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.

If you soft-ban my Imperial Guard, I'm bringing Imperial Titans, simple as that.

 CrownAxe wrote:

John Prins wrote:
So...chess clocks and penalties for using up more than 1/2 the allotted time?

So you just can't play high model count armies like Orks then?

Maybe you just need to be really good/fast to play them? The game is designed to play out over 6 turns, so shorter games favor certain play-styles and certain armies.

John Prins wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

John Prins wrote:
So...chess clocks and penalties for using up more than 1/2 the allotted time?

So you just can't play high model count armies like Orks then?

Maybe you just need to be really good/fast to play them?

There aren't enough Orktikons to properly respond to such nonsense.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

There aren't enough Orktikons to properly respond to such nonsense.

Paint 'em red, they'll go faster.

Looking at this discussion, I don't think all horde armies are that guilty of this.

My Nid army for example, I can do a turn easily in 10-15 mins..... by comparison my guard army, even without psykers (my nids obvious have a few), can take 20-30 mins to do all the reserves, moving blobs, orders, shooting, number of scatters, barrage, re-rolls etc etc.

Main reason I've shelved my guard army, I love the army, but any half decent build I make, seems to take so long to play.

It's pretty much impossible to tell how the horde armies really work in a tourney, they are rarely going to finish a game. There's a reason that small, super elite armies are prevalent- turns take time and math hammer can give you a good idea of damage output and surviveability. Some armies, like most horde armies, can't teleport or turbo all over the battlefield, or take psykers with a lockdown on a key power set, or really exploit some of the rules interactions that make a death star tick. Horde armies are a key part of the fluff and style of the game but they are just too unwieldy to gain much traction in an organized play setting like that- which is too bad, because strategies that can work against some of the small, elite armies end up being extremely difficult to pull off against a horde, making for more interesting and challenging games. Tourneys sell the horde short by effectively precluding them from getting a real game in. No one is ever going to be as fast at playing 2000 points of Orks with 150 bodies as 2000 of Grey Knights or Knight Titans.

Also, in a game like that it's not like anyone expects the Tau player to NOT jump shoot jump, or redeploy to try and prevent a charge. The Tau don't want to get charged ever, the armies are at total cross purposes. The Ork player probably has to accept the nature of the opponent's army precludes the weedy Tau from playing like a proppa ork and getting stuck in, whereas the Tau player has to expect it to be an endurance test. Maybe help move some models For the Greater Good?

 CrownAxe wrote:

John Prins wrote:
So...chess clocks and penalties for using up more than 1/2 the allotted time?

So you just can't play high model count armies like Orks then?

Pretty much, unless you can find a way to play them within your half of the available time. It's unfortunate that some people can't play the army they want, but it isn't unfair to give one player more than half the available time in a game with a time limit. If you can't play your half of a complete game in half of the available time then you shouldn't be playing that army (or at all, if you can't even do it with lower model counts).

Now, chess clocks in 40k are not possible for practical reasons of implementing them, but the concept of "each player gets half the time" is perfectly fair.

aushlo wrote:
Maybe help move some models For the Greater Good?

The actual moving of the models isn't time consuming. Go ahead try it yourself, take out your ruler (or better a 6" momement template) and your entire collection of infantry you will be amazed how many models you can move in 1 minute. Its all the other stuff that drains time. The not thinking in your opponents turn, the rule squabbling, inefficient die rolling etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Pretty much, unless you can find a way to play them within your half of the available time.

You can it isn't really that hard. most ork blob armies will have 3-6 30man blobz. any player with a some common sense can figure out some ways to move those units in the time they have. Staying within the limited time with an ork army is simple compared to SM strike force MSU.
Yes there are more models but its the amount of units that's really taxing on the time budget.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

John Prins wrote:
So...chess clocks and penalties for using up more than 1/2 the allotted time?

So you just can't play high model count armies like Orks then?

Pretty much, unless you can find a way to play them within your half of the available time. It's unfortunate that some people can't play the army they want, but it isn't unfair to give one player more than half the available time in a game with a time limit. If you can't play your half of a complete game in half of the available time then you shouldn't be playing that army (or at all, if you can't even do it with lower model counts).

Now, chess clocks in 40k are not possible for practical reasons of implementing them, but the concept of "each player gets half the time" is perfectly fair.

I disagree. It's perfectly fair, in 40k, for one player to take an army much bigger than the other. It's perfectly fair, I'm 40k, for one player to take an army with more rules, more interactions and more complexity than the other. There's no reason why one player shouldn't take longer than the other, or take up more of the time - it doesn't affect how 'fair' the game is. If Orks took 25 mins per turn, and Knights 5 mins, but a full game was still played, the Ork player hasn't been unfair or had any sort of advantage by taking up 80% of the play time - that's just how the game functions.

The only thing that matters is that the tournament gives enough time per game (or plays at a points value low enough) to get a full game in with any legally allowed faction. The problem is that people want to play five full games over a weekend and STILL play at a huge points value so they can take all their toys. Those two things aren't compatible in 40k any more.

aushlo wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to tell how the horde armies really work in a tourney, they are rarely going to finish a game. There's a reason that small, super elite armies are prevalent- turns take time and math hammer can give you a good idea of damage output and surviveability. Some armies, like most horde armies, can't teleport or turbo all over the battlefield, or take psykers with a lockdown on a key power set, or really exploit some of the rules interactions that make a death star tick. Horde armies are a key part of the fluff and style of the game but they are just too unwieldy to gain much traction in an organized play setting like that- which is too bad, because strategies that can work against some of the small, elite armies end up being extremely difficult to pull off against a horde, making for more interesting and challenging games. Tourneys sell the horde short by effectively precluding them from getting a real game in. No one is ever going to be as fast at playing 2000 points of Orks with 150 bodies as 2000 of Grey Knights or Knight Titans.

You could not be more wrong. Horde armies aren't not played because of the unwieldyness / timeconsumingness. They are not played because they are bad. GW wants us to play elite armies filled with cool toys instead, they are easy to collect, store and paint keeping the customer happy. Horde used to be the counter vs elite armies. This was due to the low rate fire, and low wounds dmg output elite had. Vehicles used to be killed by melta and lascannon like single shot guns, and monsters could be tarpitted. Making ork hordes fun to play in 5th. Who cares if 3 boys got insta gibbed I have 100+ more of them : D
This is no longer the game we are playing now. More models carry heavy weapons now, and almost all anti monster and anti vehicle guns rely on mid/hig s and high rate of fire, this is perfect for evaporating hordes. Monsters have been replaced by super heavies who will just stomp your horde away in a few rounds of combat. The real reason why nobody is fielding ork hordes is because they risk at getting tabled in turn 3 by most of the armies currently ruling the meta.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

John Prins wrote:
So...chess clocks and penalties for using up more than 1/2 the allotted time?

So you just can't play high model count armies like Orks then?

Pretty much, unless you can find a way to play them within your half of the available time. It's unfortunate that some people can't play the army they want, but it isn't unfair to give one player more than half the available time in a game with a time limit. If you can't play your half of a complete game in half of the available time then you shouldn't be playing that army (or at all, if you can't even do it with lower model counts).

Now, chess clocks in 40k are not possible for practical reasons of implementing them, but the concept of "each player gets half the time" is perfectly fair.

I disagree. It's perfectly fair, in 40k, for one player to take an army much bigger than the other. It's perfectly fair, I'm 40k, for one player to take an army with more rules, more interactions and more complexity than the other. There's no reason why one player shouldn't take longer than the other, or take up more of the time - it doesn't affect how 'fair' the game is. If Orks took 25 mins per turn, and Knights 5 mins, but a full game was still played, the Ork player hasn't been unfair or had any sort of advantage by taking up 80% of the play time - that's just how the game functions.

The only thing that matters is that the tournament gives enough time per game (or plays at a points value low enough) to get a full game in with any legally allowed faction. The problem is that people want to play five full games over a weekend and STILL play at a huge points value so they can take all their toys. Those two things aren't compatible in 40k any more.

Exactly. For example certain armies make use of the shooting phase. Occasionally movement (and if their codex didn't draw a short straw in the USRS lotto, then a second, very brief movement pashe). Other armies need to make the most of all 4 (5 if your TO uses that DFtS bs ). Especially in the tournament. It's easy for the Tau or necron player to say "if you can't play in your half, then don't play", while GK, AM and Nids players will just roll their eyes in return.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I disagree. It's perfectly fair, in 40k, for one player to take an army much bigger than the other. It's perfectly fair, I'm 40k, for one player to take an army with more rules, more interactions and more complexity than the other. There's no reason why one player shouldn't take longer than the other, or take up more of the time - it doesn't affect how 'fair' the game is. If Orks took 25 mins per turn, and Knights 5 mins, but a full game was still played, the Ork player hasn't been unfair or had any sort of advantage by taking up 80% of the play time - that's just how the game functions.

The problem is that if the turn time available is 30 minutes and the ork player is paired against an opponent who needs their full 15 minutes the game isn't going to finish. By taking more than your 50% share you're guaranteeing that you can't finish the game unless your opponent concedes some of their share of the time to you, and that just isn't fair. I shouldn't have to rush through my part of the game or sacrifice model count for speed just so you can play the army you want to play.

The only thing that matters is that the tournament gives enough time per game (or plays at a points value low enough) to get a full game in with any legally allowed faction. The problem is that people want to play five full games over a weekend and STILL play at a huge points value so they can take all their toys. Those two things aren't compatible in 40k any more.

I agree that this is a problem, but longer time limits don't fix everything. If we bump the time limits up so that two 25-minute ork players can finish an entire game than the game between two 5-minute knight players finishes in a small fraction of the available time and you have bored players standing around waiting for the last few games to finish. I'm all in favor of having longer time limits or smaller point limits but at some point you have to say "this is enough" and anyone who can't finish in the available time shouldn't be playing that army (or playing at all).

Oh no! Not boredom!

Seriously, I'd rather have a properly run tournament that works for all players involved and doesn't pressure me with reasonable time restrictions than a tourney that is time efficient, but falls short in other, much more important aspects. Plus, some of like to be able to hit the bar, go out for a smoke or 2 or eat at a decent resteraunt in the time left over (if there is any) while the others finish

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Oh no! Not boredom!

Seriously, I'd rather have a properly run tournament that works for all players involved and doesn't pressure me with reasonable time restrictions than a tourney that is time efficient, but falls short in other, much more important aspects. Plus, some of like to be able to hit the bar, go out for a smoke or 2 or eat at a decent resteraunt in the time left over (if there is any) while the others finish

Yes, boredom. If I have to spend several hours trying to find something to do to kill time after each round while the last game finishes then I'm just going to pack up and go home. And yes, it would be several hours because that's the example I was responding to. A pair of 25-minute ork players are going to take five hours to finish a game. A pair of average 15-minute players will finish in three hours, while a pair of 5-minute knight players will finish in a mere hour. And because you're forced to budget five hours per game you're limited to two games per day, taking an entire weekend just to do a four-game tournament (and forget about anything over four games). This is simply not a reasonable way to run a tournament. You can not accommodate players who take five times as long as their opponent to finish a turn.

 Peregrine wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Oh no! Not boredom!

Seriously, I'd rather have a properly run tournament that works for all players involved and doesn't pressure me with reasonable time restrictions than a tourney that is time efficient, but falls short in other, much more important aspects. Plus, some of like to be able to hit the bar, go out for a smoke or 2 or eat at a decent resteraunt in the time left over (if there is any) while the others finish

Yes, boredom. If I have to spend several hours trying to find something to do to kill time after each round while the last game finishes then I'm just going to pack up and go home. And yes, it would be several hours because that's the example I was responding to. A pair of 25-minute ork players are going to take five hours to finish a game. A pair of average 15-minute players will finish in three hours, while a pair of 5-minute knight players will finish in a mere hour. And because you're forced to budget five hours per game you're limited to two games per day, taking an entire weekend just to do a four-game tournament (and forget about anything over four games). This is simply not a reasonable way to run a tournament. You can not accommodate players who take five times as long as their opponent to finish a turn.

Fair enough, but I'm talking reality. You're arguing a hypothetical with another poster. I've played some pretty big games with my Ork buddies. Some apoc, some not. I can think of MAYBE 6 or 7 times their turns have gone over 25 minutes. We're talking 4k plus points levels (an
d yes, a decent amount of those game I played green Tide or a slight hoardish variation of it. I know it's only anecdotal evidence, but still

 Peregrine wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Oh no! Not boredom!

Seriously, I'd rather have a properly run tournament that works for all players involved and doesn't pressure me with reasonable time restrictions than a tourney that is time efficient, but falls short in other, much more important aspects. Plus, some of like to be able to hit the bar, go out for a smoke or 2 or eat at a decent resteraunt in the time left over (if there is any) while the others finish

Yes, boredom. If I have to spend several hours trying to find something to do to kill time after each round while the last game finishes then I'm just going to pack up and go home. And yes, it would be several hours because that's the example I was responding to. A pair of 25-minute ork players are going to take five hours to finish a game. A pair of average 15-minute players will finish in three hours, while a pair of 5-minute knight players will finish in a mere hour. And because you're forced to budget five hours per game you're limited to two games per day, taking an entire weekend just to do a four-game tournament (and forget about anything over four games). This is simply not a reasonable way to run a tournament. You can not accommodate players who take five times as long as their opponent to finish a turn.

Agreed, but one of my points was that the current time limits are unreasonable to start with. Of course, it's always possible to take a REALLY stupidly big army, but I think the current tournament situation is stopping people from taking even a reasonable-sized Guard/Ork/Renegade army.

Let's assume 15 mins is the average for a reasonable turn. Everyone seems to think that's pretty reasonable. Lets say that finding the table, setting up, going through your army with your opponent, reading the complicated tournament mission and all that also takes a turn. One 'setup' turn and seven turns each. That's four hours to start with (allowing that the first few turns are longer and the last few much shorter).

Even if it's 10 mins per turn, that's 2h40mins, which is still a little longer than most tournaments allow. I understand that people might get bored if we're talking about HOURS difference, but I'm not sure it's as big a problem as games not finishing or whole armies being effectively disqualified.

And even if we accept that four hours is ridiculous and we don't want people standing around for that long, then the only solution is to decrease the points values to the level where any faction in the game can complete a turn in 8-10 minutes, when playing at a sensible pace (i.e, not stressfully fast). What is that points value for a horde army? 1200pts? 1300?

I just wanted to take a second for everyone to LOL at this

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If you actually read what I said, I never said it was a fault of the player if it wasn't deliberate.

What he actually said

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The Ork players won through no skill or luck - seriously, regardless of who was against the ork player, it shouldn't matter.
He time wasted, deliberately or not, and caused a player who we assume was playing by the rules to lose. How on earth is that fair?

so yeah... you did imply that pretty heavily

And onto Peregrine who thinks we should take equal amounts of time to do a turn...ready for your head to explode peregrine? I AGREE!

Here is the crappy part though that your not going to like. I play Orks, I play LARGE ork armies, it is never my movement phase that takes long, its never my shooting phase that takes long and it is never my assault phase that takes long. You know what takes the longest? My SM/Eldar/Tau opponents popping out 100 special rules they have to reroll their armor saves, to reroll their LD checks, to reroll their to hit dice with over watch, to fire more the 1 weapon during over watch, to reroll their to hits, to reroll their to wounds to reroll their own failed armor checks, to reroll their leadership checks when they fail, to reroll blah blah blah blah.

Its not the Orks fault that his opponent takes over HALF the orks playing time to roll/reroll or use 100 Special snowflake rules.

I'd rather see games at lower points values that go the distance than play 2000 point games that only manage 3-4 turns. Smaller point value tournaments are also more inclusive and probably better balanced and can be played on smaller tables, given how space is sometimes a premium at tournaments.

Big games are probably better suited to league/ladder play.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
What is that points value for a horde army? 1200pts? 1300?

Let's dial back to 1500 and see what happens. That's a much more reasonable game size.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
What is that points value for a horde army? 1200pts? 1300?

Let's dial back to 1500 and see what happens. That's a much more reasonable game size.

I agree that it feels more normal, but I still doubt we'll be in the region of 8-minute turns, and there is always considerable resistance from a tournament crowd used to 1850.

The ITC were pushing for 1500 a few months ago, but the players voted against it.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
What is that points value for a horde army? 1200pts? 1300?

Let's dial back to 1500 and see what happens. That's a much more reasonable game size.

I agree that it feels more normal, but I still doubt we'll be in the region of 8-minute turns, and there is always considerable resistance from a tournament crowd used to 1850.

The ITC were pushing for 1500 a few months ago, but the players voted against it.

I've never understood why it's so controversial to play anything other than 1850... I much prefer 1,500 or 2,000 point games myself

I play almost exclusively 1,500pt games. Not because I won't play 2k or 1850 but because its just a bit faster and still big enough to field large armies.

 oldzoggy wrote:

aushlo wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to tell how the horde armies really work in a tourney, they are rarely going to finish a game. There's a reason that small, super elite armies are prevalent- turns take time and math hammer can give you a good idea of damage output and surviveability. Some armies, like most horde armies, can't teleport or turbo all over the battlefield, or take psykers with a lockdown on a key power set, or really exploit some of the rules interactions that make a death star tick. Horde armies are a key part of the fluff and style of the game but they are just too unwieldy to gain much traction in an organized play setting like that- which is too bad, because strategies that can work against some of the small, elite armies end up being extremely difficult to pull off against a horde, making for more interesting and challenging games. Tourneys sell the horde short by effectively precluding them from getting a real game in. No one is ever going to be as fast at playing 2000 points of Orks with 150 bodies as 2000 of Grey Knights or Knight Titans.

You could not be more wrong. Horde armies aren't not played because of the unwieldyness / timeconsumingness. They are not played because they are bad. GW wants us to play elite armies filled with cool toys instead, they are easy to collect, store and paint keeping the customer happy. Horde used to be the counter vs elite armies. This was due to the low rate fire, and low wounds dmg output elite had. Vehicles used to be killed by melta and lascannon like single shot guns, and monsters could be tarpitted. Making ork hordes fun to play in 5th. Who cares if 3 boys got insta gibbed I have 100+ more of them : D
This is no longer the game we are playing now. More models carry heavy weapons now, and almost all anti monster and anti vehicle guns rely on mid/hig s and high rate of fire, this is perfect for evaporating hordes. Monsters have been replaced by super heavies who will just stomp your horde away in a few rounds of combat. The real reason why nobody is fielding ork hordes is because they risk at getting tabled in turn 3 by most of the armies currently ruling the meta.

When is the last time anyone actually saw a true horde army at a tourney in two editions? The only things that come close are Green Tide (one giant squad, really not too bad as you move, run, and charge and you don't need to be very choosy about direction) or blob squads. If anyone's actually seen a game play out with a horde in a tourney more than a half dozen times the last two editions I'll eat my hat. Most ITC games come down to the last turn unless the alpha strike is devastating. Give a decent horde player long enough to finish the game and maybe you see results, but assertion of hordes getting consistently curbstomped would require actually seeing them played, otherwise it's hyperbole or apocryphal. Hell, find me a half dozen PICTURES of actual tourney armies with over a hundred actual models that aren't green tide or slated for summoning and I'll be surprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that no one at GW rules is doing favors for any non elite or tier one armies may be the final nail in the coffin but most people just don't want to paint and transport a hundred plus models and never get to finish a game so actual performance data has been sparse for years. That's not a couldn't be more wrong situation, it's more of a more than one factor contributes.

The OP strikes me as hilariously entitled. "Well, I'm playing Tau, I DESERVE first place of course!"

I just can't take that seriously.

I can move 4,000 pts of orks in 20 minutes. We play apocaplyse once a month around here. You only get 20 minutes to move your army. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of time, but you can manage it.

For this game in question I was paying trukk boy spam. No Horde army. I had about 75 boyz all in trukks and battle wagons. 9 Lootas on foot (basically never moved) and 25 grots in reserve. Only 15 made it into the game. I believe the issue was the time management at the venue.

Rematch game is this Saturday.

 Glitcha wrote:
I can move 4,000 pts of orks in 20 minutes. We play apocaplyse once a month around here. You only get 20 minutes to move your army. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of time, but you can manage it..

Very roughly, this means you could move 2000 points of Orks in 10 minutes, or 1850 in about 8.5 minutes.

But, the way most tournaments are currently set up (2h30 for setup and seven turns each), you only have 8-10 minutes on average for your entire turn!

I'm one of the people that causes this issue.
I play entirely infantry guard (90-150 miniatures).

Yes I feel bad that it takes me longer to move my things.
Yes I feel bad that 5 squads of FRFSRF is an absolute mental clusterfeth to roll.
Yes, I feel bad that my matches will lose a round compared to two Knight players duking it out.

But I'm not going to change my army and the figures I love based on that guilt. The game rules allowed me to put that army together, just as it'd allow you to build what you want to.

I also feel bad when another player rips my equally-pointed force into oblivion in two rounds, and I have to spend the next two two hours chatting, with my painted minis neatly boxed away.
Both my build and that players' build are valid, and he may dislike mine, and I dislike his. I wouldn't say he cannot have his.

I play regular tournaments at GW HQ, and I have never once had anyone bitch at me or other horde armies for speed, as I do everything humanly possible to keep it swift. But we also chat, laugh and socialise, and that's what I go for.

Oddly, I do not feel quite as sympathetic for the OP even though I usually am in his shoes so to speak.

I play Black Templar and man they are something else to try and play well.

My friend and regular opponent has Orks, rampaging, hordes of them and every single one of them lovingly customized.

Yes, he knows his stuff but I think just moving it all takes about 15 minutes.
We keep joking we should make movement trays since he looks like he is playing his Fantasy Battle hordes.

By around turn two I am getting very nervous and the hordes start dying but then the buckets and buckets of Ork inaccurate shots start coming in.
When your opponent is rolling over 30 dice or so per squad at marines, the game will bog hard.

It is literally the nature of the beast, I think the tourney folk should set the Orks as the gold standard of the longest it takes to get a game done.
Believe me, once they get into melee it is all over but the crying.

The OP for the first few turns is in a position of advantage: his army has terrific shooting reach.
Any Orks get into melee in any way Tau are DEAD.
If anything, the Ork player should be feeling ripped off.

I really doubt the Ork player was actually playing slow. When a person brings hundreds of models, a single phase of the game (let alone an entire turn) can take forever. Moving loads of individual models is a hard task. Bum rushing objectives can happen pretty fast due to trucks not being as numerous.

And honestly, if this was another horde player complaining, I would have sympathy, but it isn't. This is a player from a low model count army complaining. And Tau turns take longer than any other army of similar model count.

Oh, and don't even get me started on whiny Tau players scoffing and complaining about every psychic phase I ever use.

SemperMortis wrote:
I just wanted to take a second for everyone to LOL at this

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If you actually read what I said, I never said it was a fault of the player if it wasn't deliberate.

What he actually said

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The Ork players won through no skill or luck - seriously, regardless of who was against the ork player, it shouldn't matter.
He time wasted, deliberately or not, and caused a player who we assume was playing by the rules to lose. How on earth is that fair?

so yeah... you did imply that pretty heavily

Did you not read that correctly then? Or did you miss the bit at the bottom where I said:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This should have been avoided by the TO.

Hence my remark - "if it wasn't deliberate". If it wasn't done maliciously, then it's not their fault, and should have been avoided by the organiser.
What's wrong with that?


The Ork player apparently caused time to be wasted due to their large model count. I assume that's not deliberate, and therefore not a fault of the player - rather, it is a fault of the TO for not working around the issue.

To clarify - I'm not insinuating that horde armies shouldn't be played. I'm saying that an alternative solution which is more friendly to such large-model-count armies would have been useful in this tournament situation, and that regardless of if it was a Tau player or any other army, if they lost out because of time restraints breaking the game, that's not okay.
Even if Tau/Eldar/insert-army-here are seen as OP, that doesn't permit a cheater (unrelated to the case in OP, who we've accepted was not cheating) to timewaste against them.