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.

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

Not really. 1500 vs 1500 has no more proportional attack power as 1850 vs 1850. 1500 v 1500 should actually be somewhat more survivable, simply because the shooter doesn't have as much total firepower to concentrate on enemy units.

 easysauce wrote:
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.

People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

 carldooley wrote:

 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?

Yes there are plenty of armies that use all/most of the phases, I don't think you grasp the game from *other armies* perspective as well as you might think you do if you don't see that there are plenty of T1 charge opportunities esp with scout/infiltrating models on the other side.

There are more turns then the first one too... as well as jet packs/bikes move in the assault phase... people run in shooting phases...assault phases in general require the most time due to moving BOTH players models twice per phase as well as rolling for both players models.


I purposely over simplified it to 4 sec per model per phase because the actual time is *less* then that, once you factor in the realities of assault armies its significantly less then that. The actual amount of time is less then 4 seconds per model per phase.

The over simplification is actually specifically done to be in your favour and make the # of seconds higher then it actually is.

That 4 seconds # comes from calculations done in a *PERFECT WORLD* where games get the full 2.5 hours, no discussion happens, no chit chat, no set up or break down time, ect. which also means its significantly higher then what people actually get in a real life game.

Once you actually get into the details of what is involved when you don't run a bog standard cookie cutter shooty list and you have to actually participate in all the phases it is well under a couple seconds per model per phase.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

Just repeating over and over "learn to play faster noob" isn't helpful, its trolling/rude.

It has already been established that players get much less then 4 seconds per model per phase at a mere 50 models per side.

For some reason you seem to think people can magically move/measure/roll for 100 models in the same time as someone who has 50 models.

No it is not. I played horde Nidz and never had a problem finishing a game. Going to a tournaments is a social contract with your opponents you will play to finish games in a timely manner.

 easysauce wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

 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?

Yes there are plenty of armies that use all/most of the phases, I don't think you grasp the game from *other armies* perspective as well as you might think you do if you don't see that there are plenty of T1 charge opportunities esp with scout/infiltrating models on the other side.

There are more turns then the first one too... as well as jet packs/bikes move in the assault phase... people run in shooting phases...assault phases in general require the most time due to moving BOTH players models twice per phase as well as rolling for both players models.


I purposely over simplified it to 4 sec per model per phase because the actual time is *less* then that, once you factor in the realities of assault armies its significantly less then that. The actual amount of time is less then 4 seconds per model per phase.

The over simplification is actually specifically done to be in your favour and make the # of seconds higher then it actually is.

That 4 seconds # comes from calculations done in a *PERFECT WORLD* where games get the full 2.5 hours, no discussion happens, no chit chat, no set up or break down time, ect. which also means its significantly higher then what people actually get in a real life game.

Once you actually get into the details of what is involved when you don't run a bog standard cookie cutter shooty list and you have to actually participate in all the phases it is well under a couple seconds per model per phase.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

Just repeating over and over "learn to play faster noob" isn't helpful, its trolling/rude.

It has already been established that players get much less then 4 seconds per model per phase at a mere 50 models per side.

For some reason you seem to think people can magically move/measure/roll for 100 models in the same time as someone who has 50 models.

Even if an army uses every phase, not every model uses every phase. Devestators shouldn't be getting into combat. Assault units sometimes don't even have guns. Shooty units might not move if they're in the right place. The Psychic phase is really only used by a few models in the whole army (other than like, Daemons and GK who are the exception not the rule). Even if you're playing Eldar (who use every phase of the game) saying that every model is doing something in every phase is just kinda disingenuous.

And also, no one is saying "learn to play faster noob". People are saying "if you know how to use your army, know all the rules, and know how the game works from a strategic standpoint, games take you much less time". There's a reason good players play fast and new people play slow. If you paid money to go to a tournament and your opponent paid money to be there too, people should not be looking up things about their army like statlines or what special rules they have and what they do. And if you're actually shooting to be on top tables, you shouldn't need an extra 15 minutes per turn to think about what you're doing, you should already have a game plan and be thinking about reactions while your opponent is going.

So if you're hearing "play faster noob" then you're just trying to inflate your victim complex. What I'm saying is, if you're going to an event where people paid to play a serious game, then maybe you should play seriously.

Requizen wrote:
What I'm saying is, if you're going to an event where people paid to play a serious game, then maybe you should play seriously.

This is where I'd like to point out that the vast amount of players attending a 100+ person event are not there to win and are not there to play a serious game seriously. They are there to hangout with friends, roll dice, and enjoy a weekend away from kids/responsibilities. Which means to get games done you need to not only play your army in a very speedy manner but generally in a manner speedy enough in the early rounds to ensure you can finish against others who don't take it that seriously.

And as much as people deride 40k for being a non-tactical game it does have depth once you get to higher levels. Single model placement starts to matter. So against higher end players you may find you need to take a second to think.

So what we then have is needing to be extra fast generally early against people there for fun. Needing to be extra fast in case you need to think more against good opponents. So the only time you don't need to be super fast is against someone who wants to play seriously but isn't good at 40k.

That seems off to me.

It is interesting to see this poll played out. If you add up all the "don't change the points amount" to the "change points" it is actually close and leaning more towards the don't change the points. My fear is someone will look at this and say "looks like change the points wins since it has 48%" of the vote". Without realizing the don't change section is split into 7 other categories.

 Fishboy wrote:
It is interesting to see this poll played out. If you add up all the "don't change the points amount" to the "change points" it is actually close and leaning more towards the don't change the points. My fear is someone will look at this and say "looks like change the points wins since it has 48%" of the vote". Without realizing the don't change section is split into 7 other categories.

check boxes! Voters are not limited to one option.

The problem with doing that is that there was no " don't change points" option. We have no way of knowing if any of those 48% also voted for other options as well. It is a poorly constructed poll as far as determining what percent of people want to change points. For instance it is possible that all 41 people who voted to penalize people for not finishing also voted to reduce points. Now while that is not likely it is likely that some people picked more than one option. In order for a poll like this to work it needed an option of "click this box when you vote" so that we counted the number of people who actually voted in the poll, or a mandatory portion of

1.) Reduce points to 1500
2.) Reduce to some other value
3.) Stay at 1850
4.) Raise points value

As it is we have a bunch of options that are not mutually exclusive. As such chances are better that there is acutally a higher chance that more than 48% of people voted to reduce, than there is that only people that did not want a reduction chose other options. It is also possible that people choosing those other options picked more than one. Like Penalize and Chess clock, or Penalize and More time etc.

I would argue that this poll cannot really be used to determine anything conclusive about what people feel about game size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact the only thing we can really determine is that 95% of votes were for a change of some sort.

Wow as of right now less than half who voted want less points.

Wow. As of right now, only 43% want to keep the current points.

Penalize players whose games did not finish 5 turns +
Provide "chess clock" timers purchased by entry fee +
Schedule more time to play each game +
The Status Quo is fine. Get on my level!

So, reduce the points.

Instead of penalizing players that don't finish games, why not reward players that do finish just make finishing the game a bonus point. I do that here in Austin and players definitely at least try to finish games.

 axisofentropy wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
It is interesting to see this poll played out. If you add up all the "don't change the points amount" to the "change points" it is actually close and leaning more towards the don't change the points. My fear is someone will look at this and say "looks like change the points wins since it has 48%" of the vote". Without realizing the don't change section is split into 7 other categories.

check boxes! Voters are not limited to one option.

I did not realize this was checkboxes heh. The data from this poll is too easy to manipulate.

There is most certainly a vote to not change the points...
its called "keep the status quo" and it got barely any votes...

To me this was basically a knee jerk reaction that has blown over now.

I'm still interested in smaller points just from a personal perspective. I don't think it'll "fix" anything but I personally really enjoy 1500 games.

Dozer Blades wrote:Going to a tournaments is a social contract with your opponents you will play to finish games in a timely manner.

Agreed. This thread is for of deciding what a 'timely manner' actually is.

Dozer Blades wrote:People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

First, SEVEN turns. That's how long the game lasts.

Second, this doesn't work in practise. What do you do? Disqualify people who haven't played enough games? People who've spent hundreds of dollars on flights and hotels to attend your event. That seems like pretty bad business practice for many big tournament.

Last time I played a big US tournament (NOVA 2014) I had managed to fit in one game with my army before the tournament. I might maybe play one game of 40k a month. Many other people are in that situation - getting lots of games in is part of the appeal of big tournaments. Alienating that section of the hobby (the biggest section) is a bad idea.

As others have posted, most people at a tournament are there for a social, fun gaming weekend. Of course people should be expected to finish in a timely manner. But the tournament should be set up so that a one-a-month player of a horde list, just there for a weekend of fun with his friends, can complete the game in the allotted time without rushing or stressing out.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me this was basically a knee jerk reaction that has blown over now.

-->"only 48% voted to downsize, so we should keep it the same!"

<-- "but far fewer people voted for the status quo."

---> "Well it's obviously a knee jerk reaction by people that need to L2P!"

<--- "..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

Hi there! I have a management position for a fortune 500 company. I travel 40% of the time. I take vacation to block off time in order to attend tournaments.

We're not all unemployed welfare queens that live in our mother's basement and spend 12 hours a day at the local game store making fun of "newbs buying chaos space marines, lol!"

Before you hit that yellow triangle of friendship, I am not implying that anyone here is.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Last time I played a big US tournament (NOVA 2014) I had managed to fit in one game with my army before the tournament. I might maybe play one game of 40k a month. Many other people are in that situation - getting lots of games in is part of the appeal of big tournaments. Alienating that section of the hobby (the biggest section) is a bad idea.

As others have posted, most people at a tournament are there for a social, fun gaming weekend. Of course people should be expected to finish in a timely manner. But the tournament should be set up so that a one-a-month player of a horde list, just there for a weekend of fun with his friends, can complete the game in the allotted time without rushing or stressing out.

Well put - and as someone who played you, I don't think we got through to random game length, but had a good game nonetheless. Would have been nice to complete the game though.

 easysauce wrote:
There is most certainly a vote to not change the points...
its called "keep the status quo" and it got barely any votes...

Except that is not a vote to keep the same points, it is a vote to
1.) Keep the same points
2.) Not penalize slow play
3.) Not use chess clocks
4.) Not comp slower armies
5.) Not increase round times.

So if I wanted to keep points the same but use clocks I wouldn't vote for keep the status quo.

But as you note status quo got few votes so we can infer that most people want to see some sort of change.

guys guys this poll is not official and will not change any tournament you play in. I started it to begin the discussion, not end it!

 kronk wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me this was basically a knee jerk reaction that has blown over now.

-->"only 48% voted to downsize, so we should keep it the same!"

<-- "but far fewer people voted for the status quo."

---> "Well it's obviously a knee jerk reaction by people that need to L2P!"

<--- "..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:


People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

Hi there! I have a management position for a fortune 500 company. I travel 40% of the time. I take vacation to block off time in order to attend tournaments.

We're not all unemployed welfare queens that live in our mother's basement and spend 12 hours a day at the local game store making fun of "newbs buying chaos space marines, lol!"

Before you hit that yellow triangle of friendship, I am not implying that anyone here is.

Okay kronk are you suggesting we should change just for the sake of making a change ? That is what I am hearing from you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 axisofentropy wrote:
guys guys this poll is not official and will not change any tournament you play in. I started it to begin the discussion, not end it!

I seem to remember a prediction that included the number 1500...

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:Going to a tournaments is a social contract with your opponents you will play to finish games in a timely manner.

Agreed. This thread is for of deciding what a 'timely manner' actually is.

Dozer Blades wrote:People should play their armies enough in advance they can finish five turns in two hours. "Practice makes perfect ."

First, SEVEN turns. That's how long the game lasts.

Second, this doesn't work in practise. What do you do? Disqualify people who haven't played enough games? People who've spent hundreds of dollars on flights and hotels to attend your event. That seems like pretty bad business practice for many big tournament.

Last time I played a big US tournament (NOVA 2014) I had managed to fit in one game with my army before the tournament. I might maybe play one game of 40k a month. Many other people are in that situation - getting lots of games in is part of the appeal of big tournaments. Alienating that section of the hobby (the biggest section) is a bad idea.

As others have posted, most people at a tournament are there for a social, fun gaming weekend. Of course people should be expected to finish in a timely manner. But the tournament should be set up so that a one-a-month player of a horde list, just there for a weekend of fun with his friends, can complete the game in the allotted time without rushing or stressing out.

No, Actually a game has only 5 guaranteed turns then there is a CHANCE that it continues so to assume 7 or stating a full game is 7 turns is 100% wrong.

You not knowing your rules or getting enough practice in with an army seems like a personal problem and should not ruin your opponents experience. You are right, it costs a lot of money to go to a big event, think about that next time you want to bring some army that you know very little about because its the 'flavour of the month'.

You are right about people going to tournaments for fun, shooting the gak etc. etc. But while people can still have fun outside of the game at the end of the day the game is why people took the time to go. So if you decide to only play three turn and think that is ok what makes you think that your opponent feels the same? You have as much of an obligation to your opponent as he does to you to make every game at the very least enjoyable and part of that is allowing the game to take its 'Natural' course which is ending when the dice decide so or at the bottom of turn 7

What part of his post said you shouldn't finish games? There's a lot of mud slinging going on over people saying games should finish. As has been stated a few dozen times, saying "lern 2 play nub" isn't a relevant or meaningful contribution to the discussion. Finishing a game in the time allotted with the points limit, as has been mentioned, is a worsening problem. This isn't because the demographic of events has gotten lazier, more talkative, or inexperienced. The game has bloat, and takes longer to play at the same point level.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Okay kronk are you suggesting we should change just for the sake of making a change ? That is what I am hearing from you.

Then you have a serious comprehension problem.

Again, for the 3rd time, more people have voted for reducing the points (48%) than have voted to keep it the same (43%).

That means lower the points.

However, you are saying that even though more people are voting to lower it, we shouldn't. For...reasons?

This poll wasn't very good but at best I expect the ITC to go with 1650 points just because the way that question was worded you are going to end up with the same people voting not to change it also voting for 1650.

And yes axisofentropy did state this poll meant we were going to 1500 and said do you want to make a wager. Again I don't think he understands the poll questions.

gungo wrote:
This poll wasn't very good but at best I expect the ITC to go with 1650 points just because the way that question was worded you are going to end up with the same people voting not to change it also voting for 1650.

They have their own "official" poll, which will have a larger sampling of players than just DakkaDakka. I guess we'll see what they have to say.

I'm hoping the standard tournament is at least 1650, but prefer 1500.

 kronk wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Okay kronk are you suggesting we should change just for the sake of making a change ? That is what I am hearing from you.

Then you have a serious comprehension problem.

Again, for the 3rd time, more people have voted for reducing the points (48%) than have voted to keep it the same (43%).

That means lower the points.

However, you are saying that even though more people are voting to lower it, we shouldn't. For...reasons?

This.

If we were to create a DakkaDakka official 40k Tournament format based off these results then clearly it would be based on a points level below 1850.

I know I am weighing in on this late, but I feel very strongly against 1500 pt tournaments. I respect what the ITC and the guys at Frontline gaming do, however their opinions have great clout. I would like to caution against having a set amount for tournaments and making the tournament points value lower. I run most of our local tournaments in our city and for the most part most of the tournaments are 1850 pt games, we do change it up through the year and do 1500 pt tournaments as well as team tournaments, but most are at 1850 pts. I think it is fine for events and their TO to run them at points for what they want but I do not think that the time has come to force the majority to go to 1500 pts. Here is why I think this.

1.) one point is the time involved at that 1850 pt games take a huge chunk of the day. This is true, however it is also true that any point level game takes a while to play in 40k. There is terrain set up, objective placement, warlord traits, psychic powers to roll and lists to review before the game begins NO MATTER WHAT point level you play at. If you lower the game time, the tournaments will get done sooner but really that much sooner? After lunch, breaks and awards you may shave a half hour to an hour off the total time - Will that make people feel less tired or beat at the end of the day. A lot of it for me is not the strain of standing the whole day as most places provide chairs to sit, but the strain or stress of strategizing and playing 3 hard fought battles that day regardless of point level.
2.) Not getting to Turn 7 - I would say quite a bit about this. First running tournaments myself and playing in many - I would say that the majority of people finish their games. When random turn lengths came into being in this game I wold say that 6th and 7th edition have made a little harder with all the Warlord and psychic powers to generate, however I think with 7th edition their has been a major change. In 5th I would notice in many case where the top tables would be battling it out hard but there would still be significant amount of the forces left. Obviously one sided games this was less true. However in 6th edition and especially into 7th edition, both sides win or loose tend to take heavy losses no matter the victor. Many times with competitive builds winners are determined by who has first turn. In many cases an opponent is tabled or concedes before the game is over. This is a reflection on the edition and how shooting is such an emphasis in the game. Another point on the time issue. If we shorten our tournament round times I believe that people that have trouble with the time for 1850 pts are going to have trouble with 1500 pts with the new time restrictions.
3.) The Cost of Entry is too High. - Well this one is completely ridiculous and mute. Why? Well because this game by itself is a ridiculously expensive game. Shaving 350 pts off an army list will realistically not make or break someone out of the hobby. Editions, codices and rules change all the time. The competitive players have to spend every year to stay competitive and keep up with the current meta. There will be some that do not, but then they are also not expecting to take first place and are there to play for fun and not competition. This point I see is a reach at trying to make a number points to make you see things your way, however the argument is full of holes.
4.) Hobby time - Once again I refute this point as not being valid. 350 pts more to paint will not make or break you for a tournament. Also once again I bring up the point of the competitive players changing their armies throughout the year as the meta is changing, thus requiring you to paint new models frequently or even new armies if you decide to play a new one.

My thoughts on this is similar to an early post by Yakface. If people or tournaments are having trouble with games getting completed, then they need to seriously re-evaluate the time that they allow for rounds. I have been to events like adepticon that increased their time for rounds to adjust for more time for games and this helped immensely. If you are going to reduce your point level, then I would not recommend reducing the time played by much which defeats the purpose of point one made. I do think it is ood to keep track if people finish their games or not and a person consistently doesn't then discuss it with them or talk to them.
Cheers I guess this is my 2 cents.

 kronk wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Okay kronk are you suggesting we should change just for the sake of making a change ? That is what I am hearing from you.

Then you have a serious comprehension problem.

Again, for the 3rd time, more people have voted for reducing the points (48%) than have voted to keep it the same (43%).

That means lower the points.

However, you are saying that even though more people are voting to lower it, we shouldn't. For...reasons?

Math....what happened to the other 9%? If there are two clear categories for lower and those are all accounted for then that means 52% voted for some other solution right?