What should tournaments use for point value?

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.

**Marmatag**

Grimgold wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
The problem with dakka is that people who don't even play in tournaments get to vote on this issue.

I try to get in 2 ITC tournaments a month.

I voted 2000.

1500 is not enough - armies that are forced to specialize would be really hurt by this, because they couldn't bring the points necessary to handle real threats. For instance, you need to be able to address a lot of things, swiss army knife armies that are a carnival of undercosted jibberish like Imperial Guard and Eldar would do even better in this format because they have all the tools they need regardless of the points.

1850 just doesn't make sense. This was nonsense in 7th edition and everyone knew it, pretty sure people picked this number because it was the right baseline to get a riptide wing + something, or a gladius. It was dubious at best and we don't need that number brought forward.

If your 2000 point games are not making it far enough - play better. Learn the meta armies, learn the rules, you won't pause the game for explanations or stuff like that. Understand when things are dead, and don't drag the game out with pointless rolling. If someone is going to totally obliterate something, and it involves rolling a TON of dice, be a "this guy" and just pull the model.

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

Tony, one of the best players in ITC didn't finish a game during the tournament, would you like to tell him to get gud? If you looks at the scores for the LVO, outside of concessions most of the top players only sealed the deal on a fraction of their matches, want to tell all of the top players to get gud? I don't begrudge people choosing 2k, it will lead to chess clocks, but if that's how they want to play the hobby takes all kinds. I draw the line when you are telling people they are awful players if they can't finish a 2k game in the time limit, when most of the best players in the hobby can't, is juvenile and flies in the face of evidence and comes across a douchey humble brag. "I can finish my games, if there is a problem you guys must suck". Really dude, save that gak for 4chan /tg/.

You know you're standing on sand when you start straw manning what i've said.

Tony was intentionally slowplaying. This needs to be moderated and enforced. You knew that though, but you're not here to discuss you're here to push as hard as you can for your pov.

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

**Unit1126PLL**

Marmatag wrote:
Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

No, no it's not. Some units are worth more in a 3 or 4 turn game than they are in a 6 or 7 turn game.

**Desubot**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

No, no it's not. Some units are worth more in a 3 or 4 turn game than they are in a 6 or 7 turn game.

Doesnt dark eldar need to get to t4-5 to start getting their actual bonsues? i forget if that was an 8th thing or if im remember 7th.

**Martel732**

I have to agree. Turn 5 should be mandatory regardless of time.

**Grimgold**

Marmatag wrote:

You know you're standing on sand when you start straw manning what i've said.

Tony was intentionally slowplaying. This needs to be moderated and enforced. You knew that though, but you're not here to discuss you're here to push as hard as you can for your pov.

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

No strawman, you literally said:

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

What part of that implies the nuance you are now claiming I missed. Get gud (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/git-gud) is an elitist meme, and you are not using it accidentally. Shall we bring in moderation and see if they share your low opinion of the the skills of the average 40k player?

**Audustum**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Audustum wrote:
.

I'm not really worried about two save armies taking too long. I played Imperial Soup against an Ynnari list at a major tournament in 8th edition (this is one of my favorite anecdotes). This was before the Ynnari FAQ limiting Strength from Death and I was using an army that had a Codex in my soup, so lots of options/tools/re-rolls at my disposal. Even with the Ynnari player's extra actions and my ability to re-roll tons of dice, we finished all 5 rounds in 45 minutes. Not 45 minutes each, 45 minutes total. If we can do that, there's no reason any horde army can't do the entirety of its 6 rounds in 75 or 90 minutes just for its own turns. Players just have to know their rules and focus.

Not trying to be confrontational in a rude way, but what list were you running exactly, if you don't mind sharing?

Because my typical IG lists at 2k tend to run 130+ infantry and anywhere from 4-6 vehicles, many of whom fire twice with random shot weapons. I'm not entirely sure that army is possible to play in 45 minutes with an opponent even if we were both telepathic and able to communicate by thought with 100% cooperation.

Because true horde armies aren't quite as simple as they appear at first glance, and I say this as a guy who works very hard to play his army as fast as possible. The sheer amount of rerolls an army like IG has to do, on top of random shot weapons and pure weight of dice, makes it tough to play quickly. In addition, split fire makes armies like infantry guard take a lot longer to play *correctly* (as in getting your best advantage) because there are just so many moving parts. Heck just in dice alone a single IG squad can kick out about 40 lasgun dice, unless you have a dice app or freakishly large hands that takes a while to roll, to say nothing of a conscript unit doing FRFSRF. These units can take so long to roll for the advice is quite literally "just don't shoot with lasguns". That's a pretty rough handicap just to try and keep your game playing on time, especially since that's a major source of anti infantry firepower.

One big thing that I think gets glossed over is alternating deployment at setup. I've seen that eat up more time in games than even an IG alpha strike. From a game design perspective it makes sense and is definitely more balanced, but in my area at least people take ages to deploy trying to get units out of sight and ensuring their screens/auras are properly placed. And since every drop matters there's lots of hmming and hawing. I usually don't even have half my units deployed by the time the opponent is fully deployed and I can often get that second half deployed in under a couple minutes, yet we'll take a good 20 minutes up to it as my opponent tries to find an optimal spot for his devestators or artillery.

The other is assault. It is absolutely hell for a horde player. The amount of shenanigans people have now, and the need to play absolutely perfect or your whole line will collapse makes it absolutely awful. Not to mention the whole tri locking thing, and players having to see who they're actually closer to in a sea of 100 guardsmen, the difference of 1/16th an inch meaning the difference of them piling into a tank or piling into more conscripts. I can't blame them, it's critical to playing the game well, but these kind of things eat up time.

Well, the thread has moved on from us quite a bit, but if I remember right I was packing a lot of points of Ultramarine with hurricane bolters and lascannons, plus Guilliman, Celestine, a psyker and two Index Custodes for shields. Opponent had 4-5 Wave Serpents, 4 teams of Fire Warriors, Farseers, Jain Zar and some other stuff. With shots and re-rolls alone though I was dumping 60 dice base (then 20 re-roll to hits on average and 20 re-roll to wound on average) per turn (so about 100 dice per my turn just from hurricanes) just from the hurricane bolters. So plenty of rolling.

Fortunately, I never said true hordes had to finish a game in 45 minutes. I said if my opponent and I could do ours in that time span, a true horde army should be able to do all of its turns (and just its turns) in 75-90 minutes. That's about double the amount of time both myself and my opponent took allocated to just one player.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgold wrote:
Marmatag wrote:

You know you're standing on sand when you start straw manning what i've said.

Tony was intentionally slowplaying. This needs to be moderated and enforced. You knew that though, but you're not here to discuss you're here to push as hard as you can for your pov.

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

No strawman, you literally said:

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

What part of that implies the nuance you are now claiming I missed. Get gud (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/git-gud) is an elitist meme, and you are not using it accidentally. Shall we bring in moderation and see if they share your low opinion of the the skills of the average 40k player?

"Get good" is a meme also meant as encouragement. See Dark Souls community where it began as an insult and evolved into player assessment ("I need to git gud, so what can I do better here?").

Marmatag is right though. If people get better at the game (as in knowing their rules and armies better, formulating strategies faster) they will complete games more quickly. That's just simple logic.

**deviantduck**

Audustum wrote:
With shots and re-rolls alone though I was dumping 60 dice base (then 20 re-roll to hits on average and 20 re-roll to wound on average) per turn (so about 100 dice per my turn just from hurricanes) just from the hurricane bolters. So plenty of rolling.

That is alot.. unless you compare it to a squad of boys or genestealers that are throwing 80 dice for 1 unit in assault.

**Audustum**

deviantduck wrote:
Audustum wrote:
With shots and re-rolls alone though I was dumping 60 dice base (then 20 re-roll to hits on average and 20 re-roll to wound on average) per turn (so about 100 dice per my turn just from hurricanes) just from the hurricane bolters. So plenty of rolling.
That is alot.. unless you compare it to a squad of boys or genestealers that are throwing 80 dice for 1 unit in assault.

You have to remember those numbers were just the hurricanes and did not include my own assaults.

As I said before though, my point is if we can do 5 rounds of that at 45 minutes combined, an Ork or Genestealer player should be able to do just their own 5 turns in 75-90, leaving 75-90 for their opponent.

**Farseer_V2**

Grimgold wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
The problem with dakka is that people who don't even play in tournaments get to vote on this issue.

I try to get in 2 ITC tournaments a month.

I voted 2000.

1500 is not enough - armies that are forced to specialize would be really hurt by this, because they couldn't bring the points necessary to handle real threats. For instance, you need to be able to address a lot of things, swiss army knife armies that are a carnival of undercosted jibberish like Imperial Guard and Eldar would do even better in this format because they have all the tools they need regardless of the points.

1850 just doesn't make sense. This was nonsense in 7th edition and everyone knew it, pretty sure people picked this number because it was the right baseline to get a riptide wing + something, or a gladius. It was dubious at best and we don't need that number brought forward.

If your 2000 point games are not making it far enough - play better. Learn the meta armies, learn the rules, you won't pause the game for explanations or stuff like that. Understand when things are dead, and don't drag the game out with pointless rolling. If someone is going to totally obliterate something, and it involves rolling a TON of dice, be a "this guy" and just pull the model.

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

Tony, one of the best players in ITC didn't finish a game during the tournament, would you like to tell him to get gud? If you looks at the scores for the LVO, outside of concessions most of the top players only sealed the deal on a fraction of their matches, want to tell all of the top players to get gud? I don't begrudge people choosing 2k, it will lead to chess clocks, but if that's how they want to play the hobby takes all kinds. I draw the line when you are telling people they are awful players if they can't finish a 2k game in the time limit, when most of the best players in the hobby can't, it's juvenile and flies in the face of evidence and comes across a douchey humble brag. "I can finish my games, if there is a problem you guys must suck". Really dude, save that gak for 4chan /tg/.

Tony was intentionally slow playing so yeah.

**Marmatag**

Grimgold wrote:
Marmatag wrote:

You know you're standing on sand when you start straw manning what i've said.

Tony was intentionally slowplaying. This needs to be moderated and enforced. You knew that though, but you're not here to discuss you're here to push as hard as you can for your pov.

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

No strawman, you literally said:

Games take long because people play slowly. People play slowly because they're inexperienced. Get good.

What part of that implies the nuance you are now claiming I missed. Get gud (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/git-gud) is an elitist meme, and you are not using it accidentally. Shall we bring in moderation and see if they share your low opinion of the the skills of the average 40k player?

Lol go nuts.

Everyone needs to get good. It's elitist to think that there's no room for improvement in your play and therefore the problem must lie with the game itself.

And you seem to be making a real desperate attempt to race to the moral high ground. I'm not going to bother with that. It's clear you've become offended and that is unfortunate, but that feeling doesn't mean you've presented a well thought out argument or refuted what i've said.

So i'll restate my point, but with more clarity and hopefully less damaging to the feels:

1. If you know your rules, and your opponents rules, the games go faster.
2. If you know your strategies and gambits, as well as your opponents, the games go faster.
3. If you don't roll meaningless dice, the games go faster.
4. If you know the FAQ /commentary/errata, the games go faster.

and the list goes on. This isn't rocket science.

In your next tournament, use a stopwatch and time every time a rule is discussed or a codex is referenced or a FAQ is mentioned or there is a dispute. You'll see that a lot of time is spent in wholly avoidable ways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Marmatag is right though. If people get better at the game (as in knowing their rules and armies better, formulating strategies faster) they will complete games more quickly. That's just simple logic.

Thank you

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Farseer_V2 wrote:

Tony was intentionally slow playing so yeah.

And of course, slowplayers will exist at 1500 points. So if this it the problem you're trying to solve by reducing the points you've already failed.

**Xenomancers**

To be fair Marmatag - to know all the FAQs and errata for all the armies. You might as well have got a degree in astrophysics at that time. You are absolutely correct though.

at 2k points. If you know your army and have a reasonable idea about what others armies units and stratagems are. 2 1/2 hours is more than enough time to play a game to completion (most will be tables).

**tneva82**

Marmatag wrote:

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

Game isn\t designed for 3-4 turns. It's designed for 5-7 turns. If game ends because of time and not because one army was wiped out or turn length ran up there's something wrong. If it's tiny minority in tournaments fine. If not then tournament has too little time for the point size and needs to either drop point levels or increase time.

**Unit1126PLL**

tneva82 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:

Getting to turn 5 is not required for a good game. 4 is enough. 3 is okay.

I didn't say anyone was awful. I said you can speed up gameplay by being experienced (and, Get Good - as in know your strategies and gambits before the game starts). Do you disagree with that statement? Keep drawing lines based on your own straw man. it's funny to watch, almost as funny as when you try to do math lol

Game isn\t designed for 3-4 turns. It's designed for 5-7 turns. If game ends because of time and not because one army was wiped out or turn length ran up there's something wrong. If it's tiny minority in tournaments fine. If not then tournament has too little time for the point size and needs to either drop point levels or increase time.

Or actually enforce slow-play rules, if that's what the problem is. This is one reason I support chess-clocks, because of deliberate slow play, but in my experience, some games even played honestly and without any intentional slow-play go over the time limit, at least in casual games. My opponent in my last game had the combined misfortune of:
1) Playing an army that was horde (Orks)
2) Playing against an uncommon army, that he knew all the rules of but didn't really have pre-preparation for (this is fair, I mean, who plans to fight 3 superheavy tanks?) so he had to plan on the go.

The worst part of all of this is the game took ~3 hours, as I mentioned, and he won, and it was a fun, engaging, close game all the way through (he won 19-18, and it came down to a few dice rolls one way or another). I would have won had the game ended 30 minutes earlier, though. (And actually by a good bit as well, IIRC. It was like 15-12 at the bottom of 3).

**Grimgold**

Marmatag wrote:

Everyone needs to get good. It's elitist to think that there's no room for improvement in your play and therefore the problem must lie with the game itself.

And you seem to be making a real desperate attempt to race to the moral high ground. I'm not going to bother with that. It's clear you've become offended and that is unfortunate, but that feeling doesn't mean you've presented a well thought out argument or refuted what i've said.

I don't need the moral high ground, I'm not the one who said everyone who can't finish a match within time is a bad player. Try to verbal judo your way out of that all you want, your still the one who said it.

Marmatag wrote:

So i'll restate my point, but with more clarity and hopefully less damaging to the feels:

1. If you know your rules, and your opponents rules, the games go faster.
2. If you know your strategies and gambits, as well as your opponents, the games go faster.
3. If you don't roll meaningless dice, the games go faster.
4. If you know the FAQ /commentary/errata, the games go faster.

and the list goes on. This isn't rocket science.

In your next tournament, use a stopwatch and time every time a rule is discussed or a codex is referenced or a FAQ is mentioned or there is a dispute. You'll see that a lot of time is spent in wholly avoidable ways.

So to be clear to meet your definition of good, I need to memorize every codex, know all of the stratagems, don't roll meaningless dice (whatever that means), and memorize all of the FAQ as well. If that's what you think is required to be a good player, no wonder why you think the vast majority of players are bads. You do realize that only a small number of people meet those criteria, and that only a small number of people ever will. If you want to have tournaments as inclusive as the LVO, you might have to lower your standards a bit, because people have lives and this is a hobby not a job.

At a deeper level I think that may be were we diverge, you want tournaments to be played at a high level, and if you can't hang at that level then GTFO. I think tournaments should be enjoyable by players of all skill levels, because in the end we are all getting together to play a silly game with overpriced injection molded plastic bits because we are trying to have fun.

**Marmatag**

Oh stop, I didn't say they were bad players. I said players need to get good, which is synonymous with improve. This is typical debate in America. Someone says something you don't agree with, and it gets twisted into something bad in an effort to vilify the other person.

Then you go on this diatribe twisting what i'm saying again.

Let me break it down even more simply:

More knowledge = Faster play.
More experience = Faster play.

Where we diverge is that i'm saying there is a reasonable expectation of knowledge when approaching a timed, ranked competitive game, and players below that threshold should make an effort to improve rather than demand the game be fundamentally altered to cater to their individual desires.

I'm not saying tournaments aren't for new players. I am saying tournaments should not be fundamentally altered for players who are below that reasonable standard for knowledge.

I have also said numerous times that the tournament organizers absolutely need to enforce rules to stop slowplaying. Slowplaying is bad for the game. Can you make a case for 1500 points, that also explains why the reduction by 500 points would stop slowplaying?

**Wayniac**

I still think the answer is lower points, not clocks. Warmahordes can work with the clock because you are rarely rolling dice in your opponent's turn (Tough is the exception, and some counter-attack mechanics). 40k constantly shifts back and forth. I charge you and you Overwatch? Shift clock. I roll saves? Shift clock. You use a stratagem? Shift clock. You're looking at a lot of back-and-forth switching the clock, which results in a lot of potential for forgetting to switch (even intentionally).

Ultimately the issue is whether we like it or not, the "tournament meta" shapes the direction of the game. My local game store has started monthly tournaments and is now looking at using chess clocks, despite the fact I doubt anyone in this small maybe 16 people at most RTT (not even supported via BCP so there are no ITC points officially gained) are slow-playing, it's basically dogma of "Well the top ITC guys said clocks are needed, so we'll use clocks!" That's an issue, because should the game be shaped by the tournament crowd to such a strong degree? We have seen what this can do in Warmahordes (which, unlike 40k, is at least built around tournament play) where almost every game uses Steamroller scenarios and most will also use clocks as well, just because that is typically the environment you find in tournaments and every game, no matter how small, tries to replicate that. Is that really what we want in 40k?

Dropping points should also ensure more balanced armies, however as I suggested earlier there might need to be additional restrictions in place because while the idea would be to encourage more balanced TAC style lists, you would instead see people trying to second-guess what they would face and doing hard skews in the hopes that they don't run into the counter; the opposite of what the desired effect would be.

I think it needs to be tested. A tournament should try the clocks, another should try dropping the points, that way we can actually see what each brings and weigh the pros/cons.

**bananathug**

Just to pick on the "game is good at 3 turns" there is no way I can out point a nid horde in 3 turns. I just played against one, he had over 150 models (3x 29 gaunts, 2x 19 stealers + other stuff)

I was playing marines with about 50-60 models.

It takes at least 2 turns for me to kill a unit or two, or just to get them down to reasonable size so I can control objectives without being out-bodied 5-1 and clear room for deep strikers to come in.

Games need to get to turn 4 minimum, turn 5 probably is more reasonable to give all armies a chance to win (unless we just want to play horde hammer). I hope chess clocks are the answer but I really feel that the game needs to be 3 hrs with players being able to set-up ASAP.

Deployment takes so long due to all the measuring (I just conceded that I wouldn't be able to deepstrike wherever he didn't want me to until he moved some models and that even took 20 minutes for his deployment. I still had to measure all my damned scouts to make sure he couldn't land a flyrant right next to my dudes).

Hell instead of alternating deployments whoever actually sets-up their army first gets to chose if they want first or second turn. That could shave 15-20 minutes of deployment time off the games.

Mind you my game was against an ITC vet (LVO, BAO several times) we were both playing armies we were familiar with and we got through turn 3 (barely) in 2.5 hours (and that was being generous, using lose intent and no strict rules lawyering/measuring which probably wouldn't fly with opponents who didn't know each other).

We decided to play out the game (unscored) and got through turn 4 in 30 minutes though and played it out on our own time (non scoring) in an additional 20. So if we could have shaved a bit of time off deployment and had 3 hours the game would have made it through turn 5 which seems reasonable. (Turns beyond 3 seem to take much less time as the deepstrike threat is done and a lot of models have been removed)

**auticus**

I think when it comes down to tournaments, and I know when I played 1500 pts was the standard, that the slow play was still present. You'll never eliminate slow play regardless of point limit unless you put in chess clocks.

I found that in tournaments that few people finished their games even in 1998 when 1500 points was the norm, but were able to get games done in 2 hours or less when there was no time limit and slow playing can't happen.

I find that many tournament games don't finish on time or finish in turn 3 or so not because players are just not fast enough, but because slow play has always been a giant cancer that is intentional.

**Grimgold**

Marmatag wrote:
Oh stop, I didn't say they were bad players. I said players need to get good, which is synonymous with improve. This is typical debate in America. Someone says something you don't agree with, and it gets twisted into something bad in an effort to vilify the other person.

Then you go on this diatribe twisting what i'm saying again.

Let me break it down even more simply:

More knowledge = Faster play.
More experience = Faster play.

Where we diverge is that i'm saying there is a reasonable expectation of knowledge when approaching a timed, ranked competitive game, and players below that threshold should make an effort to improve rather than demand the game be fundamentally altered to cater to their individual desires.

I'm not saying tournaments aren't for new players. I am saying tournaments should not be fundamentally altered for players who are below that reasonable standard for knowledge.

I have also said numerous times that the tournament organizers absolutely need to enforce rules to stop slowplaying. Slowplaying is bad for the game. Can you make a case for 1500 points, that also explains why the reduction by 500 points would stop slowplaying?

Once again, your trying to weasel your way out from under what you said, you made a sweeping generalization as a humble brag and are now playing the victim when you get called to task for it. I'd have more respect for you if you just owned up to it rather than trying to still say it and not mean it. Your version of reasonable knowledge is not reasonable from the examples you have given. Do you know how many stratagems there are, and you expect players to not only know their own but their opponents as well?

players below that threshold should make an effort to improve rather than demand the game be fundamentally altered to cater to their individual desires

It's amazing that you can't stop being an elitist even when you are trying to defend yourself for being an elitist. You literally just said that if people can't meet your definition of a competent player, that it's their fault, and they shouldn't participate in tournaments. Maybe you would be happier if the LVO were an invite only event so you could ensure the skill level?

How about this, rather than having you move the goalpost on me again, why don't you define the minimum competency you feel players need to have to participate in a tournament, and then we can discuss whether those minimum requirements are realistic in an event as inclusive as the LVO.

**Farseer_V2**

Grimgold wrote:
Do you know how many stratagems there are, and you expect players to not only know their own but their opponents as well?

To nit pick here, sure there maybe a ton but you don't need to know them all, just the ones that drive the set-ups. Honestly I only play 2 armies but I'm still familiar with most of competitively used stratagems in games right now just from watching battle reports and perusing Dakka.

**Grimgold**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Do you know how many stratagems there are, and you expect players to not only know their own but their opponents as well?

To nit pick here, sure there maybe a ton but you don't need to know them all, just the ones that drive the set-ups. Honestly I only play 2 armies but I'm still familiar with most of competitively used stratagems in games right now just from watching battle reports and perusing Dakka.

So knowing space marines and tyranids wound enable you to know WFTDA and Intractable? There about 5 or six stratagems per faction that will see regular use, and with 20 factions your looking at having to memorize a 100 to a 120 stratagems? If half of those are shared between factions, you are still looking at 50 to 60 you will have to memorize most of which do not belong to the faction you have to play. Then there are also a silly amount of specific rules interactions like a character being the only unit in los, but a non-character unit is closer but out of LoS, can you target the character? Or how do you measure charges against a unit on the second story of a building? Then there are the ITC specific rules like first floor of building block LoS which is nowhere in any of the GW books. Then you have to memorize all of the rules for the scenarios (of which there are two sets of six itc missions apiece), and all of the secondary objectives, like what are the three conditions to get a point if you choose old skool.

The sheer volume of rules you have to store in your noodle and recall on command under stress is daunting, if we want this hobby to be something more than that one game the neckbeards play, we are going to have to be more welcoming to players of all skill levels and make accommodations for them such as lower points, so they have more time to suss the arcane rules out. If tournaments like the LVO were invite only, sure know the rules or get wrecked, but the LVO isn't a peter measuring contest, it's an outreach event where we get to share our love of the hobby with as large of a crowd as possible.

**Reemule**

I was part of Warmachine when it switched to Deathclock.

None of the issues expressed in this thread are new. The hordes issues, the turn interruptions, the rules and judge consultations.

All happened and all dealt with.

You have to choose what is more corrosive to the hobby. Is it unfinished slow games that end on turn 3, with frustrated players? Is it the inability of slower players to play large slow horde armies? Is it that some people haven’t learned the rule set?

Be what issues you think they are, doesn’t the fact that we played for 3 hours and I moved stuff and rolled for 45 minutes, while you dithered and thought for 2 hours and 15 minutes make you a little ashamed?

**Marmatag**

Okay social justice warrior, you win, i'm a terrible person and therefore nothing i said has value.

In seriousness i'm not weaseling out of anything. If you want longer games, get good. Get better at playing faster. If your opponent is slowplaying call a judge.

And dropping the points wouldn't solve the problems highlighted above. Like the guy complaining that he couldn't sweep Hormagant units off the board in a turn with marines (dubious, considering you have access to a lot of stuff in imperium that does this incredibly well). That will be magnified in 1500 points because you'll have less firepower to deal with the same quantity. I mean seriously.

**Audustum**

Reemule wrote:
I was part of Warmachine when it switched to Deathclock.

None of the issues expressed in this thread are new. The hordes issues, the turn interruptions, the rules and judge consultations.

All happened and all dealt with.

You have to choose what is more corrosive to the hobby. Is it unfinished slow games that end on turn 3, with frustrated players? Is it the inability of slower players to play large slow horde armies? Is it that some people haven’t learned the rule set?

Be what issues you think they are, doesn’t the fact that we played for 3 hours and I moved stuff and rolled for 45 minutes, while you dithered and thought for 2 hours and 15 minutes make you a little ashamed?

I can tell you as the 45 minute player it certainly makes me b-o-r-e-d!

**Farseer_V2**

Grimgold wrote:
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Do you know how many stratagems there are, and you expect players to not only know their own but their opponents as well?

To nit pick here, sure there maybe a ton but you don't need to know them all, just the ones that drive the set-ups. Honestly I only play 2 armies but I'm still familiar with most of competitively used stratagems in games right now just from watching battle reports and perusing Dakka.

So knowing space marines and tyranids wound enable you to know WFTDA and Intractable? There about 5 or six stratagems per faction that will see regular use, and with 20 factions your looking at having to memorize a 100 to a 120 stratagems? If half of those are shared between factions, you are still looking at 50 to 60 you will have to memorize most of which do not belong to the faction you have to play. Then there are also a silly amount of specific rules interactions like a character being the only unit in los, but a non-character unit is closer but out of LoS, can you target the character? Or how do you measure charges against a unit on the second story of a building? Then there are the ITC specific rules like first floor of building block LoS which is nowhere in any of the GW books. Then you have to memorize all of the rules for the scenarios (of which there are two sets of six itc missions apiece), and all of the secondary objectives, like what are the three conditions to get a point if you choose old skool.

The sheer volume of rules you have to store in your noodle and recall on command under stress is daunting, if we want this hobby to be something more than that one game the neckbeards play, we are going to have to be more welcoming to players of all skill levels and make accommodations for them such as lower points, so they have more time to suss the arcane rules out. If tournaments like the LVO were invite only, sure know the rules or get wrecked, but the LVO isn't a peter measuring contest, it's an outreach event where we get to share our love of the hobby with as large of a crowd as possible.

So everything you just listed I have memorized and have for sometime - none of it is difficult to commit to memory with enough practice and effort. About the only thing I regularly reference is the deployment maps list in the rulebook because I don't remember which equates to which dice roll. But as to memorizing stratagems knowing the top 20-30 should be fairly easy and of course knowing the rules should be even easier (for example in your scenario that's not even difficult to recall, you can't shoot the character in that scenario, that's literally just the rules of the game). Memorizing or playing scenarios is something people have done for tournaments for years, the only difference is as long as champions missions are being used they stay more consistent as opposed to having to practice for each tournament individually. But again you've gone through the effort to list a ton of stuff that, I personally, have no issues committing to memory. I spent the time to focus on those things and practice them because they're part of the tournament skill set. A tournament is an event you practice for, just like a sporting event. It isn't hard to recall anything under stress if you practiced for it ahead of time.

Regarding an event like the LVO being an outreach event? Yeah that's why they have the 40k friendly, open gaming, and a variety of other events besides the championship right?

**meleti**

How reasonable is it to expect every single 40k tournament player to "get better" and "play quicker" in order to solve pacing problems in this edition?

I see that as fine advice to help you, personally, play games quicker. Absolutely practicing with your army 2-3 times a week will improve the speed and confidence you play with.

But is every player in the community attending these tournaments going to start improving and playing faster because a bunch of tournament organizers told them to do so?

I have my doubts.

**Reemule**

meleti wrote:
How reasonable is it to expect every single 40k tournament player to "get better" and "play quicker" in order to solve pacing problems in this edition?

I see that as fine advice to help you, personally, play games quicker. Absolutely practicing with your army 2-3 times a week will improve the speed and confidence you play with.

But is every player in the community attending these tournaments going to start improving and playing faster because a bunch of tournament organizers told them to do so?

I have my doubts.

No they are not. And they don't have to. They can still come and play and lose in turn 3 when their deathclock dings. And hopefully figure out that what to do to do better in the future right?

**Farseer_V2**

meleti wrote:
How reasonable is it to expect every single 40k tournament player to "get better" and "play quicker" in order to solve pacing problems in this edition?

I see that as fine advice to help you, personally, play games quicker. Absolutely practicing with your army 2-3 times a week will improve the speed and confidence you play with.

But is every player in the community attending these tournaments going to start improving and playing faster because a bunch of tournament organizers told them to do so?

I have my doubts.

No they won't at all and that's why I don't have an issue with chess clocks.

**Marmatag**

I think clocks would be a good idea even if they weren't used to dictate the end of turns, just to give people a good idea of how much time they're using.

And people need to take ownership of their problems. If your games aren't going to turn 4 on a continuous basis, you should be asking yourself what you can do to make that happen. How many times do your games end on turn 2 before you realize you're the problem? If you are CONSISTENTLY seeing games end early that's on you.

Personally I am comfortable with my games ending on turn 4 and i will budget my time accordingly. If you drop the points to 1500 i'll still play with that focus in mind.

**Desubot**

Give players the Sanic prize for least amount of time spent?