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.

I would like to see more emphasis being put on curtailing slow play.

My team had it done to them at ATC last year, and when I called the judges to investigate it, they did nothing, even though they were watching while the guy was blatantly doing it. My player didn't get to start his turn 1 until an hour and 15 minutes into the game for gods sake. They still did nothing.

It's clear that there was a ton of it going on here. Saw it plain as day in their game 4 stream, and I'll take peoples words at it in the last couple games.

It's not cool, and needs to be dealt with.

Weidekuh wrote:
Well you can really only judge units and armies according to the meta.

Dark Reapers are a logical result of the way to powerful -hit traits. -hit is extremely good and many armies use it to increase their survivability. Dark Reapers completely ignore that. Moreso, they can easely get -hit themselves. Up to -3 for a single unit and -1 for the rest of them. And because Dark Reapers are now so good in the meta, any other unit they are naturally good against suffers. Meaning any big model.

Make -hit rare and give it only to really sneaky units (scouts, rangers, ...) and you basicly have the Dark Reaper spam removed. They would still be a very good unit. But not overwhelmingly meta breaking like right now.

Remove -hit army traits alltogether or make it only outside of 18 or 24 inches. 12 is too powerful. Or "shooting with a heavy weapon removes all -hit modifiers against that unit until your next shooting phase".

Alternatively, you nerf Dark Reapers to be closer to what they were a few books ago. Where Reaper Rangefinders did nothing but remove Cover saves for Jinking vehicles. Translate that over to units moving a certain distance lose any of their negative hit modifiers.

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I don't get this comment at all. We put up with 5 editions that suffered from wild imbalance issues at tournaments precisely because they required one-codex only armies. Lots pf players went years with armies on the shelf because their codex wasn't competitive and GW didn't really do errata or in-edition balancing. One-codex armies aren't a panacea for what ails the edition, and the soup meta, given the generally much wider availability of unit X to army Y is probably way easier to 'balance' at the competitive level.

People might not like it, but the current Overpowered=$$$=6 month nerf cycle is still way better than your codex sucks, please wait 5 years for another.

You claim you don't get it, then go on to explain why one-codex armies were a problem with lack of updates. With their current treatment of the game, GW can address issues with single codex books in yearly, or bi-yearly FAQs/erratas and updates. A single codex won't languish for years on end waiting for an update.

It's also easier to balance books against each other when only one codex is compared. But when a codex book can manipulate stratagems and units across several factions, it becomes less easy to focus on the problem.

What allied options or cross-stratagem opportunities will Orks get, or Tau for example, to compensate for what Imperium can have, or Eldar? In top level tournaments, it shouldn't be a factor that specific factions get left out in terms of bonus options while others can pick from a wider range of choices among multiple index books/codices.

This isn't even something GW needs to do at that point, but rather tournament organizers. But it doesn't really matter because 40k isn't a 'tournament level' game in the first place. I doubt it ever will be one. It's far too poorly balanced.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:

3. Lone Big Guys are TERRIBLE. The only exceptions are Magnus and Mortarion. Solution: All big guys should be tuned to their level, at least. If you think that'd create a problem - remove the stupid 3 superheavy detachment or make it only give 1 CP

They are already doing this. GW just nerfed Magnus enough to make him non-competitive.

I can only hope that the major podcasts and tournament organizers have the balls to call out these shenanigans. It's far too prevalent. I've heard tournament organizers defend this crap and or turn a blind eye for far too long. Some are in strong denial that it's even a problem.

I've been going to tournaments longer than most. It's always been an issue. Slow play, fast dice, rubber band tape measures, intentionally playing rules wrong, etc... it's like these clowns always rise to the top tables too, wonder why...

Kudos to Nick. Don't really know the guy, but I thought he handled it just fine. He had to be expecting similar antics vs himself, so he just used the same tactic to teach this guy a valuable lesson.

As far as the event, I'm certain it was truly enjoyable for most. I hope that junk doesn't detract from all the hard work those guys put into it. Never been, but it's on my bucket list, as I've heard wonderful things about it. Greatly admire what FLG has succeeded in accomplishing out there.

I am completely opposed to major tournaments like this dictating how rules are adjusted and changed for the majority. I do like that extreme players can exploit the rules/codexes to an obnoxious level that may have been missed by the designers, but this is by "extreme" players, not those who game casually. Any rule adjustment should take this into consideration as the goal is to subdue a certain unit/combo from being too much but not nerf a unit to oblivion where it never sees the table again. You are always going to see extreme lists a tournament like this, but what % of play does this represent?
Ynnari got nerfed,,,big time, they do not need a further nerfing
Reapers could use a small points increase to maybe 33pts a model.
-1 to hit modifiers should not stack, this stops Alaitoc fliers for example.
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

Here's my quote from above regarding allies;

This isn't even something GW needs to do at that point, but rather tournament organizers

I've also said multiple times that these types of issues should be addressed at the major tournament level, which obviously has no bearing on casual play among friends or at an LGS pickup game.

 bullyboy wrote:
I am completely opposed to major tournaments like this dictating how rules are adjusted and changed for the majority. I do like that extreme players can exploit the rules/codexes to an obnoxious level that may have been missed by the designers, but this is by "extreme" players, not those who game casually. Any rule adjustment should take this into consideration as the goal is to subdue a certain unit/combo from being too much but not nerf a unit to oblivion where it never sees the table again. You are always going to see extreme lists a tournament like this, but what % of play does this represent?
Ynnari got nerfed,,,big time, they do not need a further nerfing
Reapers could use a small points increase to maybe 33pts a model.
-1 to hit modifiers should not stack, this stops Alaitoc fliers for example.
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

I really dislike the fact that a tournament ended up so lopsided in the top 8 but I agree with most of your points. Stacking -1 to hits is just boring and and too exploitable in my opinion. That's probably the biggest thing that needs fixing in 8th. Dark reapers absolutely need a points hike though, people call them squishy but I'd argue their range makes them quite durable really. Take them bake to index cost (or a smidge more, honestly) and increase the minimum size to 5.

Other things that might need fixing are soup armies where I hope, just like someone suggested earlier in the thread, that mixing factions makes you lose the 3 "free" battlefoged CPs so there's some sort of compromise in taking them.

Ynnari were nerfed but at least for me personally that fighting out of term and extra action mechanic is just obnoxious.

Mchaagen wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Saying the game ended on turn 3 implies they made it there....game ended on turn 2 because Alex took 15 minutes to do his first turn and tony took between 60-90 minutes for his....then after he called Alex on the deepstrike, proceded to slow roll his 2nd turn as well. It was to the point that LVO for the finals had a judge stationed by the table and implemented a new rule that meant slow playing could have you auto lose.

Last two game showcased the absolute worst in the hobby...which is why you will never see the GW twitch stream broadcast top tables if they can help it.

Saying the game ended on turn 3 implies that's where I thought it ended. I made a mistake on the final turn partly because the game was going so slow I stopped paying attention to it. I edited my original post.

It's bad when a top table at a major tournament ended at turn 2, and nothing was done to stop it while it was happening. Timed rounds should have been in place for all games in the top 8.

Timed rounds should be in place for every game.

PiñaColada wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I am completely opposed to major tournaments like this dictating how rules are adjusted and changed for the majority. I do like that extreme players can exploit the rules/codexes to an obnoxious level that may have been missed by the designers, but this is by "extreme" players, not those who game casually. Any rule adjustment should take this into consideration as the goal is to subdue a certain unit/combo from being too much but not nerf a unit to oblivion where it never sees the table again. You are always going to see extreme lists a tournament like this, but what % of play does this represent?
Ynnari got nerfed,,,big time, they do not need a further nerfing
Reapers could use a small points increase to maybe 33pts a model.
-1 to hit modifiers should not stack, this stops Alaitoc fliers for example.
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

I really dislike the fact that a tournament ended up so lopsided in the top 8 but I agree with most of your points. Stacking -1 to hits is just boring and and too exploitable in my opinion. That's probably the biggest thing that needs fixing in 8th. Dark reapers absolutely need a points hike though, people call them squishy but I'd argue their range makes them quite durable really. Take them bake to index cost (or a smidge more, honestly) and increase the minimum size to 5.

Other things that might need fixing are soup armies where I hope, just like someone suggested earlier in the thread, that mixing factions makes you lose the 3 "free" battlefoged CPs so there's some sort of compromise in taking them.

Ynnari were nerfed but at least for me personally that fighting out of term and extra action mechanic is just obnoxious.

I don't agree in nerfing soup armies that way. Reapers and stacking -1 to hit is the principal mechanic issue; the real issue is slow playing and dickbag moves.

 bullyboy wrote:
I am completely opposed to major tournaments like this dictating how rules are adjusted and changed for the majority. I do like that extreme players can exploit the rules/codexes to an obnoxious level that may have been missed by the designers, but this is by "extreme" players, not those who game casually. Any rule adjustment should take this into consideration as the goal is to subdue a certain unit/combo from being too much but not nerf a unit to oblivion where it never sees the table again. You are always going to see extreme lists a tournament like this, but what % of play does this represent?
Ynnari got nerfed,,,big time, they do not need a further nerfing
Reapers could use a small points increase to maybe 33pts a model.
-1 to hit modifiers should not stack, this stops Alaitoc fliers for example.
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

They should cost 5 points less than a space marine with a missile? . They should EASILY cost 5 points or MORE compared to a marine with a missile.

 bullyboy wrote:
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

This is an issue because those two factions are weak on their own. That player is already being penalized from the start because of poor codex to codex balance (or index for Deathwatch). If all individual codices were balanced against each other there would be no weak allied lists. Allied factions would instead be stronger than codex books that have no inherent ability to ally, because they would have additional cross-codex combinations not available to factions with no ally options.

The current high-level tournament situation is essentially; a few very powerful units/options in one faction get combined with a few powerful units/options in another faction and it skews the top 10 results to the point where many top lists are nearly identical (three out of the top 8 at LVO). Are dark reapers a problem unit in an all Saim-Hann army, or Iyanden? It's harder to balance those units individually because they become broken with certain combinations only achievable by combining different faction detachments, as shown with Ynnari/Alaitoc.

The root of the problem starts with individual codex balance--where all units, warlord traits, stratagems, etc are competitively viable. If that is achieved (which I doubt, but I'd like to be wrong here) there will be a good mix of factions in tournament top 10. At that level adding in allies becomes problematic because not all factions have that opportunity, so it can be removed from high-level competitive play in order to achieve a more fair and balanced playing field for tournament participants.

That's why in order to become a (hypothetical) 'tournament level' game, it becomes GW's responsibility to balance codex books against one another, then the major tournament organizers to determine whether armies should be limited to one faction.

Slow play is an entirely different issue to this one and is also completely relevant. Because that needs to be addressed doesn't mean other problem areas should be ignored.

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

To be fair it does kinda fall into that 99.99% (exaggerated but say 95%) of players being good natured. It's unfortunate that it happened but playing on those tables a lot it's still pretty rare you get someone who agrees to play intent and then plays gotcha instead. Mostly because after that people at that level are going to make you come to regret it (hence Nick's approach where Nick would have let that go 999 games out of a 1000).

For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

 bullyboy wrote:
I am completely opposed to major tournaments like this dictating how rules are adjusted and changed for the majority. I do like that extreme players can exploit the rules/codexes to an obnoxious level that may have been missed by the designers, but this is by "extreme" players, not those who game casually. Any rule adjustment should take this into consideration as the goal is to subdue a certain unit/combo from being too much but not nerf a unit to oblivion where it never sees the table again. You are always going to see extreme lists a tournament like this, but what % of play does this represent?
Ynnari got nerfed,,,big time, they do not need a further nerfing
Reapers could use a small points increase to maybe 33pts a model.
-1 to hit modifiers should not stack, this stops Alaitoc fliers for example.
Soup armies are a thing, they are not all obnoxious. Allying some Grey Knights or Deathwatch to other marines in regular play shouldn't penalize that player. Any balancing with this should come from TOs, not GW.

While I agree partly, TO's definitely need to stop dumpiong all the balance at GW's feet as well. Many places run ITC format events and missions for their local smaller tournaments and many attendees copy and paste lists from these events. SO when people act like this crap is isolated I have to laugh. TO's either need their own version of chapter approved for their missions and events or they should use GW's rulings and missions.

Also, just to spitball ideas but I think half the soup issues go away if you simply make a rule that an army loses any and all stratagems as soon as it stops being mono faction. Suddenly armies like Tau, Necrons etc that can't form super friends would have their own edge to combat it. Don't ban soup armies or try to FAQ individual units simply give an advantage for going pure faction.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

To be fair it does kinda fall into that 99.99% (exaggerated but say 95%) of players being good natured. It's unfortunate that it happened but playing on those tables a lot it's still pretty rare you get someone who agrees to play intent and then plays gotcha instead. Mostly because after that people at that level are going to make you come to regret it (hence Nick's approach where Nick would have let that go 999 games out of a 1000).

For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

Copy Warmachine and use chess clocks. Tho thats a looooot of clocks for 400+ player event.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Also, just to spitball ideas but I think half the soup issues go away if you simply make a rule that an army loses any and all stratagems as soon as it stops being mono faction. Suddenly armies like Tau, Necrons etc that can't form super friends would have their own edge to combat it. Don't ban soup armies or try to FAQ individual units simply give an advantage for going pure faction.

This is likely the better solution than what I was thinking above.

Give a bonus to pure faction, or some detriment to multi-faction lists in tournaments.

Before it shuttered up, Dark Star GT handled some of the stuff you guys are discussing in a couple ways that made it fun to play in. (Yet still competitive)

For starters, the best general awards didn't really win you anything. The overall placing was only 50% competitive score.

And it wasn't skewed as some make comp out to be. The sportsmanship score was simple. Decent game scores netted you like 80% of the points. If anyone marked you a "poor" game we were all warned that doing so would warrant a discussion with the TOs to justify marking that person a poor sport. (Which kept purposefully marking people down a big no no as they would turn around and mark you a poor sport.)

Having a decent three color min got you like 80% of the score as well. Finally, they had a list score, did your opponent bring a spam/cheese list or did they actually bring a well thought out list. (Again, they would adjust it if you marked it poorly just to rage at losing.)

It took them more work as TOs, but typically the top 3 were ACTUALLY GOOD at playing warhammer 40k. I remember one gentleman that went undefeated, but didn't place in the top 10 because: A. he had spray painted his three colors. B. He was running a horribly copy/paste list. C. He was a jerk to everyone he played. (Slow played when he was losing, didn't know the rules, etc.)

This stuff is solvable, but you all need to be a bit more flexible when it comes to the solutions.

Ordana wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

To be fair it does kinda fall into that 99.99% (exaggerated but say 95%) of players being good natured. It's unfortunate that it happened but playing on those tables a lot it's still pretty rare you get someone who agrees to play intent and then plays gotcha instead. Mostly because after that people at that level are going to make you come to regret it (hence Nick's approach where Nick would have let that go 999 games out of a 1000).

For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

Copy Warmachine and use chess clocks. Tho thats a looooot of clocks for 400+ player event.

Everyones phone has a clock though. All you need to do it use on of the players phones to set alarms according to the player packet for turn lengths. If your ahead of schedule, feel free to waste time, otherwise focus on your moves while your opponent takes their turn.

I still think home-brew missions are part of the issue. They don't fix anything they just alter the meta, so when GW patches this to fix the core games meta by addressing problems, it does nothing to fix these outside packets. Part of the issue with reaper spam at this event was the format.

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

Amazing, isn't it? Not to toot my own horn, but I have multiple top 5 finishes and a GT win a while back for Fantasy.

I also have multiple, multiple top sportsman places, as well as favorite opponent votes.

There is absolutely ZERO reason why someone cannot play this game like a true gentleman and win. There is also absolutely no reason why sports scoring cannot be implemented in game. It's been done before and should be done again.

Tony G is an IMAGE as to why a lot of people will not come back to competitive 40k I get it, there is money on the line but that is NO EXCUSE for this sort of behavior.

And the slow play is pathetic. Absolutely unacceptably pathetic and everyone at the height of these tables slow playing ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

 sfshilo wrote:
Before it shuttered up, Dark Star GT handled some of the stuff you guys are discussing in a couple ways that made it fun to play in. (Yet still competitive)

For starters, the best general awards didn't really win you anything. The overall placing was only 50% competitive score.

And it wasn't skewed as some make comp out to be. The sportsmanship score was simple. Decent game scores netted you like 80% of the points. If anyone marked you a "poor" game we were all warned that doing so would warrant a discussion with the TOs to justify marking that person a poor sport. (Which kept purposefully marking people down a big no no as they would turn around and mark you a poor sport.)

Having a decent three color min got you like 80% of the score as well. Finally, they had a list score, did your opponent bring a spam/cheese list or did they actually bring a well thought out list. (Again, they would adjust it if you marked it poorly just to rage at losing.)

It took them more work as TOs, but typically the top 3 were ACTUALLY GOOD at playing warhammer 40k. I remember one gentleman that went undefeated, but didn't place in the top 10 because: A. he had spray painted his three colors. B. He was running a horribly copy/paste list. C. He was a jerk to everyone he played. (Slow played when he was losing, didn't know the rules, etc.)

This stuff is solvable, but you all need to be a bit more flexible when it comes to the solutions.

Well thought-out points. LVO organizers and other TOs should look back to these as solid guidelines.

 sfshilo wrote:
Before it shuttered up, Dark Star GT handled some of the stuff you guys are discussing in a couple ways that made it fun to play in. (Yet still competitive)

For starters, the best general awards didn't really win you anything. The overall placing was only 50% competitive score.

And it wasn't skewed as some make comp out to be. The sportsmanship score was simple. Decent game scores netted you like 80% of the points. If anyone marked you a "poor" game we were all warned that doing so would warrant a discussion with the TOs to justify marking that person a poor sport. (Which kept purposefully marking people down a big no no as they would turn around and mark you a poor sport.)

Having a decent three color min got you like 80% of the score as well. Finally, they had a list score, did your opponent bring a spam/cheese list or did they actually bring a well thought out list. (Again, they would adjust it if you marked it poorly just to rage at losing.)

It took them more work as TOs, but typically the top 3 were ACTUALLY GOOD at playing warhammer 40k. I remember one gentleman that went undefeated, but didn't place in the top 10 because: A. he had spray painted his three colors. B. He was running a horribly copy/paste list. C. He was a jerk to everyone he played. (Slow played when he was losing, didn't know the rules, etc.)

This stuff is solvable, but you all need to be a bit more flexible when it comes to the solutions.

These are similar implements to what I had in mind. It's like speaking to a brick wall trying to convince people that soft scores are actually a good thing for the community though. There is way too much of a focus on whos the best at winning and not whos best at the entire hobby. At the very least top prizes should go to players that didn't show up with broken models and even more broken personalities. I'd rather see that wooden spoon turned into a golden spoon.

 Hulksmash wrote:


For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

I totally agree on the time front. Chess clocks are often touted as the solution to this, but the final game took 1:45 up to the end of turn two, leaving 45 minutes for the rest of the game. I know eldar's time is frontloaded, but these were top tier players under timed conditions - how the hell is anyone else (let alone someone without a low model count army) supposed to finish their games? Playing Nids, which regularly want to run 80+ models at 2k, I can get to the end of turn 3 or maybe 4 in 2.5 hours but it's very unlikely to go further than that unless one of us is getting utterly stomped. In my mind the only sensible solution is to reduce the points levels, to at least 1750 but frankly preferably 1500.

njtrader wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

Amazing, isn't it? Not to toot my own horn, but I have multiple top 5 finishes and a GT win a while back for Fantasy.

I also have multiple, multiple top sportsman places, as well as favorite opponent votes.

There is absolutely ZERO reason why someone cannot play this game like a true gentleman and win. There is also absolutely no reason why sports scoring cannot be implemented in game. It's been done before and should be done again.

Tony G is an IMAGE as to why a lot of people will not come back to competitive 40k I get it, there is money on the line but that is NO EXCUSE for this sort of behavior.

And the slow play is pathetic. Absolutely unacceptably pathetic and everyone at the height of these tables slow playing ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

People must be misreading my quote, I think sportsmanship should absolutely be implemented, painting as well. The state of the armies in the top 8 were embarrassing aside from a couple armies. Mark Wright was the guy that should have placed first IMO, acted like a gentleman, had an outstanding looking army that was mono faction blood angels and he managed to get to the top 8. No idea if he received any prizes but he should have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Benlisted wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:


For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

I totally agree on the time front. Chess clocks are often touted as the solution to this, but the final game took 1:45 up to the end of turn two, leaving 45 minutes for the rest of the game. I know eldar's time is frontloaded, but these were top tier players under timed conditions - how the hell is anyone else (let alone someone without a low model count army) supposed to finish their games? Playing Nids, which regularly want to run 80+ models at 2k, I can get to the end of turn 3 or maybe 4 in 2.5 hours but it's very unlikely to go further than that unless one of us is getting utterly stomped. In my mind the only sensible solution is to reduce the points levels, to at least 1750 but frankly preferably 1500.

Your not alone buddy, I was saying points should drop to 1500 in the stream but people kept jeering about it not allowing for enough toys. The sad thing is, if you lower it to 1500 not only will games finish on time more often but painting armies beyond the minimum becomes much easier and without the pressure time brings with it people will be able to relax and act politer.

Of course I fully expect 9th edition to be played at 3500 points with 1 turn rounds.

 Red Corsair wrote:

njtrader wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Colour Of War wrote:
I cant help but feel this is why I prefer tournaments with sportsmanship and painting scores as well.

Those last couple of games really go against the spirit of the hobby which is a shame.

Problem with sportmanship scores is that it just adds another venue for WAAC's to exploit. 0's for each opponent.

This is such a tired argument. The whole reason why sportsman ship were dropped from these events hunged on the argument that 99.99% of players were good natured and acted mature and polite. You can't then say that those same people would use sportsmanship scoring maliciously without totally undermining the event and community at large.

So you saw how things ended up for this tournament, and you don't think players like that could be a problem?

Amazing, isn't it? Not to toot my own horn, but I have multiple top 5 finishes and a GT win a while back for Fantasy.

I also have multiple, multiple top sportsman places, as well as favorite opponent votes.

There is absolutely ZERO reason why someone cannot play this game like a true gentleman and win. There is also absolutely no reason why sports scoring cannot be implemented in game. It's been done before and should be done again.

Tony G is an IMAGE as to why a lot of people will not come back to competitive 40k I get it, there is money on the line but that is NO EXCUSE for this sort of behavior.

And the slow play is pathetic. Absolutely unacceptably pathetic and everyone at the height of these tables slow playing ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

People must be misreading my quote, I think sportsmanship should absolutely be implemented, painting as well. The state of the armies in the top 8 were embarrassing aside from a couple armies. Mark Wright was the guy that should have placed first IMO, acted like a gentleman, had an outstanding looking army that was mono faction blood angels and he managed to get to the top 8. No idea if he received any prizes but he should have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Benlisted wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:


For me the bigger issue was and continues to be TIME. Slow play isn't punished for anything. Honest to goodness games need to finish turn 4 or it's a loss for both players. That has it's own issues but I'm so tired of seeing tournament deciding games not getting past turn 3.

I totally agree on the time front. Chess clocks are often touted as the solution to this, but the final game took 1:45 up to the end of turn two, leaving 45 minutes for the rest of the game. I know eldar's time is frontloaded, but these were top tier players under timed conditions - how the hell is anyone else (let alone someone without a low model count army) supposed to finish their games? Playing Nids, which regularly want to run 80+ models at 2k, I can get to the end of turn 3 or maybe 4 in 2.5 hours but it's very unlikely to go further than that unless one of us is getting utterly stomped. In my mind the only sensible solution is to reduce the points levels, to at least 1750 but frankly preferably 1500.

Your not alone buddy, I was saying points should drop to 1500 in the stream but people kept jeering about it not allowing for enough toys. The sad thing is, if you lower it to 1500 not only will games finish on time more often but painting armies beyond the minimum becomes much easier and without the pressure time brings with it people will be able to relax and act politer.

Of course I fully expect 9th edition to be played at 3500 points with 1 turn rounds.

1500 is a much better standard. I've said it before and it bears repeating; a lot of the problems are fixed by not allowing multiples of the same detachment, and, limiting it to 1 LOW. Not that LOW are running things but at 1500 a LOW is much more difficult to reign in.

Limiting it to 1 of any detachment type really helps.

Chess Clocks. And punish slow play. I have go to tournaments for my first games in 8th edition, and even checking CONSTANTLY my codex because I didn't know half my rules I could play easy to the end of turn 3 (For both players) or even turn 4 if the game had many casualties for both sides. In less than 2,5H.

How can a tournament level player have a 1:30 hour turn? In the biggest tournament in the world? In the finals? Thats just INSANE.

 Galas wrote:
Chess Clocks. And punish slow play. I have go to tournaments for my first games in 8th edition, and even checking CONSTANTLY my codex because I didn't know half my rules I could play easy to the end of turn 3 (For both players) or even turn 4 if the game had many casualties for both sides. In less than 2,5H.

How can a tournament level player have a 1:30 hour turn? In the biggest tournament in the world? In the finals? Thats just INSANE.

It's unacceptable, not insane. It's totally unacceptable and how FLG missed this is beyond me. You need equity when it comes to time management. It is absolutely unfair for one player to monopolize the game with their banter and their BS.

Chess clocks absolutely must be used.

Benlisted wrote:
Chess clocks are often touted as the solution to this, but the final game took 1:45 up to the end of turn two, leaving 45 minutes for the rest of the game. I know eldar's time is frontloaded, but these were top tier players under timed conditions - how the hell is anyone else (let alone someone without a low model count army) supposed to finish their games? .

Not sure you understand how chess clocks are used in things like Kings of War.

Once you run out of time - you are DONE. You can no longer play, take turns, shoot, fight or anything.

If your opponent has time left, they can just keep on playing.

You took an hour and a half on turn one? Well, you best hope your opponent takes the same amount of time for their turn one or you are getting tabled with no chance to respond.

Here's an excerpt from the rulespack for a KOW tournament:
If a player runs out of time, they must
immediately put their dice down and
make no further dice rolls for the rest
of the game. If there are any unresolved
combats, then all charging units bounce
back 1” as if failing to rout the enemy
unit. During the remainder of the game,
that player may not issue any orders or
roll any dice, including for rules such
as Regeneration. The timed-out player
will also receive a -1 tournament point
penalty.

njtrader wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Chess Clocks. And punish slow play. I have go to tournaments for my first games in 8th edition, and even checking CONSTANTLY my codex because I didn't know half my rules I could play easy to the end of turn 3 (For both players) or even turn 4 if the game had many casualties for both sides. In less than 2,5H.

How can a tournament level player have a 1:30 hour turn? In the biggest tournament in the world? In the finals? Thats just INSANE.

It's unacceptable, not insane. It's totally unacceptable and how FLG missed this is beyond me. You need equity when it comes to time management. It is absolutely unfair for one player to monopolize the game with their banter and their BS.

Chess clocks absolutely must be used.

Chess clocks are not the solution. First turns are ALWAYS going to take the most time, and most armies have legit buckets full of dice. The problem stems from the fact that there can be rules questions/disputes and on the first turn this makes it brutal. If you noticed in the Alex/Tony game Tony wanted clarification on a rule regarding cyber wolves being keyworded space wolves. This took 5 minutes of a turn because one model got to reroll 4 attacks. One potential solution could be requiring players to include copies of their models rules with their lists. Most people have the PDFs now and printing them out and stapling them to the list. Would it make packets bigger? Sure. Would it help speed things up? Hells ya