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.

ruminator wrote:
Problem is that Frontline's narrative on tournament play to date is that a large proportion of games have been reaching a natural conclusion. If they still believe this to be the case then timings and point limits on ITC will not be changing any time soon and there is a tendency for other tournaments to follow the trend here as to points level etc. Be interesting to see how this point is covered, as well as the specifics of the case here, in their follow up podcast.

Yeah, I do hope they consider games not finishing a key issue as well as everything else. To be honest though, every time they poll the players about it they vote for the max (so 2k), because people like their toys. To be honest I think they need to just overrule the "community" on this one and just go down in points without a vote, for the sake of the game. If they have a lower points cap in their rules sets and for their big events then others will follow; if they don't, then we'll be forever stuck at 2k for most events because people want to mirror the official format.

D6Damager wrote:Has anyone from Frontline Gaming (Reece or Frankie) given an official response or acknowledgement about what happened? I couldn't find anything.

The commentators were discussing it as it happened (other Dave said he had to stop talking about it or he wouldn't be asked back haha), but obviously the chat mod was trying to calm things down as chat went absolutely wild. Reece did acknowledge things (slightly subtly so as not to spoil the atmosphere, which is fair enough) and said that they would be thinking hard about the issues that cropped up on the drive home. I expect we'll hear more on Signals though.

 whembly wrote:

 buddha wrote:
As a model mid-level tournament player I cannot reiterate my love of the chess clock at events. Simple ITC rules additions that solves every slow play:

1.25 (90 minutes) per player. If your clock runs out, you auto lose. Max points to your opponent. Done

My only problem with this is that armies don't play equally.

Rather than creating a disincentive such as this and losing the game, I wonder if scoring can be done in such a way to encourage both players to play at a speed to maximize the chance the game going to turn 4 or 5?

Say, any game ends at "x" turn where both players still have models, adjust your total points (meaning AFTER mission scoring) by:
Turn 1 end -5 pts each.
Turn 2 end -2 pts each.
Turn 3 end 0
Turn 4 end +1
Turn 5 end +2
Turn 6 end +5

Maybe that's too much +/- adjustment...but you get my drift?

What's the degree of separation between the top 25 players?

EDIT: Or better yet, in a tournament of this size, have a dedicated decent swag for "most turns completed" by player.

While I like your approach, I just don't understand why your opponent is entitled to more time than you regardless? If you take a horde army then, at the tournament level, you would be expected to know how to move so many models, their rules, etc. Seems easiest and fairest to just split the available time down the middle.

The 2k point limit happened right after 8th dropped due to several points cost increases, though several armies were unaffected. Alot of people felt like the 1850 lists they took in 7th were about 2000 pts in 8th. There is also an inherent balancing to larger points values, you have more points available to kill one-off “OP” units. With the push towards points-cost adjustments however it’s unclear if either of those assumptions are still true.
For my part, things that cause an noticeable increase in game time are deployment (the alternating system adds a lot of dead time, and exactly 9” deepstrike makes it worthwhile to be precise) and an unfamiliarity with an opponents army means that players are still trying to figure out target priority on units they may have only played against once or twice in 8th, rather than one that has been mostly unchanged for 15 years by the end of 7th.

 greyknight12 wrote:
The 2k point limit happened right after 8th dropped due to several points cost increases, though several armies were unaffected. Alot of people felt like the 1850 lists they took in 7th were about 2000 pts in 8th. There is also an inherent balancing to larger points values, you have more points available to kill one-off “OP” units. With the push towards points-cost adjustments however it’s unclear if either of those assumptions are still true.
For my part, things that cause an noticeable increase in game time are deployment (the alternating system adds a lot of dead time, and exactly 9” deepstrike makes it worthwhile to be precise) and an unfamiliarity with an opponents army means that players are still trying to figure out target priority on units they may have only played against once or twice in 8th, rather than one that has been mostly unchanged for 15 years by the end of 7th.

Yeah, my 1850 Eldar in 7th runs almost 2200pts right now, and was close to 2400 under the Index.

If time is an issue - and it certainly appears to be in at least some games - there are two things that need to be addressed:

1. Is the time allocated per game sufficient for the size of game being played?
2. Are people deliberately slow playing to gain an advantage?

If (1) is an issue then TOs need to look at reducing the points limit. This isn't popular with players but I've seen a gradual and steady increase in the size of tournament armies over the course of 15 years or so and I'm not sure the game is better for it. Complaining you can't get all your toys at 1500 or 1750 points isn't a reason not to reduce points. IMO it's a great reason to reduce them. Make players make tougher decisions when list building. Make Command Points a more precious resource because it's more difficult to get 2 Battalions. As an added bonus you make the game a bit more accessible for newer players since getting to 1500 points is an easier goal than 2000. Better still, why not run events with different points limits instead of slavishly sticking to one size all the time?

Even if (2) isn't a big enough problem to affect most players it may still be a good idea to introduce chess clocks to allow both players a fair shot at playing the game. If I had to stand around for 70%+ of the allotted game time, waiting for my opponent, I'd be pretty annoyed regardless of how well I was doing in the game. All the problems people bring up about chess clocks are procedural issues that are easily solved through testing. I've seen it work in other games, including Warmachine/Hordes, where it just becomes second nature for players to tap the clock when their opponent has to do anything. Also, it's part of the tournament regulations to provide one for yourself. In practice that means most people use their phone or the PP app. Furthermore, once players know they're on the clock their behaviour will change. There's no incentive to slow play by dithering over Deny attempts or saves if you're doing it on your own time. Disputing ranges and such shouldn't be a problem because this should all be established by the player making the dice roll in the first place and agreed upon. Sure, you can still be TFG by disputing everything and shaving a few seconds more from your opponent's clock but that gets obvious after a while and is a fairly minor problem compared to the blatant issues we saw at the LVO.

I'll reiterate what somebody said earlier too: just because one solution may not be perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. It may not work but at least then we can say that it doesn't, and why, which helps any future attempts to solve the problem.

So the only major tournament that I've played in since 8th dropped was ATC, and every one of my games there came to an a natural conclusion. There was no time forcing the stop. Of the 30 games my team was involved in, the only 2 that I recall where the clock stopped the game, was against armies that the players were clearly slow playing, taking time to measure a 2" coherency for EVERY conscript in the army, for example.

I would like to see if LVO tracked the turns on when games ended, to see what the average was. I can't believe slow players come close to making up a significant % of tournament goers, so it will be interesting to see just how many games didn't get to round 4, 5 or 6, because of time.

Ok folks lets all be honest to each other here: Being at a tournament and watching these "Top Tier" games live you all have seen the slow play and craziness that occurs there. Someone earlier had mentioned this edition many lists are built to stomp/survive 2/3 rounds and then they fall off hard. It is not unheard of to hear/see the "Top Tier" folks playing in a manner that most people would find less than sporting. The biggest issue is that many of the top tier folks know that they are really only playing until turn 2/3 and know that the TO's from the events will not say boo if the top players dont make minimum.

See last edition with all the spamming jet bike and their reroll after reroll and movement in 2 different phases.

I love this game, and know quiet a few "Top" players, and they are great, but until the TO's put the hammer down on this behavior it will continue

Rickels wrote:


I love this game, and know quiet a few "Top" players, and they are great, but until the TO's put the hammer down on this behavior it will continue

Good point. I think TOs, especially at larger events, really need to man up a bit and start taking action on various things. Deliberate slow playing is cheating. You may not be able to prove it but a warning followed by actual action being taken would send a pretty clear message to people. The same goes for painting. If you're going to have a painting requirement then enforce it. What's the point of saying "3 colours minimum" if someone shows up with an army crudely sprayed in 3 colours just to satisfy the requirement? Presumably the requirement is there to make the games look appealing. If people are going to game that system too, deal with it.

I think the bigger tournaments can lead the way here. It's difficult to DQ someone at a 20-person local tournament because it can directly affect the community through bad blood, etc. Do it at a huge tournament like this and people will take notice and the community would, I think, be supportive of such a move, provided requirements and penalties were clearly laid out beforehand.

 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.

Somewhere on this board, I copied out the rules for an official GW tournament from the early 90s (2nd ed 40k). Winning games (three rounds) netted you, IIRC 40% of the total. The rest was made up of painting scores (IIRC, judged rather than a free vote), army composition (in the opinion of the organisers, I think, not based on a set of comp rules), sportsmanship (each player chose which of their three opponents was their favourite to play against; points were awarded for each vote received) and the pub quiz.

I would also note as I've personally seen where TOs and judges be made aware of slow playing top tier players but because they are friends no consequence ever comes. Indeed, go to any big event and you'll see top players close with the organizers which isn't inherently bad except that no consequences ever come. Take perfect note of Tony's models who not only slow played but also didn't have his models meet the tournie standards.

An unequivocal measure like a time clock is necessary to stop this kind of stuff.

 buddha wrote:
I would also note as I've personally seen where TOs and judges be made aware of slow playing top tier players but because they are friends no consequence ever comes. Indeed, go to any big event and you'll see top players close with the organizers which isn't inherently bad except that no consequences ever come. Take perfect note of Tony's models who not only slow played but also didn't have his models meet the tournie standards.

An unequivocal measure like a time clock is necessary to stop this kind of stuff.

This game, as shown by many posters, will not work with how the game is currently set up. An Easier fix would be to enforce the 4 turn minimum rule and cap the time at 2.5 hours. No clocks needed, just stick to your guns

The problem with lowering the point total to 1500ish is then it becomes LOW fest. If no one can bring enough guns to take magnus/morty/shadowsword off the table turn 1 those models will dominate the game (just wait until the rest of the primarchs are released).

In the tourney games I've played we usually get to turn 4-5 in the 2.5 hrs. But we're pretty casual, actually use intent and know the rules/armies pretty well. Even the orc/IG game with over 300 models on the table finished turn 4.

I'm pretty sure some players are using slow-play as a tactic and I'm not sure how to legislate because you get into the tricky realm of legislating intent and that rarely turns out good.

I just think TOs have to bite the bullet and increase the game length to 3-3.5 hrs. Sure it means a 12-14 hour day (and the cost involved with finding a venue that will be open that long) but with the way the game is currently designed that seems to be the only equitable solution without imposing a ton of restrictions on list building, making hordes nonviable or causing fist fights at the table over button pushing.

From my exp it's pretty hard to slow play that hard without becoming obvious. Cut-out lunch/dinner breaks? A rumbling stomach should be enough motivation to finish a game under time?

Also, I was in chat at the time and I totally though tryndamere was trolling and it wasn't until I saw the actual tweet (and figured out he had 5k to throw around as the pres of riot). Glad I didn't say anything stupid and embarrass myself.

bananathug wrote:
The problem with lowering the point total to 1500ish is then it becomes LOW fest. If no one can bring enough guns to take magnus/morty/shadowsword off the table turn 1 those models will dominate the game (just wait until the rest of the primarchs are released).

In the tourney games I've played we usually get to turn 4-5 in the 2.5 hrs. But we're pretty casual, actually use intent and know the rules/armies pretty well. Even the orc/IG game with over 300 models on the table finished turn 4.

I'm pretty sure some players are using slow-play as a tactic and I'm not sure how to legislate because you get into the tricky realm of legislating intent and that rarely turns out good.

I just think TOs have to bite the bullet and increase the game length to 3-3.5 hrs. Sure it means a 12-14 hour day (and the cost involved with finding a venue that will be open that long) but with the way the game is currently designed that seems to be the only equitable solution without imposing a ton of restrictions on list building, making hordes nonviable or causing fist fights at the table over button pushing.

From my exp it's pretty hard to slow play that hard without becoming obvious. Cut-out lunch/dinner breaks? A rumbling stomach should be enough motivation to finish a game under time?

Also, I was in chat at the time and I totally though tryndamere was trolling and it wasn't until I saw the actual tweet (and figured out he had 5k to throw around as the pres of riot). Glad I didn't say anything stupid and embarrass myself.

I think your first point is a bit naff.

Lords of War are usually easier to kill than their lesser counterparts. E.G. a Baneblade is easier to kill than 3 (actually exactly for a minimum baneblade) Leman Russ tanks, while providing 0 benefit in terms of CP and not getting Regimental Doctrines unless you take it in a supreme command, in which case the 3 HQ's make it cost more than 3 LRBTs.

It's telling that the most durable unit in the IG codex for its points is the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad and not the Baneblade.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

bananathug wrote:
The problem with lowering the point total to 1500ish is then it becomes LOW fest. If no one can bring enough guns to take magnus/morty/shadowsword off the table turn 1 those models will dominate the game (just wait until the rest of the primarchs are released).

In the tourney games I've played we usually get to turn 4-5 in the 2.5 hrs. But we're pretty casual, actually use intent and know the rules/armies pretty well. Even the orc/IG game with over 300 models on the table finished turn 4.

I'm pretty sure some players are using slow-play as a tactic and I'm not sure how to legislate because you get into the tricky realm of legislating intent and that rarely turns out good.

I just think TOs have to bite the bullet and increase the game length to 3-3.5 hrs. Sure it means a 12-14 hour day (and the cost involved with finding a venue that will be open that long) but with the way the game is currently designed that seems to be the only equitable solution without imposing a ton of restrictions on list building, making hordes nonviable or causing fist fights at the table over button pushing.

From my exp it's pretty hard to slow play that hard without becoming obvious. Cut-out lunch/dinner breaks? A rumbling stomach should be enough motivation to finish a game under time?

Also, I was in chat at the time and I totally though tryndamere was trolling and it wasn't until I saw the actual tweet (and figured out he had 5k to throw around as the pres of riot). Glad I didn't say anything stupid and embarrass myself.

I think your first point is a bit naff.

Lords of War are usually easier to kill than their lesser counterparts. E.G. a Baneblade is easier to kill than 3 (actually exactly for a minimum baneblade) Leman Russ tanks, while providing 0 benefit in terms of CP and not getting Regimental Doctrines unless you take it in a supreme command, in which case the 3 HQ's make it cost more than 3 LRBTs.

It's telling that the most durable unit in the IG codex for its points is the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad and not the Baneblade.

Also fairly easy to cap things at max one superheavy (except Knight armies perhaps), or instuitute a max power level if this does become an issue.

Benlisted wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

bananathug wrote:
The problem with lowering the point total to 1500ish is then it becomes LOW fest. If no one can bring enough guns to take magnus/morty/shadowsword off the table turn 1 those models will dominate the game (just wait until the rest of the primarchs are released).

In the tourney games I've played we usually get to turn 4-5 in the 2.5 hrs. But we're pretty casual, actually use intent and know the rules/armies pretty well. Even the orc/IG game with over 300 models on the table finished turn 4.

I'm pretty sure some players are using slow-play as a tactic and I'm not sure how to legislate because you get into the tricky realm of legislating intent and that rarely turns out good.

I just think TOs have to bite the bullet and increase the game length to 3-3.5 hrs. Sure it means a 12-14 hour day (and the cost involved with finding a venue that will be open that long) but with the way the game is currently designed that seems to be the only equitable solution without imposing a ton of restrictions on list building, making hordes nonviable or causing fist fights at the table over button pushing.

From my exp it's pretty hard to slow play that hard without becoming obvious. Cut-out lunch/dinner breaks? A rumbling stomach should be enough motivation to finish a game under time?

Also, I was in chat at the time and I totally though tryndamere was trolling and it wasn't until I saw the actual tweet (and figured out he had 5k to throw around as the pres of riot). Glad I didn't say anything stupid and embarrass myself.

I think your first point is a bit naff.

Lords of War are usually easier to kill than their lesser counterparts. E.G. a Baneblade is easier to kill than 3 (actually exactly for a minimum baneblade) Leman Russ tanks, while providing 0 benefit in terms of CP and not getting Regimental Doctrines unless you take it in a supreme command, in which case the 3 HQ's make it cost more than 3 LRBTs.

It's telling that the most durable unit in the IG codex for its points is the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad and not the Baneblade.

Also fairly easy to cap things at max one superheavy (except Knight armies perhaps), or instuitute a max power level if this does become an issue.

This would work! The limit 1 LOW would keep me out of tournaments for 8th edition, which is a bit disappointing as I've just started coming back to them for my first time since 5th edition, but I'd gladly step out if it really meant more fun for every person.

Just know I'd complain about it on forums.

TL;DR for those just joining...

Games may need more time and / or lists need to use less points. Either way, we all need to make sure not to be arse-holes to eachother while playing.

 Voidwraith wrote:
TL;DR for those just joining...

Games may need more time and / or lists need to use less points. Either way, we all need to make sure not to be arse-holes to eachother while playing.

OR (this is going to be a shocker so try to bear with me)...

Judges/TOs could actually enforce the rules. A one-hour turn with damn near any list is painfully obvious slowplaying and I don't know anyone who disagrees. And what are the consequences?

I'll be waiting for an answer, but not holding my breath.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
TL;DR for those just joining...

Games may need more time and / or lists need to use less points. Either way, we all need to make sure not to be arse-holes to eachother while playing.

OR (this is going to be a shocker so try to bear with me)...

Judges/TOs could actually enforce the rules. A one-hour turn with damn near any list is painfully obvious slowplaying and I don't know anyone who disagrees. And what are the consequences?

I'll be waiting for an answer, but not holding my breath.

Didn't we have a long thread after Nova about a top table player not bringing his codex/index with him and then found to be playing the rules wrong? Nothing happened that time either I think, so until a TO does harden up then the players looking to win will play as loose as they can get away with.

Some Variant of Time Clocking is already in use in most GT level events. Many Tournaments implement a Death clock in the last 30-20 min of the games. We do it... it helps.

Get used to it...

Download an app to your phone/Ipad or buy one for $20. Practice using it.

At our GT we guage slow play and warn them... we then will get a Chess clock over to the game to keep things moving if necessary.

Top Table games need to be monitored more closely.. have a staffer near those tables in case.

Death Clocks/Timers are becoming more popular in 40K games..

Points are not the issue

Slow play and enforcing penalties for slow play is

If no one is going to penalize slow play, no amount of point changes to the standard is going to fix it.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Points are not the issue

Slow play and enforcing penalties for slow play is

If no one is going to penalize slow play, no amount of point changes to the standard is going to fix it.

Im not a fan of penalties.

I prefer dropping a Chess clock on the players table.

 zedsdead wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Points are not the issue

Slow play and enforcing penalties for slow play is

If no one is going to penalize slow play, no amount of point changes to the standard is going to fix it.

Im not a fan of penalties.

I prefer dropping a Chess clock on the players table.

Agreed, and the not being able to provide that many clocks is a non argument, they're able to provide Mats and Terrain for all those tables, why not clocks too

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Points are not the issue

Slow play and enforcing penalties for slow play is

If no one is going to penalize slow play, no amount of point changes to the standard is going to fix it.

Im not a fan of penalties.

I prefer dropping a Chess clock on the players table.

Agreed, and the not being able to provide that many clocks is a non argument, they're able to provide Mats and Terrain for all those tables, why not clocks too

Its something to be discussed.

Personally im not a fan of micromanaging every game in a tournament. But I see the value in giving everyone a clock... this might be the future.
For now I personally like having a handful of clocks/apps available for slow gamers (who would otherwise be penalized) not all games involve slow gamers.. actually most of our games come to a normal conclusion.

However at the top tables.... games slow down drastically ... this needs to be addressed (time clocks at top tables). There are naturally/intentionally slow gamers.. they need to be addressed without effecting everyone (implementing a rule that allows a TO/Judge to drop a clock in during or before a game).

So did they enforce time per turn in the Finals and how did they do so?

The problem with adding clocks is it doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is TFGs being TFGs.

If you add clocks, you've just tossed another piece of junk into the minds of 500+ fatigued players in a very complicated game that already starts arguments between perfectly reasonable people.

And all the while, the TFGs get to try their clock shenanigans (because yes, you can be a TFG about the clock) and get away with all sorts of nonsense while the TOs blithely ignore it happening even on a huge livestream.

I can see both sides of the argument on clocks. It would definitely curtail blatant abuses and it is definitely achievable. From a theoretical standpoint, I think we can even say it's probably preferred.

There are definite practicalities that would make it challenging in terms of game play. There are so many out-of-turn abilities and back and forth activations in 40k that make it less practical.

Take for example Warmachine if anyone plays that. There is no armor save concept and rolling for your models to live or die. If it's your activation and you attack something, you kill by exceeding its thresholds for ARM and that's that. Nothing out of turn. Also similarly, there are no wargear or out of turn actions that happen. Sure there are buffs and aura equivalents (aka upkeeps) but those are actually required to be shown by a counter. It's just so much more streamlined as a skirmish game to make it timing and chess clock friendly.

40k just has too much rules bloat from being a multi-level game and not sure what scale it is. Conspiracy tin hat me thinks that the Power Levels introduced will eventually lead to standardized wargear and abilities like Warmachine. This will clean up a lot of rules questions and time but possibly detract with the tinkering/customization fun people have. It will be really interesting to see if their fan base really loves the tinkering army choice granularity down to a single weapon or enjoys playing the game and setting the game up for more tournament or organized play.

 KiloFiX wrote:
So did they enforce time per turn in the Finals and how did they do so?

Judge at the table with a 20min clock per turn.

Obviously this is not ideal since time is front loaded. Early turns with everything alive take long, but considering the time they had for a solution I think it was fine.
The penalty was a warning if you went over the 20min limit. 3 warnings = DQ.
Both players went over time in turn 1 (see front loaded). I think (but not 100%) that from turn 2 on both players stayed within time.

Needs points decrease IMO. Didn't make it past T3 in any game. My 5th LVO. 1500-1850. Appropriate. I mean do you reeeeally need 10 tanks. Or 2 primarchs?

 djones520 wrote:
So the only major tournament that I've played in since 8th dropped was ATC, and every one of my games there came to an a natural conclusion. There was no time forcing the stop. Of the 30 games my team was involved in, the only 2 that I recall where the clock stopped the game, was against armies that the players were clearly slow playing, taking time to measure a 2" coherency for EVERY conscript in the army, for example.

I would like to see if LVO tracked the turns on when games ended, to see what the average was. I can't believe slow players come close to making up a significant % of tournament goers, so it will be interesting to see just how many games didn't get to round 4, 5 or 6, because of time.

Yea but isn't the ATC in July? If so your using an example where everything was still index.



There is a much easier way to make slow play a thing of the past. ITC LVO packet said game length was set for 6 turns and no random game length. So the solution is simple, with the exception of a tabling you only score a percentage of the points earned in your game in relation to which game turn you ended on. In other words if I score 24 points when time is called but I only made it to turn 2 then the max they can earn is 8 points. Play 1/3 of a game, earn 1/3 of the battle points.

That would be really good incentive.