Competitive Solutions for Unfinished Games -- has the time come for 1500 point tournaments?

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.

**gungo**

axisofentropy wrote:
gungo wrote:

I'd like to actually see how an ork warband (multi detachment decorian) with a ghaz council does before you blow it off as uncompetitive. That list just will not fit in 1500 and is at least usable at 1650.
Great! This is a ~*testable hypothesis*~ and it's important. Does 150 more points really make the difference between using the new Ork detachment of formations?

Yes that's 5 nobs with powerklaws. That's the difference of a green tide without nobs and klaws and with. The difference is one is competitve and the other is not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
gungo wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Increasing points will not make IG / CSM / Orks more competitive

People need to separate balance from play time.

I'd like to actually see how an ork warband (multi detachment decorian)

1500 Just makes many lists unplayable.

The problem is people who don't play these armies feel they should discount the opinions of those who do.

WTF is a "decorian?" Is that the janky Orkified version?

Making lists unplayable at 1500 is too darn bad. Everybody gives up the same 350 points going from 1850 to 1500, and everybody loses some bells and whistles.

Or, maybe the problem is people relying on the same old crutches...

It's a new formation and its Orks there are no same old crutches.

**Kimchi Gamer**

I think a lot of people forget that some 40k players and people in general are just kind of slow moving, slow talking individuals. There is a local guy that sometimes gets complaints about slow playing but everything this guy goes is slow, like a turtle making his mind up. In that respect chess clocks would hurt these individuals who have a great passion for the game and love to attend events but will be penalized for the way they act. Just my 2 cents on that.

**Red Corsair**

Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think a lot of people forget that some 40k players and people in general are just kind of slow moving, slow talking individuals. There is a local guy that sometimes gets complaints about slow playing but everything this guy goes is slow, like a turtle making his mind up. In that respect chess clocks would hurt these individuals who have a great passion for the game and love to attend events but will be penalized for the way they act. Just my 2 cents on that.

I agree, chess clocks are a terrible idea for 40k. It penalizes certain armies and individuals from the word go.

Also, as someone who has played this game passionately since 2nd I think people need to dig back though their pile of old books and realize just how much cheaper units have gotten. This means a huge difference when people are talking about how 2000pts were fine 3 editions ago since :

A. they were more like 1850 now

B. They didn't also get free rules and upgrade or units (summoning) making them more like 1500

Just something to keep it real here.

The added dice rolling also does make a huge difference, I have personally noticed how much longer any game against Tau lasts since they shoot in the enemy movement and assault phases and move in their own move, shoot and assault phases. For feths sake, that isn't even factoring the rerolls. Not to single out tau either, the new ultramarines reroll everything all day every day as well! I wish any instance something got a reroll it just added +1 to its to hit or wound to a max of 2+ but this particular critique is aimed at GW not TO's for a fix/change.

**axisofentropy**

Update: thank you everyone for voting in this informal poll. The more official ITC poll is now open: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/22/itc-2016-season-q1-update-poll/

From what we've seen in this thread, I predict the motion for 1500 points will win in a landslide, at least 2:1. We'll find out next week.

**Dozer Blades**

I have seen internet discussions on the optimal point size outside of Dakka and IMO it's not nearly as clear cut here.

**gungo**

axisofentropy wrote:
Update: thank you everyone for voting in this informal poll. The more official ITC poll is now open: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/22/itc-2016-season-q1-update-poll/

From what we've seen in this thread, I predict the motion for 1500 points will win in a landslide, at least 2:1. We'll find out next week.

I don't think you realize how polls work.
First people who vote here are inclined to vote because they already agree with the topic of the post
Secondly It's a two vote question.
First you have the yes and no vote which even if we you have enough people voting to reduce points
You have a second vote which will include everyone who didn't want to lower the points voting for the highest point limit.
Whereas your poll is an either or choice.

I wouldn't call it a landslide since a lot of people don't want to lower points. In fact your own vote has 60% of the people voting not for 1500pts. So I don't see how that's a landslide.

**JohnHwangDD**

That's OK. The real point of the poll is to NERF TAU!

**axisofentropy**

gungo wrote:
axisofentropy wrote:
Update: thank you everyone for voting in this informal poll. The more official ITC poll is now open: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/22/itc-2016-season-q1-update-poll/

From what we've seen in this thread, I predict the motion for 1500 points will win in a landslide, at least 2:1. We'll find out next week.

I don't think you realize how polls work.
First people who vote here are inclined to vote because they already agree with the topic of the post
Secondly It's a two vote question.
First you have the yes and no vote which even if we you have enough people voting to reduce points
You have a second vote which will include everyone who didn't want to lower the points voting for the highest point limit.
Whereas your poll is an either or choice.

I wouldn't call it a landslide since a lot of people don't want to lower points. In fact your own vote has 60% of the people voting not for 1500pts. So I don't see how that's a landslide.

we shall see! Want to make a wager?

**Hulksmash**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's OK. The real point of the poll is to NERF TAU!

"We're going to review tau!"

Asks a question aboUT ghost heels that isn't that important and for a rai for pirahna coming back from death or immobilization. Nothing on reviewing the hunter cadre special rule or the drone farm.

**GreyDragoon**

I've only once ever not finished a GT 1850pt match, and that was with a very particularly problematic player who nabbed his third warning (and thus penalty) for slow play in our match at that GT.

In general the problem tends to be either intentional slow play by one person, heavy rules lawyering by both parties, or truly unfortunate matchups where you have hundred of orc models vs hundreds of some other model type. The second one, in my experience, is the most likely issue to have come up. True slow players (for a benefit) are rare and if they play against a competitive GT goer they are going to get called out on it and penalized. The third type, those rare moments where there are just 2 million models on the table, are rare but unfortunate when they happen. The third one is the only instance I feel lower point caps would help solve the issue.

**RiTides**

I think the most common cause of a game not finishing is actually just players who having fun / playing casually / not used to time limits / etc, rather than any of the above.

Of course, a really high model count army is going to cause issues, but it seems to me that those players are actually often more aware of the need to play quickly!

**Mymearan**

A huge advantage to this would be basically excluding über-formations like War Convocation from tournaments. I believe you can't fit it in 1500? Still, 1500 might be a touch too small, maybe 1650?

**Hulksmash**

Mymearan wrote:
A huge advantage to this would be basically excluding über-formations like War Convocation from tournaments. I believe you can't fit it in 1500? Still, 1500 might be a touch too small, maybe 1650?

I do wish pepole would do the math first. Yes, the war convocation fits even with the shooty knight.

**Mymearan**

Hulksmash wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
A huge advantage to this would be basically excluding über-formations like War Convocation from tournaments. I believe you can't fit it in 1500? Still, 1500 might be a touch too small, maybe 1650?

I do wish pepole would do the math first. Yes, the war convocation fits even with the shooty knight.

Was just going off memory from the initial discussion when the formation was released, sorry

**Glitcha**

We've been running 1500pt events ever since 7th edition came out. Give players 2 hours and 30 minutes per round. Its more than enough time to get the game in and if you have a lot of pre-game rolling to do for psykic powers you can still get your game in. I help organizes events in my area, we've not a problem with the points drop. It actually got more players to come out. They saw the points drop from 1850 to 1500 as the organizers helping to eliminate some of the cheese combos that are you. Seems to be working pretty good for us.

**Rune Stonegrinder**

axisofentropy wrote:
This forum's LVO 2016 thread generated valuable discussion on tournament games exceeding duration. A plurality of that thread's participants agreed that shrinking armies down to 1500 points is best solution to this problem. I wanted to poll the rest of this forum:

How should your Tournament Organizer best ensure games finish on time?

sorry for the late chime in...how are you setting things up? I know how major tourney's handle it, but what's your time frame currently?

Ours is follows, and it is strictly adhered to.

1000 Pts
Store opens to dice down .5 Hr
Round 1-- 1.5 Hr
Break -- 0.5 Hr
Round 2-- 1.5 Hr
Lunch -- 1 Hr
Round 3-- 1.5 Hr
Break -- 0.5 Hr
Round 4-- 1.5 Hr
Prizes -- 0.5 Hr

9/10 games finish

1500
Store opens to dice down .5 Hr
Round 1-- 2.0 Hr
Break -- 0.5 Hr
Round 2-- 2.0 Hr
Lunch -- 1 Hr
Round 3-- 2.0 Hr
Prizes-- 0.5 Hr

8/10 games finish before time about, 1-2 per round finish on turn 4-5

1850 and Team 1000's
Store opens to dice down .5 Hr
Round 1-- 2.5 Hr
Break -- 0.5 Hr
Round 2-- 2.5 Hr
Lunch -- 1 Hr
Round 3-- 2.5 Hr
Prizes-- 0.5 Hr

7/10 games finish before time and about 1-3 per round finish on turn 4-5

We have a really loud kitchen timer that beeps at 0.5 hr which signifies no new rounds!!!! Then again at 15 min. with tells you to wrap up the bottom of the round quickly. Then dice down at the 0. It works and only one person hates it because it breaks his concentration....Boo Hoo

Opponents who slow play usually feel a sting in sportsmanship. Timely play is worth 2 VP per round!

Painting scores (general 3 and base, an attempt to paint at a above average skill level for Best overall score) are done on the fly by the TO during the tournament and painting award is done at lunch for those entering it.

**ArbitorIan**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Break -- 0.5 Hr

This is the thing I like the most! I'm happy to play long days of gaming, but half an hour between games would be fantastic...

**Rune Stonegrinder**

ArbitorIan wrote:
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Break -- 0.5 Hr

This is the thing I like the most! I'm happy to play long days of gaming, but half an hour between games would be fantastic...

Works for small tourneys, 10 or less tables, I'm sure the big events like Adepticon/Nova need more time to process scores.

**FTGTEvan**

Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Break -- 0.5 Hr

This is the thing I like the most! I'm happy to play long days of gaming, but half an hour between games would be fantastic...

Works for small tourneys, 10 or less tables, I'm sure the big events like Adepticon/Nova need more time to process scores.

Not really. Torrent of Fire helped with this immensely at NOVA.

**Plains of War**

Personally I think that it need to be a combination of a minor point reduction AND penalizing BOTH players IF their game does not complete, at minimum 4 turns or something to that degree.

There is no reason two players can't manage a 2 - 2.5 hour game and ensure it finishes naturally.

**CrownAxe**

Penalizing players for not finishing their game ontime is not a good option. Not only is it no fair to some armies (horde armies like orks or psyker heavy armies like daemons just take longer to play) it is also not realistic to enforce. If a game goes to time how are you suppose to determine which play is at fault? If you simply try to penalize both players it just opens up the system to abuse and lets players purposefully stall to spite their opponent

**JohnHwangDD**

No, definitely penalize *both* players. That's the fairest solution, and gets the refs out of a "he said / she said" situation.

**axisofentropy**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, definitely penalize *both* players. That's the fairest solution, and gets the refs out of a "he said / she said" situation.

I forgot to post ATC's new sportsmanship rules for 2016 regarding "Slow Play". They're detailed:

Slow Play
* A minimum of 4 mandatory turns is required to be completed every game. Teams taking armies or players that take a lot of time should train hard to be able to finish games to turn four within the allotted time frame or not take said armies to the ATC. Again it is the responsibility of the players, not the referees, to make sure games complete at least 4 turns. So once more Teams need to factor this into both their list design and their playtesting or suffer the consequences. If it looks like a game will not reach turn 4, even early on in the game, then it should be brought immediately to the attention of the referees who will decide based upon the following, but not exclusive, criteria, if any penalties are required:

1. Number of ref calls by a player. The referees will have a list of teams and players to keep track of this over the course of the tournament. Refs will align these numbers every round. Calling a ref and waiting or looking for a ref have been common to slow down progression in games over the years so this is a factor to take into consideration. Players calling refs to their tables in excess will be judged with the possibility of foul play and stalling in mind.

2. Number of models in an army, including summoned units. This can have an effect, especially if two big armies are facing each other. As such it is down to the referees to decide if it was unintentional or not.

3. Time taken to deploy should be logged. Unlike turns which involve the interaction of both players, the deployment does not. Excessive deployment time can therefore be an indicator of slow play. Then obviously it is down to the discretion of the ref if a player is slow playing on purpose.

4. It is both players responsibility to ensure games finish in time. Any game that gets reported where players do not play the minimum amount of 4 turns, including random game length, will see both players receive an official warning. If your opponent is too slow, ask him/her to speed up, if it doesn't help, get a judge to help speed things up. If that doesn't happen the above will be strictly applied. Consecutive games where there is the suspicion of slow play will see players that were previously warned incur an automatic infraction penalty. Thereafter any instance of slow play as deemed by the referees instantly incurs further penalties, cumulatively within even a single round if required.

(Copied from http://www.whatc.org/warhammer-40k.html )

This leaves a LOT of discretion to the judges, while also outlining how they'll use that discretion.

**carldooley**

Plains of War wrote:
There is no reason two players can't manage a 2 - 2.5 hour game and ensure it finishes naturally.

If they both want to.

matphat wrote:
As an Ork player, I often can't even consider running at 1850 or 2k without running out the clock. Moving 180 dudes every round is a total bitch.

my local flgs banned a player who used a green tide as a strategy to win games. The games would end at the end of turn 2 as he would take 2+ hours moving his 120+ orks. Essentially, he deployed, ran to the objectives, and called time.

I want to ask a question. Do you have a particular player that irked you in a tournament setting, and what of the above solutions would have sped up his game?\
I voted chessclock, but had I known that multivoting was possible, I would have selected model\unit caps as well. I have played in tournaments since 3rd, I considered them a way to get a couple games in where I was pretty much guaranteed a game (or 3). I really did try to limit myself to 30-50 models on the field at a time with mechanized transports a terrific deal.

seriously, choose your most detested tournament player. Which of the solutions would speed up his or her game?

**CKO**

People will be destroyed in a couple of turns and want there points back.

**minionboy**

Something that I think is often missed...

A game isn't over just because it went 5 turns. The game lasts anywhere from 5-7 turns and that is a very important aspect of the game. Certain armies perform well under a time constraint where only getting 5 turns is a benefit. The game size needs to be lowered not because every game isn't getting to turn 5, but because almost no games have the opportunity to get to turn 7, despite the game is written to go that long 33% of the time.

**Requizen**

CKO wrote:
People will be destroyed in a couple of turns and want there points back.

I don't even understand this post. Everyone would be going to 1500, it's not like one side is just losing 350 points and the other side gets to table them in 2 turns. Or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

**ArbitorIan**

axisofentropy wrote:
I forgot to post ATC's new sportsmanship rules for 2016 regarding "Slow Play". They're detailed:

Slow Play
* A minimum of 4 mandatory turns is required to be completed every game. Teams taking armies or players that take a lot of time should train hard to be able to finish games to turn four within the allotted time frame or not take said armies to the ATC. Again it is the responsibility of the players, not the referees, to make sure games complete at least 4 turns. So once more Teams need to factor this into both their list design and their playtesting or suffer the consequences. If it looks like a game will not reach turn 4, even early on in the game, then it should be brought immediately to the attention of the referees who will decide based upon the following, but not exclusive, criteria, if any penalties are required:

1. Number of ref calls by a player. The referees will have a list of teams and players to keep track of this over the course of the tournament. Refs will align these numbers every round. Calling a ref and waiting or looking for a ref have been common to slow down progression in games over the years so this is a factor to take into consideration. Players calling refs to their tables in excess will be judged with the possibility of foul play and stalling in mind.

2. Number of models in an army, including summoned units. This can have an effect, especially if two big armies are facing each other. As such it is down to the referees to decide if it was unintentional or not.

3. Time taken to deploy should be logged. Unlike turns which involve the interaction of both players, the deployment does not. Excessive deployment time can therefore be an indicator of slow play. Then obviously it is down to the discretion of the ref if a player is slow playing on purpose.

4. It is both players responsibility to ensure games finish in time. Any game that gets reported where players do not play the minimum amount of 4 turns, including random game length, will see both players receive an official warning. If your opponent is too slow, ask him/her to speed up, if it doesn't help, get a judge to help speed things up. If that doesn't happen the above will be strictly applied. Consecutive games where there is the suspicion of slow play will see players that were previously warned incur an automatic infraction penalty. Thereafter any instance of slow play as deemed by the referees instantly incurs further penalties, cumulatively within even a single round if required.

(Copied from http://www.whatc.org/warhammer-40k.html )
This leaves a LOT of discretion to the judges, while also outlining how they'll use that discretion.

While I agree that intentional slow play is what they are intending to address, what is this obsession with Turn 4? Turn 4 is just over half way through the game. The game lasts 5-7 turns, and the solution the ITC comes up with should be something that allows ALL players to potentially get to turn 7. I think we should be aiming for a solution that does the following:

- Everyone starts at a sensible time in the morning and finishes at a sensible time in the evening, with decent breaks between games.
- All players can potentially reach Turn 7 in their games without feeling rushed.
- All armies can be taken, even moderate 'horde' armies - we don't want Orks and IG immediately dropping out of tournaments because of the timing rules.
- These games can be completed in the above time by players who DON'T attend timed tournaments every month (i.e the majority of the players at a large event).

If that means that tournaments go to 1000 points, fine.

**easysauce**

Yeah.. dropping points is not the end of the world as some would say.

Its a bit rude or trolling to have people in this thread stating "just play faster" or L2P faster noobs!

We only have 4 seconds per model per phase at a mediocre model count of 50 per side, that is already playing very fast, and it already completely disallows even moderate horde armies.

**carldooley**

easysauce wrote:
We only have 4 seconds per model per phase at a mediocre model count of 50 per side, that is already playing very fast, and it already completely disallows even moderate horde armies.

this is an oversimplification.
is there any force where each of the models uses all 4 phases in each of the turns? How do they all manage to assault turn 1?