than look at yourself and realize you are not playing within the rules of the game. In a garage you can play 5 hour games.. at a competitive tourney where your opponent might have traveled there (same as you) and would hate to lose because you strangled the time from them to push your models around is not in the spirit of the game.. so a system that gives incentives for finishing games is GOOD in my humble opinion.

iNcontroL wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
That is fine if you want to have fun at the table and banter... I would tell you that MOST people who are contending for a top finish and really care about results aren't there to banter.

LOL evan.. no idea how you got my post so wrong. It's frustrating having to reexplain stupid things to people because they read something and take an extreme conclusion. I wasn't saying you can't have fun, talk or banter.. I was saying if you are there solely to do any one of those things you probably don't care as much about games ending on time as the people who DO and they typically are the more competitive bunch. Please, please for the love of god don't read posts and go "WELL he said something kinda close to what I will pin on him as a rule now!" it's super annoying and makes posting on forums a hindrance.

You don't have to reexplain anything, but more or less, that's what you said. Yes, it was a generalization, but that's how it comes across, particularly when it's followed up with something that comes across as "if you don't finish you're bad or playing the wrong thing."

Again, that is putting words in your mouth, and it's hyperbolic. Granted and noted. As was my response, but what I'm lamenting is perpetuation of these stereotypes and boxes we stick ourselves and our fellow gamers in, dividing our community and coming across as hostile to each other. Not to mention the idea that top tables are more serious is an expectation that, in my experience, is largely untrue. My more relaxed events are when I'm at the top tables; it's the mid-table local heroes where I have unenjoyable interactions with opponents. Again, you didn't say top tables are unenjoyable and not about fun, but that's kind of how it sounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iNcontroL wrote:
What I am saying is if you play those horde armies or larger armies the expectation is that you wil need to compensate and play faster. I really don't think this is a wacky or crazy idea.. the idea that you can take any army you want and take as long as you want is ignorant to the general etiquette of the game. Slow playing IS a thing both intentional and unintentional. At 1850 you can take a horde army that COULD take very long to play but to do so under the guise of "don't tell me what army I can and cannot take!" is selfish and bad. This game has a lot of blurry lines and you are currently NOT timed so a "best effort" type of mentality is expected.. that is what I am saying. If rules dictate that you are penalized for not finishing games than look at yourself and realize you are not playing within the rules of the game. In a garage you can play 5 hour games.. at a competitive tourney where your opponent might have traveled there (same as you) and would hate to lose because you strangled the time from them to push your models around is not in the spirit of the game.. so a system that gives incentives for finishing games is GOOD in my humble opinion.

Fair enough. and largely agreed. And as long a penalty is communicated before hand, I'm fine with it though it's not something I like. It's another aspect of going to an event that you should be playing within the requirements/expectations of the event. I think we're in agreement generally in that respect.

 Tinkrr wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that you can be both efficient in play and socialize as well, granted there's probably a correlation between how much socialization you do based on how likely you are to make it into the top, not only because you want to play efficiently but I can't imagine that there isn't an element of nerves involved where you're thinking about so many things you don't socialize as much as a result either.

Also, a small update on my list project but I got the top placing Ork list up, which is really awesome. Please keep sending in your lists guys, I don't care if you placed well or not, any list is valuable for record keeping.

Could you post the link to the lists again? I'm not sure which page of the thread it was put on. This is an awsome service you're doing by the way. Many thanks.

No problem, and thanks for the kind words. I'm super happy with how much support I've gotten so far for this project by people submitting lists via PMs.

The link is in my signature if ever needed, but in case you're on a phone and can't see links here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y28px3mgjeergdn/AADDpUf3n_u2QfkiYzDzHSh0a?dl=0

It's a drop box account with a bunch of word pad files that state placing, army(ies), and player name. I'm hoping to do this for all ITC events eventually, but it's really hard to get in contact with anyone in regards to this matter. So I guess I'll just do my best and continue to pester people.

Edit: If this does go well and grows, I can try to even include links to games featured on streams, any comments the list player had, and even links to battle reports in the same file as a list. The more information, the better in my opinion.

What you're doing is helping us up our own game by putting all of these lists into the mix. Churoc(the Ork player) is someone I've had as an opponent since the old Rogue Trader days and has pretty much exclusively run Orksfrom that ancient time forward. He's not one to blow his own horn and is quite humble about how well he runs them, since he plays for the fun of the game, win or lose. He placed 6th nationally in the first 'Ard Boyz tournament and possibly would have taken first if he had won his last game, since he was in first place going into it.

Relapse wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that you can be both efficient in play and socialize as well, granted there's probably a correlation between how much socialization you do based on how likely you are to make it into the top, not only because you want to play efficiently but I can't imagine that there isn't an element of nerves involved where you're thinking about so many things you don't socialize as much as a result either.

Also, a small update on my list project but I got the top placing Ork list up, which is really awesome. Please keep sending in your lists guys, I don't care if you placed well or not, any list is valuable for record keeping.

Could you post the link to the lists again? I'm not sure which page of the thread it was put on. This is an awsome service you're doing by the way. Many thanks.

No problem, and thanks for the kind words. I'm super happy with how much support I've gotten so far for this project by people submitting lists via PMs.

The link is in my signature if ever needed, but in case you're on a phone and can't see links here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y28px3mgjeergdn/AADDpUf3n_u2QfkiYzDzHSh0a?dl=0

It's a drop box account with a bunch of word pad files that state placing, army(ies), and player name. I'm hoping to do this for all ITC events eventually, but it's really hard to get in contact with anyone in regards to this matter. So I guess I'll just do my best and continue to pester people.

Edit: If this does go well and grows, I can try to even include links to games featured on streams, any comments the list player had, and even links to battle reports in the same file as a list. The more information, the better in my opinion.

What you're doing is helping us up our own game by putting all of these lists into the mix. Churoc(the Ork player) is someone I've had as an opponent since the old Rogue Trader days and has pretty much exclusively run Orksfrom that ancient time forward. He's not one to blow his own horn and is quite humble about how well he runs them, since he plays for the fun of the game, win or lose. He placed 6th nationally in the first 'Ard Boyz tournament and possibly would have taken first if he had won his last game, since he was in first place going into it.

Thanks. I just hope more and more people send me their lists, that's all I really want out of this. Maybe I'll just be lucky enough to get a TO to actually collect lists for once.... Crazy, I know.

His list is really awesome, I like that while it has a very traditional spin, it has a decent amount of stuff that isn't very common from the looks of it. I wonder what other Ork players were running in comparison to his list. I'm guessing most had a Stompa, but you never know. I mean that's really what motivated this project, there were people who wanted to see the lists, I wanted to see the lists, and there were discussion that went "Well obviously they ran this or that" but we had no clue without seeing things. I mean for all the griping about Piranha Wing being unplayable I think Isreal was the top Tau player and he ran the formation with seven Piranhas, which we'd never know if it hadn't been featured in a round.

Edit: Sorry, Trevor was the first best Tau finish, Israel was second. We have no idea what Trevor had. Wish we did.

The funny thing about time it's like trash it expands to fill all the space. You should see some of the etc games that only get to 3-5 turns in 4 hour rounds. It's crazy how slow people can get when they have the time. But in that system you are encouraged to clock your turns and fill out turn times on your score sheet. And if you are slow played and can prove that your opponent has take three of the four hours or some other crazy disparity the judges do step in and change scores after rounds.

Now that's at the extreme end. But yeah if you kept records of turn times you could see where you need to improve. Whether in your own speed or your ability to speed up your opponents. I track mine sometimes if playing people with large armies or notoriously slow. Just for myself to recognize how a game is shifting. Never had to use the information with a judge or anything but it's nice to track sometimes.

Slow play is real, intentional or not, and I saw far too many games not come to a natural conclusion due to time. I hate when this happens because it is not necessarily reflective of how either players actually played the game. Sometimes, it seemed like the player was intentionally doing it, but I had no real way to tell that other than repeated complaints (so the first few players are out of luck). Most of the time, it was players having complicated lists with a lack of fluency in the list.

More time would help solve this, but then it makes organizing the events harder, especially for smaller events that depend on a local crowd. Larger GTs can handle this better as people travel to play, but still, having played warmachine competitively, 12-15 hour days suck.

Less points helps cut down on the model count/rules interactions/200+ shot shooting phases/30+ dice psychic phases, and this will definitely speed up the game. It has the possible bonus (or problem) of shifting the meta as some lists cannot really function as intended at less than 1850.

Chess Clocks/Apps/Deathclocks encourage faster play, and for me, rather than having a flat "you each get 90 minutes", a simple clock that counts up might be better suited to the wide variety of lists out there. Gladius is going to take more time than a Baronial Court, but if judges have a clear time stamp of how much a player took in an individual game, it makes it easier to determine slow-play. At my local store, we have used a house rule of "less than 4 turned played is double loss". but this may not work in a larger GT format as chipmunking is also real. The ETC rule of 5-played or draw is also workable, but again, at a large GT, my fear is that unscrupulous individuals would identify that they were starting to lose and purposely delay to draw their opponent.

I'd vote less points as this is the solution with the least problematic implementation (from my view at least), and the for the most part, I think a good 70-80% of attendees would be fine with it, but I definitely understand the more competitive players taking issue with it as it definitely forces a reset on the meta and list-building, and for those that want to play and prepare for ETC or any other format that doesn't match the same points, it forces a split system that can make transferring between the two difficult.

TL;DR
A vote of several options would be wise, but more thorough discussion should probably occur before such.

As a fairly casual tourney player, unfortunately I've often had the experience of not finishing games in tournaments time limits, particularly if I'm friends with the opposition and we're not just rolling through the game! I think it would make a GT much more accessible to more players if the point level were reduced slightly, while keeping the same round time limits.

The 1850 vote was some time ago, and I'd love to see a reduced point limit question on the next ballot . It might also just be something to try phasing in - although it's really nice to have a standard to build to.

Warmachine (which I play more frequently than 40K now) has a similar issue where 50 points is where players feel they need to play to "have answers to most list questions", but 35 just makes the games so much faster. Honestly, I've by far had the best time playing 35 point games, but can't convince most folks to do so anymore since 50 has become so entrenched.

But I think 40K is in a period where enough changes have happened (particularly the "free points" in formations!) that considering a lower point level might be able to gain enough traction in the community to be viable. I'd love to try, at least!

The only formations I'm aware of that generate free points are Gladius Strike Force, Admech War Convocation and the new Tau formation. 1500 points could just exacerbate this effect making those formations even more powerful.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The only formations I'm aware of that generate free points are Gladius Strike Force, Admech War Convocation and the new Tau formation. 1500 points could just exacerbate this effect making those formations even more powerful.

And of course anything that summons demons....!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The only formations I'm aware of that generate free points are Gladius Strike Force, Admech War Convocation and the new Tau formation. 1500 points could just exacerbate this effect making those formations even more powerful.

Space wolves have a free pod formation, as well as some free upgrades from another.
Necrons get free move thru cover, free relentless, and free invisible Rez orbs in effect. (Models not dying really lengthens the game!!!)
KDK get free blood tithe, which can help get free units, as well as secondary blood tithe purchases.
Blood Angels have free power weapons and combi weapons from a formation.
Daemon summoning is also a thing for anyone with psychic dice not in grey armor.
Plus the ones you mentioned, as well as lion's blade.
Junk just downright also costs less than it used to.

Free is all over the place now. And there's just going to be more to come. It's time to accept that 1850 has become too apocalyptic for timely 2:45 event rounds. I would love to play giant 2500+ point games to win, because I feel like the game actually gets better balanced and gets less dice screwy as you go up in points, but it's just downright not feasible with 40k's ruleset that clumsily stumbles through the game. Things like models moving in 3 different phases, and complicated close combats eat up time like crazy.

Maybe when the game switches editions and gets some streamlining done we could try going back up, but as it is now, a point drop is hilariously overdue.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The only formations I'm aware of that generate free points are Gladius Strike Force, Admech War Convocation and the new Tau formation. 1500 points could just exacerbate this effect making those formations even more powerful.

Of course, 1,500 is pretty limiting on War Convocation - it's minimum 1,340 and that's taking Breachers and a Knight Gallant. Destroyers and a Crusader make it 1,470. While they still get the free wargear, it's pretty tough to fit in some of the complimenting formations and just numbers with that small a limit.

Gladius comes in around 1k minimum, so there's more room, but that's with none of the tools. Yes, the % of the total army in free points goes up at 1,500, but the taxes in the combi-detachments and some formations becomes a higher percentage too.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The only formations I'm aware of that generate free points are Gladius Strike Force, Admech War Convocation and the new Tau formation. 1500 points could just exacerbate this effect making those formations even more powerful.

To be fair, in some of those cases the free points scale with the size, so it's not an issue exactly. In other cases the free points are more possible as a result of the size because Israel's Pirahna formation was 392 points itself, that's pretty much the difference between 1500 and 1850, and while it's good it's a lot harder to squeeze in at 1500 than it is at 1850, not to say it wouldn't get played, just that those free points would cost a lot more dedication.

Side note: the gladius I've run this last season has 36 units.
By the time we get matchups, get our stuff to the table, shake hands, say hi, define terrain, choose table sides, go over each other's list, do warlord traits and psychic powers, place objectives, roll night-fighting, roll for turns and DEPLOY (a huge one!) infiltrate, scout move, and seize the initiative, we're already down to 2:20 left if we moved reasonably quick. (And I usually low- or null-deploy. We'd have even less time if I went full on blitzkrieg.) Finally we need to roll and track maelstrom objectives.

Now that we're actually in turn 1: Assuming I want to make it to end of 5 and actually have a chance at turn 6 (and have some time left for it,) while also using up no more than half the time in my end, I have 19 seconds TOTAL for each unit each turn to move, shoot/run/flat out, assault, and perform close combat, AS WELL AS let the opponent take saves and other reactions during those things, such as flickerjumps, interceptor, and morale tests. Not to mention that I may be hit and running on their turn.

19 seconds per unit!!! For their entire turn!!! Dice rolls and everything!!! And some of my guys deep strike. When is the last time you saw someone perform a deep strike WITH scatter that took less than 20 seconds just to place?

Now I have gotten pretty fast at gladius, but that's breakneck speed. If there is ANY hindrance whatsoever (for example I had to stop and show a necron player in an event in his book that he doesn't get to reanimate from remove from game effects like sweeping advance,) then I literally cannot finish the game on time. And let's face it, this is 40k. It's a huge complicated mess and even people at top 8 of LVO have rules questions that eat up time.

This aside was just to show how absurd it is when someone ignorant says "just play faster lawlz."

So yeah, points drop please. It is well beyond time.