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.

 kronk wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How about requiring all games have to complete turn 5 before anyone can move on. I imagine by round 3, anyone slow playing would be murdered by the other participants. So it works it self out naturally.

No it won't. Some people are slow and give no feths about who they inconvenience.

Yeah, and they would be dead. The only trouble would be body removal.

I've been out of tournaments for awhile, so I'm super out of the loop. But when I played alot in tournaments in 5th ed they were usely 1500 or 1850.

What exactly is the Standard in 40k Tournaments as of late? 2000? 2500 like 'ard boys?

Because 1850 is usely the max size I ever do for pick-up games.

+1 for 1500, or 1650. If it doesn't help..at least we tried.

There is literally nothing wrong with giving it a try. 12 hrs straight of 40k is starting to fee more like a job then, then a hobby. You know its bad when in test games you don't usually plan on finishing past 5.

 kronk wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

1) Before, the tournament starts and in *front* of tournament officials, roll your powers, warlord and random gears for the rest of your tournament games. Take that part out of having to do that randomness before each and every game. That'll cut down the pre-deployment time a bit.

I know you're just tossing ideas out, but, as mentioned above, in large tournaments with 300+ people and only 5 staff, that will actually take MORE time if they have to witness it all.

Yeah... I was spitballing.

It seems to be that it's the first turn that's really the bugaboo as it takes way too long to roll all the random abilities and then start the game.

In a beers & pretzel setting, it's all kosher. But, in a 2.5 hour time lime, if you're spending more than 10 minutes to start the game... you're well on your way in painting yourself in the corner.

How 'bout this for an idea. A flat bonus points for both players for reaching turn 5? At LVO, I believe the W/T/L was 1000/500/0 ??? Right? And that there were plenty of ties? With this turn 5 bonus, it could break those ties.

The votes for 1500 does not even come to 50%. This seems like a desire for old hammer . This just further increases the gaps between old vets and people who started playing back in 6th edition. I remember once as a third edition player reading rants by some second edition players who absolutely hated third. As a relatively new player it seemed absurd tbh.

Also I feel a drop in points is less competitive and more geared towards casual gamers. God bless them but this is supposed to be a top competitive event.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
The votes for 1500 does not even come to 50%. This seems like a desire for old hammer . This just further increases the gaps between old vets and people who started playing back in 6th edition. I remember once as a third edition player reading rants by some second edition players who absolutely hated third. As a relatively new player it seemed absurd tbh.

Also I feel a drop in points is less competitive and more geared towards casual gamers. God bless them but this is supposed to be a top competitive event.

Didn't realize 45% in a multi selection poll was not significant enough to show a leaning. Not to mention the votes for another lower point value.

Honestly, the idea that lower points is more casual is entirely unfounded.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Also I feel a drop in points is less competitive and more geared towards casual gamers. God bless them but this is supposed to be a top competitive event.

What event? And lower point games will be just as competitive, imo - it just shifts things, and players will adapt and find the best lists, like always.

@dozer blades

So a bunch of competitive players (from all over the country) think 1500 to 1650 is at the very least a help and you call it less competitive. I know which camp I fall in.

Also instead of basically slamming pepole trying to find a solution feel free to present one and lay out how it will work. Go...

 Brennonjw wrote:


tape measure: 3-15 dollars
dice: ~7 dollars
chess clock: ~40 dollars

one of those things are not quite like the other


Honestly, looking at it from a non-tournament player point of view, I'd have to blame that fact that MSU lists are basically a 'must' with an ITC ruleset, and with ITC being the most common, this is leading to longer play times.

assuming everyone has a smart phone, which makes the game a bit more exclusive.

Windrider jetbikes $41 (x6 = $246)
Riptide - $85 (x3 = 255)
tactical squad - $40 (x6 = 240)
codex - $50 (x2 = 100)
Tournament tickets - $75 +
First chess clock result on eBay - $20 free delivery

The total kit out for attending a tournament - models, materials, codexes, rulebooks, dice, templates, transport cases, tickets, hotels, travel, food... a chess clock is going to be less than buying water at LVO. Its an extremely minor additional cost IF you feel the need to buy one.

Plus do you really think that, well, anyone who is playing this game in a tournament would be excluded because they can't afford a smartphone? Its an expensive hobby, playing in tournaments makes it even MORE expensive, *nearly* everyone (especially in our demographic) has a smartphone anyway, and those playing 40k that don't is by choice not because of affordability. Plus you can literally get $10 Android smartphones, so cheaper than some chess clocks anyway...

Around 40% of those who have voted opted for less points. It's the majority for sure but doesn't have a quorum.

I have played at many events where the majority of the games were played to conclusion in 2.5 hours or less at 1850 points.

It's sounds to me one of the major constraints was players reaching their assigned tables in a timely manner.

Another solution is add 1/2 hour to each round and stsrt earlier each day.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Around 40% of those who have voted opted for less points. It's the majority for sure but doesn't have a quorum.

I have played at many events where the majority of the games were played to conclusion in 2.5 hours or less at 1850 points.

It's sounds to me one of the major constraints was players reaching their assigned tables in a timely manner.

Another solution is add 1/2 hour to each round and stsrt earlier each day.

The term quorum doesn't really apply. Quorums establish minimum numbers to begin debate and voting. It might not be a majority, but it's certainly a significant plurality. Especially when considering that no single answer has a majority.

45% of folks selected 1500 points at the time of this post.

Next highest selected options: chess clocks (14%) and more time (13%)

To suggest adding 30 minutes per game (making rounds at most major events 3 hours and 30 minutes!!) would be going with something only suggested by 13% of people, so it's odd to at the same time point to lack of support for the highest voted option!

The main point is the majority is not in favor of 1500 points and desire alternatives.

If looking for a simple majority, there would likely be clearer results from a poll with less options... it will be interesting to see what the results are from the Frontline poll (which I'm guessing will have less than 9 options although folks could select more than one here).

But the majority, as of this post, 45% + 6% = 51% do favor a reduction in points below 1850.

45% of them want 1500

6% of them want something less than 1850, but more than 1500.

I guess it's safe to say a majority favor reduced points.

Some of these options are not mutually exclusive and could be combined to make the best timed tournament game experience for everyone.

In my opinion higher point levels unlock more options for players to explore and lower point costs don’t always solve time issues in tournaments.

I think everyone on this thread can agree that if tournaments are going to use timed rounds than something needs to change so that games finish naturally.

I think the most unbiased solution that treats both players equally is using a chess clock.

You can get a great chess clock for under $20 dollars on amazon. It’s the one I use:

http://www.amazon.com/inkint-Professional-Electronic-Competition-Tournament/dp/B00X77IVK4/ref=sr_1_32?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1455673273&sr=1-32&keywords=chess+clocks&refinements=p_n_feature_eight_browse-bin%3A3239672011

That’s full retail, so that means these clocks can be bought in bulk for less than $10 dollars. A savvy TO could easily include one of these in the cost of admission and break even or possibly profit if that is their goal.

This version I have been told does negative time:

http://www.amazon.com/DGT-1001-Digital-Chess-Clock/dp/B016E3WSVA/ref=sr_1_48?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1455673273&sr=1-48&keywords=chess+clocks&refinements=p_n_feature_eight_browse-bin%3A3239672011

With the intention of adding constructive substance to this conversation I am going to re-post just a few of the many benefits of chess clocks here from a thread that was closed for being repetitive.

Why Chess clocks:

1. It resolves all time-related disputes in 40k tournament games because it makes time equal for all players.

2. You control your own time.

2. It adds another level of strategy.

3. It’s exciting.

4. It’s easy once you get used to it.

5. Games always end the way they should.

In conclusion, if it is not the intention of timed round tournaments to treat all players equally and fairly in respect to time, then a chess clock system isn't necessary. However, if tournaments are going to use timed rounds and the organizers want to treat all players equally and fairly in respect to time, then they must use chess clocks. A chess clock system is equal and most importantly fair to both players because they control their own time.

40k is way to interactive for chess clocks to work well, especially in a tournament setting. Not to mention adding that kind of complication is going to lead to driving people away instead of toward tournaments.

@hulksmash have you tried it using the simple rules proposed in the rules thread or is this just your gut feeling?

From my experience in practice games played as if they are tournament games, I can tell you that the rules work very well. They work so well that it is now hard for me to play a timed game without them.

You only spend a few seconds per game turn passing the clock and it becomes second nature after a game or two.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Around 40% of those who have voted opted for less points. It's the majority for sure but doesn't have a quorum.

I have played at many events where the majority of the games were played to conclusion in 2.5 hours or less at 1850 points.

It's sounds to me one of the major constraints was players reaching their assigned tables in a timely manner.

Another solution is add 1/2 hour to each round and stsrt earlier each day.

That poll is terribly written. Biased options, mixed issues, and given in a context in which only certain groups are likely to make the effort to vote. Reducing points isn't a bad idea, but I wouldn't use this poll as an argument.

IMO having players roll psychic powers before the tournament and they keep powers for the duration of the tournament is a good time saver. I have seen demon armies waste 45min-1hr of game time each game of a tournament determining and noting psychic powers and setting up. If a game is 2h:30min more than 25% of the game was done before it started from one player.

It also prevents people from being able to list tailor psychic powers versus certain opponents, which is balanced as players don't have the option to swap out heavy/special weapons versus certain opponents keeping similar points costs and all.

Some people do intentionally slow play, especially shooty armies. They are often benefited by maximizing the first few turns of shooting, then setting up for a good position to grab objectives on what they plan will be the last turn due to "slow play" Have seen it happen a few times, not terribly often.

If chess clocks get involved players should have an overall time pool they use up- not a turn or phase based one necessarily- as some players are more active in some phases, or will do more in certain turns -ie assault armies are more likely to spend more time playing on turn 3+ than turn 1-2.

blaktoof wrote:
IMO having players roll psychic powers before the tournament and they keep powers for the duration of the tournament is a good time saver. I have seen demon armies waste 45min-1hr of game time each game of a tournament determining and noting psychic powers and setting up. If a game is 2h:30min more than 25% of the game was done before it started from one player.

It also prevents people from being able to list tailor psychic powers versus certain opponents, which is balanced as players don't have the option to swap out heavy/special weapons versus certain opponents keeping similar points costs and all.

Some people do intentionally slow play, especially shooty armies. They are often benefited by maximizing the first few turns of shooting, then setting up for a good position to grab objectives on what they plan will be the last turn due to "slow play" Have seen it happen a few times, not terribly often.

If chess clocks get involved players should have an overall time pool they use up- not a turn or phase based one necessarily- as some players are more active in some phases, or will do more in certain turns -ie assault armies are more likely to spend more time playing on turn 3+ than turn 1-2.

Chess clocks solve all these issues. If a player wants to use an hour of his clock determining psychic powers, he can.

You do have a pool, it is not turned based. As an example, if you are playing in a tournament that has three hour rounds then each player gets one hour and thirty minutes to use as they wish. That is what makes the system so fair. Each player gets equal time to spend as they wish. Take a look in the rules thread for how the system works and try a few games.

Remember you control your own time when using a chess clock.

t wrote:
@hulksmash have you tried it using the simple rules proposed in the rules thread or is this just your gut feeling?

From my experience in practice games played as if they are tournament games, I can tell you that the rules work very well. They work so well that it is now hard for me to play a timed game without them.

You only spend a few seconds per game turn passing the clock and it becomes second nature after a game or two.

It may be simple to you, but if would be a huge disincentive to attendees, particularly more casual ones. I don't consider myself a casual player, but would personally think twice about travelling to attend an event requiring the use of chess clocks.

How do you control time when your timer is on and your opponent is flicker jumping in your turn and over watching (a whole army like tau) in your turn? What about different saves like in a wolf star, look out sirs and ofcourse rolling 2 save at a time. Chess clocks DO NOT WORK in 40k as people can still abuse them and make it look like you've spent ages on your turn.

 DarkLink wrote:

That poll is terribly written. Biased options, mixed issues, and given in a context in which only certain groups are likely to make the effort to vote. Reducing points isn't a bad idea, but I wouldn't use this poll as an argument.

Yes, you got me; this thread is as political as any other. It's not pretending to be otherwise. This poll and its results are only an argument for a more official poll. Specifically, I hoped to get this question into the ITC poll. It sounds like that will happen next week. Thank you everyone for voting!

And I think the results speak for themselves. Look how few votes there are for the status quo! If the poll was reduced to two options, 1500 yes or no, what might the results be? 1500 may not be everyone's first choice, but clearly a significant majority of this forum want a solution, and there's a clear favorite.

I intentionally did not include my own arguments here yet. Of all the options, reducing army size is the only one that evenly lowers barriers to entry, and I value this highly for the sake of the hobby community.

Mission design is an interesting idea I wish I'd included in the poll, even if I wouldn't vote for it myself.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

t wrote:
@hulksmash have you tried it using the simple rules proposed in the rules thread or is this just your gut feeling?

From my experience in practice games played as if they are tournament games, I can tell you that the rules work very well. They work so well that it is now hard for me to play a timed game without them.

You only spend a few seconds per game turn passing the clock and it becomes second nature after a game or two.

It may be simple to you, but if would be a huge disincentive to attendees, particularly more casual ones. I don't consider myself a casual player, but would personally think twice about travelling to attend an event requiring the use of chess clocks.

This. I've been trying to snag people into the tourney scene lately. I've gotten a couple by convincing them that even tourneys are fairly "newbie-friendly" and not all serious business. Chess clocks run very VERY counter to that feel. They enhance an elitist competitive atmosphere instead of a friendly competitive atmosphere.

@t: I can tell you right now that not only would clocks convince my fledgling players to stay home, I would also duck out of the competitive scene if they became widespread.

The points drop is the only solution that makes sense. That will cause more (not all) games to finish naturally in a timely manner, make it more difficult to slow play without being obvious, and as others have said, lower the barrier of entry for people getting into the scene, which is quite possibly the most important aspect of the change. You can't keep up a competitive scene without players. People die, retire from the game, etc etc. For anything to thrive, there ALWAYS needs to be a fresh stream of youth incoming.

It was said before, points reduction will not make a huge difference. E.g. Moving 4 Knights instead of 5, basically no difference in time.
If you think it will become more competitive, i don't see how. Low model count armies will be hurt even more and will have to adapt thus increasing army size thus taking longer to move. And as another example, Eldar will still take Scatterbikes/Wraithknights/spiders (and rightfully so) and be as strong if not stronger than before compared to the meta.

1650 is fine been playing that a lot and it saves about 20-30 minutes of time. The difference of 400 points from both sides is around 3-4 units that no longer moves, shoots, assault, or deploys saving 20-30 that helps finish games. If more time is needed to be removed can always vote again next year. The people against point reduction can't even say it won't help because they know it will they just keep saying it won't stop slow play or all games finishing on time. Point reductions are not meant to remove all unfinished games just that more will finish. Lower point costs also make the game more accessible. Easier transportation, cheaper entry cost, and help eliminates cheesy gimmicks like using mass units to block reserve entry by taking over the board edge.

X078 wrote:
It was said before, points reduction will not make a huge difference. E.g. Moving 4 Knights instead of 5, basically no difference in time.
If you think it will become more competitive, i don't see how. Low model count armies will be hurt even more and will have to adapt thus increasing army size thus taking longer to move. And as another example, Eldar will still take Scatterbikes/Wraithknights/spiders (and rightfully so) and be as strong if not stronger than before compared to the meta.

You used the most extreme example where 350 points = 1 model. A player is losing basically 20% of their army if we drop to 1500. That's 20% fewer models to move, make decisions regarding, take saves for, etc. It's silly to say it wouldn't make a difference in time, as many of us have played smaller games and it is most definitely quicker.

To provide the opposite end of the spectrum "350 points means my guard army loses an entire platoon! I lose a pcs, 2 infantry squads, 50 conscripts, and a wyvern! (30/100/150/65 = 345). 75 Models and 4 blasts from a multiple barrage unit, that saves a ton of time!.

No one is saying it will be more competitive - they're saying that competitive players shouldn't care, because 1) it won't functionally change the meta much and 2) even if it did, it wouldn't matter, because competitive players adapt to the meta anyways to remain competitive. What was competitive 6 months ago is not now, that's always the case.

X078 wrote:
It was said before, points reduction will not make a huge difference. E.g. Moving 4 Knights instead of 5, basically no difference in time.
If you think it will become more competitive, i don't see how. Low model count armies will be hurt even more and will have to adapt thus increasing army size thus taking longer to move. And as another example, Eldar will still take Scatterbikes/Wraithknights/spiders (and rightfully so) and be as strong if not stronger than before compared to the meta.

So because it won't speed up the smallest army in the game to play reducing the time is bad?

Less scatterbikes and spiders (for example, LVO's winner would have had 30 or so less spiders) makes the armies stronger? If anything less of the MSU that elder can bring to the table enhances quite a few other armies as elder have the ability to scale up msu wise in a way most armies don't. A lot of armies peak MSU much sooner than Eldar.

It would be just as competitive as now. And I say this as someone who was making your arguments in 5th and even early 6th edition. We're basically at a point where we need to do something and the something we have been doing (increasing round times) is no longer a viable option. Chess clocks are not friendly to growing 40k for the numerous reasons posted above and that doesn't even consider the amount of interaction between players on their turns and the issues that raises. So we're left with lowering the points (basically bringing us back to 5th/early 6th sized armies) or changing rules and creating strict comp for what can be brought.

I vote points lowering is the thing to try now.

Target wrote:

...To provide the opposite end of the spectrum "350 points means my guard army loses an entire platoon! I lose a pcs, 2 infantry squads, 50 conscripts, and a wyvern! (30/100/150/65 = 345). 75 Models and 4 blasts from a multiple barrage unit, that saves a ton of time!...

Still thats one platoon/unit/group/etc of many and true you will probably save time with horde armies. But my point is you might already be taking an overly long time by using a horde army so even by dropping 350p i am not sure the time saved is adequate enough to justify it. Maybe we need to drop 500p to be able to handle a game in 2h45m , who knows, and that's the problem.