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.

Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

 DarkLink wrote:
Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

I never said I slow play. I move uncomfortably fast just because I don't want to be accused of such, and make plenty of errors due to it. The only games I haven't made it to turn 5 on involved newer players at the events in question and rules issues such as the example where the necron player didn't believe me that his swept unit of crons died without reanimate chances.

I played gladius because it's a competitive choice that I have the models for. If I was "lucky" and had one of the other top-tier lists available to me, I'd play one of them. Your post is extremely condescending and rude to me sir.
If people don't want it to be a legal choice, they need to make that clear. If it is a legal choice, it needs to be playable in the format, and that includes the game time.

I had a friend who used to play horde orks and another horde guard. they had their whole armies magnetized to movement trays.... so deployment and turns one and two took no time for them since they just moved these trays forward. After that models had died and they would move off the trays into the nitty gritty of the game but the time saved in deployment and turns one and two allowed them to play horde armies competitively.

Theres no problem with playing those armies or any army, as long as you come up with creative ways to play faster. Steve sisk and his battle company were great example. He had the whole thing spread out on the side with troops lined up in front of his transports. All numbered to match the guys... was very cool loooking visually and also helped him quickly roll through reserves and enter the table with no confusion.

I did the same from the very first game with the gladius onward. Just to shave seconds whenever possible like a competitive driver, every little thing was in its place in the army tray pre-game ready to go. It helps, but the time wall is still all too real.

And it's not just gladius. Necrons don't lose models, so their turns never get shorter. You need an hour class to figure out what all each of the alphas in a war convo get straight in your head, dozens of free drones take time to move run and thrust move...

I'm not sure where people are seeing these mythical 1850 games that are finishing comfortably within the time limit, because all I'm seeing is people left and right, even with "normal" armies, not finishing games naturally. (Assuming they both lived through the game. One side being tabled is an obvious exception.)
Even the FLG Tuesday night fights that I've watched tend to run way over what a tourney time limit would be.

Games should not be hitting the time wall constantly. Most of them should be finishing naturally with random game length. If they aren't, which in my events they haven't been, the time wall needs to be checked. And if more time can't be made available, (which it really can't,) then the game size needs to drop so that the game is easier to fit.

I think that if you restrict time, people will find a way to cope, because like the saying goes "restriction builds innovation". Jut getting people used to a speed 40k style of play would go a long way, and while yes people would make more mistakes early on, it will get better as they get used to it. Not only that, but it would raise the skill ceiling for the top players.

Time is already restricted in tournaments, and has been for awhile, though?

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that if you restrict time, people will find a way to cope, because like the saying goes "restriction builds innovation". Jut getting people used to a speed 40k style of play would go a long way, and while yes people would make more mistakes early on, it will get better as they get used to it. Not only that, but it would raise the skill ceiling for the top players.

But you do so by alienating newer players, which is a VERY BAD THING.
I absolutely do NOT want someone showing up to their first event getting docked over and over because his games aren't finishing, his fault or not. The top table speed players shouldn't be the only ones able to finish games. That's a very very clear sign something is wrong.

Bottom line, if the average game between average players isn't finishing, we need a fix.

Whole-heartedly agree with niv-mizzet

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I think that if you restrict time, people will find a way to cope, because like the saying goes "restriction builds innovation". Jut getting people used to a speed 40k style of play would go a long way, and while yes people would make more mistakes early on, it will get better as they get used to it. Not only that, but it would raise the skill ceiling for the top players.

But you do so by alienating newer players, which is a VERY BAD THING.
I absolutely do NOT want someone showing up to their first event getting docked over and over because his games aren't finishing, his fault or not. The top table speed players shouldn't be the only ones able to finish games. That's a very very clear sign something is wrong.

Bottom line, if the average game between average players isn't finishing, we need a fix.

That's why you need an FNM style component for the tournaments as a whole. Things like GPs, PTQs, etc are very fast paced and aren't good places for new players, while smaller more casual tournaments like FNM, Game Day, etc introduce newer players at a slower pace to tournament play and over time ramp them up with SCGOs and the like. That's really the problem with 40k, most people who play it, don't understand the huge value of "casual" tournaments, or believe simply labeling a tournament casual is the big fix, when it doesn't actually mean anything. Any large successful game has a massive casual competitive base that then feeds into the smaller pro-circuit that is the one shown to players. Magic has FNM, League of Legends and Hearthstone have their ranked seasons, and so forth. They're all tournaments with small enough rewards that it promotes a fun atmosphere and everyone gets a chance of some form of reward, such as the FNM promo (at least two are random door prizes), the free cards from Hearthstone, or the skins/badges in League. You create the foundation, and then build on top of that the premier thing.

 DarkLink wrote:
Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

He shouldn't have to choose armies based on which will get him bullied by those with a sense of entitlement that any army that takes longer then their own to play is "slow play" cheating them.

If you have three times the models, you need three times the time, its not exactly rocket science that it takes longer to play with 150 models then with 50.

Whining about "slow play" against people who are actually playing two to three times faster then you have to play for the same result is disingenuous and a blatant denial of the realities of having to move/roll for so many models, let alone the logistics of setting them up/tear down.

Yeah, I think the comparisons to Magic only go so far (or even Warmachine, which I'm much more familiar with). Playing 40K with a large model count army is a whole different animal, and one I think it would be awesome to make more feasible.

Even for smaller model count armies, it'd be very welcome to have a bit more breathing room for finishing games.

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.

I think there's a fine line in the blame game here.

I play blob guard and I realize that most of the time I'll have 2 to 3 times the amount of models as my opponent. I've gotten good at deploying quickly and moving. I make choices that value time over small damage output like not shooting my lasguns every turn with each blob. However, if someone decides to assault my fearless blobs at the bottom of turn 1 or turn 2, is it my fault that they made a decision that will ensure that the game won't end on time? If my opponent values the game finishing on time, they could choose to not assault even if that's their army's primary play style.

So am I still the jerk who doesn't respect my opponents time?

Others have mentioned this in the thread, but any time penalties are likely to disproportionately affect new players and players coming back to the game. I would like to avoid making decisions that affect those players for the benefit of veterans. We need new players and we need to retain players that are on the fence about attending tournaments. That's the only way that tournaments grow and this hobby avoids death.

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, I think the comparisons to Magic only go so far (or even Warmachine, which I'm much more familiar with). Playing 40K with a large model count army is a whole different animal, and one I think it would be awesome to make more feasible.

Even for smaller model count armies, it'd be very welcome to have a bit more breathing room for finishing games.

Actually, I think it's a lot more apt than people think it is, as slow play has always been a factor of Magic. There have been pro-players who were banned because they used slow play as a tactic, by winning game one and then trying to drag out game two as long as possible with over excessive shuffling and the like. There was even a joke about a deck running Soldier of Fortune effects that just say "Tap: Target player shuffles deck" in their side board.

More so, there have been bans in magic as a result of slow play decks. For example, decks like Four Horsemen can't be played without losing to slow play warnings, since it sets up a loop that has no defined win condition but can win given enough iterations of the loop, which is obviously a problem. Another deck got banned out of a format because a single turn could become too complex and a player could spend twenty minutes or more in a single turn preforming actions that may or may not win the game for them in a complex combo, the deck was known as Eggs and just used cards to recycle mana, while drawing cards, then replaying them, in hopes of drawing the win condition and building enough of a critical mass to win. It wasn't a broken deck, and it did win events, the issue was that the games it played gave one player a disproportionate amount of time for their turns, and many times it ended in draws as a result.

So yea, there's a wealth of knowledge that you can draw knowing the history of Magic. Now that's not to say lists should be banned, as an army is a larger investment than a deck (time wise more than money wise) but there should be considerations made in terms of size and play speed, finding ways to get a middle ground that helps the game as a whole.

How does magic treat players with illegal cards/decks tinkrr?

Mr. Horus wrote:
How does magic treat players with illegal cards/decks tinkrr?

Depends on the infraction. There are differences between errors and blatant cheating, along with if it's REL (Rule Enforcement Level) regular or competitive. Can you provide a specific example?

 Tinkrr wrote:

Mr. Horus wrote:
How does magic treat players with illegal cards/decks tinkrr?

Depends on the infraction. There are differences between errors and blatant cheating, along with if it's REL (Rule Enforcement Level) regular or competitive. Can you provide a specific example?

Basically say a player unintentionally cheated in a way that gave them a deck that was illegal then won a major competitive tournament with prize support.

@Mr Horus: Let it go. This thread is having a valuable discussion on the ITC format and your earlier thread was closed. Take it to PM and let this thread continue without the distraction.

Mr. Horus wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

Mr. Horus wrote:
How does magic treat players with illegal cards/decks tinkrr?

Depends on the infraction. There are differences between errors and blatant cheating, along with if it's REL (Rule Enforcement Level) regular or competitive. Can you provide a specific example?

Basically say a player unintentionally cheated in a way that gave them a deck that was illegal then won a major competitive tournament with prize support.

Well, they can't go back and change the event, so once it's done it's done. Now, if the cheating was intentional, they can ban them from future events for a period of time based on the offense, but if it was unintentional and not caught by the staff of the event (mind you Magic does on site list checks, random deck checks, and more) there isn't much that can be done.

Deck errors are not uncommon in large Magic events, and most of them are not intentionally malicious. Generally a discovered deck error during an event is a game loss (one of three games in a round) and a correction to the deck, this can include mislabeled cards, missing cards on the list, and so forth. One time we had a guy who had four cards missing on his list, which was discovered during the list checks in the first round, his and his opponent's lists were taken and checked against their decks, which turned out that both decks had errors, one missing cards and the other a mislabeled card (looked like they couldn't get enough copies so they substituted a similar card but didn't update the list), they both received a game loss and it was basically a round of best of one game instead of three.

Mistakes happen, and they can only be resolved by vigilance during the event. More importantly, it 's good to have a record for each player, as a history of similar errors can show a pattern. One prolific cheater in Magic went without getting caught for a long time as he found ways to get around this record, one of the sillier ones being to ask for game play warnings to be downgraded to cautions, as warnings have a saved record in the judge staff, cautions do not.

We're getting a bit far afield here, so let's return to the topic of this thread, please - the LVO tournament and its results. Thanks all

Anyone know any space marine lists that did well which weren't gladius? Thanks

Anthonys List 5-1 19th place

Battle Demi-company
• Chaplain: Ravens Fury; auspex 110
• 4 Tactical Marines: meltagun; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (combi-melta) 90
• Drop Pod 35
• 4 Tactical Marines: meltagun; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (combi-melta) 90
• Drop Pod 35
• 4 Tactical Marines: meltagun; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (combi-melta) 90
• Drop Pod 35
• 4 Assault Marines: 2× flamer; jump packs; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (melta bombs) 100
• 4 Devastator Marines: 4× plasma cannon; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant 130

Skyhammer Annihilation Force
• 4 Assault Marines: + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (melta bombs) 90
• 4 Assault Marines: + 1 Space Marine Sergeant (melta bombs) 90
• 4 Devastator Marines: 4× heavy bolter; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant 110
• Drop Pod 35
• 4 Devastator Marines: 4× grav-cannon and grav-amp; + 1 Space Marine Sergeant 210
• Drop Pod 35

4 Scouts: + 1 Scout Sergeant 55
4 Scouts: + 1 Scout Sergeant 55

4 Vanguard Veterans: 2× bolt pistol; 2× lightning claw; power weapon; 2× lightning claw; 2× melta bombs; jump packs; + 1 Veteran Sergeant (power fist) 160
4 Vanguard Veterans: 2× bolt pistol; 2× lightning claw; power weapon; 2× lightning claw; 2× melta bombs; jump packs; + 1 Veteran Sergeant (power fist) 160

Inquisitor Coteaz 100
Ordo Malleus Inquisitor: 3× servo-skull 34

1,849 points

Wow that is a hot build for Vanguard Vets !

@ Tinkrr

I sent you a bunch of the Top 50 LVO lists.

bogalubov wrote:

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.

I think there's a fine line in the blame game here.

I play blob guard and I realize that most of the time I'll have 2 to 3 times the amount of models as my opponent. I've gotten good at deploying quickly and moving. I make choices that value time over small damage output like not shooting my lasguns every turn with each blob. However, if someone decides to assault my fearless blobs at the bottom of turn 1 or turn 2, is it my fault that they made a decision that will ensure that the game won't end on time? If my opponent values the game finishing on time, they could choose to not assault even if that's their army's primary play style.

So am I still the jerk who doesn't respect my opponents time?

Others have mentioned this in the thread, but any time penalties are likely to disproportionately affect new players and players coming back to the game. I would like to avoid making decisions that affect those players for the benefit of veterans. We need new players and we need to retain players that are on the fence about attending tournaments. That's the only way that tournaments grow and this hobby avoids death.

As I said this game has grey areas.. you of course are not to be blamed. If you both are doing your best to play fast through that it should be fine. It isn't like horde armies CANNOT finish on time.. they can. It probably means you don't get to chat as much as you'd like and joke around and it probably means you make some minor mistakes.. THAT would be fair given you took a large army to a timed tourney. As long as that is agreeable we are on the same page. It's the people who are arguing "I took a large army AND i want to chat the entire time.. don't tell me how to play!" If both people are cool with that there is 0 issue here. If one guy wants to finish on time and is trying to do that but the other guy is slowly moving around his 150 models because "it's his right" that ISN'T fair imo.

 Julnlecs wrote:
@ Tinkrr

I sent you a bunch of the Top 50 LVO lists.

Got them and they're now entered. Thank you very much that was an amazing contribution! Though there was one list I had a question about so that one isn't posted up yet.

12th place Tau is awesome, did not expect Breachers.

 easysauce wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

He shouldn't have to choose armies based on which will get him bullied by those with a sense of entitlement that any army that takes longer then their own to play is "slow play" cheating them.

If you have three times the models, you need three times the time, its not exactly rocket science that it takes longer to play with 150 models then with 50.

Whining about "slow play" against people who are actually playing two to three times faster then you have to play for the same result is disingenuous and a blatant denial of the realities of having to move/roll for so many models, let alone the logistics of setting them up/tear down.

How does this only work 1 way in your brain? The guy with 150 models is being "bullied" into playing faster but what about the guy with 50 models who is being forced to have less time in a game that should give both players equal time? How the hell can you so blatantly defend one side of this but not see the side of the other?

The argument SHOULD be the guy can take whatever army he wants but if it causes problems for his opponents it should be taken care of.. like, how is that a crazy concept? Play your 300 model army.. but play it fairly and allow it to equally enable your opponent to have their time too. If you cannot do that then you took the wrong army. Sorry, that is the way it is. I own 100 termagants and 60 hormagants but if I cannot play them fairly why should I on principle be allowed to play 3 turns each game no matter what all the while crying I am being bullied when people complain about my slow playing?

iNcontroL wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Then maybe you should consider running an army that doesn't force you to slowplay your opponent.

He shouldn't have to choose armies based on which will get him bullied by those with a sense of entitlement that any army that takes longer then their own to play is "slow play" cheating them.

If you have three times the models, you need three times the time, its not exactly rocket science that it takes longer to play with 150 models then with 50.

Whining about "slow play" against people who are actually playing two to three times faster then you have to play for the same result is disingenuous and a blatant denial of the realities of having to move/roll for so many models, let alone the logistics of setting them up/tear down.

How does this only work 1 way in your brain? The guy with 150 models is being "bullied" into playing faster but what about the guy with 50 models who is being forced to have less time in a game that should give both players equal time? How the hell can you so blatantly defend one side of this but not see the side of the other?

The argument SHOULD be the guy can take whatever army he wants but if it causes problems for his opponents it should be taken care of.. like, how is that a crazy concept? Play your 300 model army.. but play it fairly and allow it to equally enable your opponent to have their time too. If you cannot do that then you took the wrong army. Sorry, that is the way it is. I own 100 termagants and 60 hormagants but if I cannot play them fairly why should I on principle be allowed to play 3 turns each game no matter what all the while crying I am being bullied when people complain about my slow playing?

I'm starting to think you and some others aren't on the same page as me. Let me try to clear something up.

-you're talking about slow playing. I totally agree with you. Anyone not making it past turn 3 had something huge and wrong happen. The issue here is that I'm not talking about slow playing. Barring a couple times where a player caused a huge delay, such as a large rules issue or general newbie-ness, I have never failed to get through turn 5 in an event with my speed at playing MSU battleco. Slow playing is not the issue I'm talking about. Natural game ending is. Not just my matches, but an incredible portion of the ones I see, including streamed games from nova and the LVO, are NOT making it into turn 6 and 7. They get to turn 5, realize they're hitting the time wall, and have to end it, ignoring the random game length roll.

That is my issue with the points/time constraints. An incredible portion of games are ending unnaturally at the time wall. At this particular moment, I could advise someone heading to an ITC event to set their list up and play it to be stable on turn 5, because 6 and 7 never happen, even though by rules they should be happening more often than not. Even Eldar vs Eldar, an army famous for abusively powerful offense and only mediocre defense, ran into the time wall instead of checking random game length.

The "average" result should be that games end after turn 6 in events, and they SHOULD have enough time to do a round 7 if the dice demand it. This is NOT what is happening. Slow players not even considered, a giant portion of the field just can't make it to random game length anymore due to all the fat and clunkiness in the game.

So like I said earlier, if the average game is running into a time issue instead of a natural finish, we need a fix. A points drop is pretty much the only thing possible since time is already stretched very hard at most events.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Julnlecs wrote:
@ Tinkrr

I sent you a bunch of the Top 50 LVO lists.

Got them and they're now entered. Thank you very much that was an amazing contribution! Though there was one list I had a question about so that one isn't posted up yet.

12th place Tau is awesome, did not expect Breachers.

Where can these be found? Sounds very interesting.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y28px3mgjeergdn/AADDpUf3n_u2QfkiYzDzHSh0a?dl=0

 niv-mizzet wrote:
(snip long quote)

Not going to get too involved in the slow play discussion, but just to comment, the "turn 5 oh look time is out" phenomenon is not an ITC one. It started happening that I noticed about a year from the end of 5th edition when we started bloating armies to 2k, and it's gotten worse since then. You'll find that, in general, at most events in my experience, despite the fact that we've also extended round times from the 2 hours they were then to the close to 3 hours they are now.

I personally heavily favor a drop to 1500. A drop to 1750 or 1650 won't do much to change things, you need a significant cut. To be frank, I don't get a lot of the resistance to it. For a competitive player it's just a new game size - who cares, we still design the best list we can and try to out roll/think our opponents. To a casual player, this will make the games shorter. To a new player, this will make the games more accessible. Will it fix everything? Probably not, but it definitely can't hurt, and it for sure won't make games longer.