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 think that's fine as long as GW (and people here) stop using tournament data for balance.

People losing because the clock dinged does not make the army bad, nor does people losing because the game went to Turn 3 or Turn 4 and the army didn't get the time to really function.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:


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?

I have them all memorized as well, and your wrong about the special character it wasn't until CA 2017 that we got an official ruling on the edge cases for targeting a character, so the answer is not in the main rulebook, and it's the dumbest ruling of 8th ed which is the reason i used it as an example. See how it all blends together even for someone who claims to have all of the rules memorized? I've put in the time to memorize the rules, have over a hundred hours of playtime in 8th ed, and I still get the rules wrong. At some point you have to stop blaming the players for the volume of data they have to memorize, and start assigning blame where it belongs, this game is complex and often the rules decisions are arbitrary (like why charge in a straight line when the model can not move that way without a rocket strapped to their back).

By all accounts open play and the other events such as the exhibitor hall were very popular, but the 40k LVO was the most popular event by far. Reece recently said he thinks most people are a hybrid of competitive and casual playstyles, and I think he is right. people want to go to a tournament, but not necessarily one with all of the overhead required to be the ultimate tourney of ultimate destiny. For the sake of marmatag (who went to the LVO but probably won't tell us how he placed) and other players of his discerning taste in opponents they should have an invitational, chess clocks, 2k points, the whole nine yards, you have something to prove and here is the venue to do it. It's rather odd that competitive 40k has a year end tournament that's open, you don't see that in other sports, it would be like making world class league players have to smurf for a few matches before they got to fight other world class teams.

 Grimgold wrote:

I have them all memorized as well, and your wrong about the special character it wasn't until CA 2017 that we got an official ruling on the edge cases for targeting a character, so the answer is not in the main rulebook, and it's the dumbest ruling of 8th ed which is the reason i used it as an example. See how it all blends together even for someone who claims to have all of the rules memorized? I've put in the time to memorize the rules, have over a hundred hours of playtime in 8th ed, and I still get the rules wrong. At some point you have to stop blaming the players for the volume of data they have to memorize, and start assigning blame where it belongs, this game is complex and often the rules decisions are often arbitrary (like why charge in a straight line when the model can not move that way without a rocket strapped to their back).

By all accounts open play and the other events such as the exhibitor hall were very popular, but the 40k LVO was the most popular event by far. Reece recently said he thinks most people are a hybrid of competitive and casual playstyles, and I think he is right. people want to go to a tournament, but not necessarily one with all of the overhead required to be the ultimate tourney of ultimate destiny. For the sake of marmatag (who went to the LVO but probably won't tell us how he placed) and other players of his discerning taste in opponents they should have an invitational, chess clocks, 2k points, the whole nine yards, you have something to prove and here is the venue to do it. It's rather odd that competitive 40k has a year end tournament that's open, you don't see that in other sports, it would be like making world class league players have to smurf for a few matches before they got to fight other world class teams.

So I'm wrong, but I'm right? I think what you meant was 'yeah you're right about the character thing since they added clarification'. So no I don't have to stop blaming the players, it is my belief that it is incumbent on the players to be prepared for the event. Know the rules you need to know and be prepared to play in the event under the structure set in place. If you don't do that and you have games go to time that is on you, not the system. Again I play a 150+ model Chaos army inside the 2.5 hour structure and rarely have a game where I don't make at least 5. If I can do so can other people. And again those players are welcome to play in the friendly or other events - if they want to play in the championship they know what they're signing up for. I'm not going to back off the idea that it is incumbent upon them to be prepared. Chess Clocks are a fine addition to the game and honestly if they scare you away from playing in the event - then that's why they have other events that don't use those rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think that's fine as long as GW (and people here) stop using tournament data for balance.

People losing because the clock dinged does not make the army bad, nor does people losing because the game went to Turn 3 or Turn 4 and the army didn't get the time to really function.

There is no valid other source of quantifiable data to make those decisions on.

Actually i didn't make it to the LVO. I wanted to go, but was otherwise occupied. I will be at the BAO though, provided the march update doesn't totally destroy my army. I would be happy to buy you a beer and talk about this in person. Behind the internet wall I get the impression I sound pretty horrible sometimes but that's really not the goal. If you really want to know my recent W/L over the past few ITC events i've attended PM me and i'll share with typed battlereports of how each game went if you want.

And I do agree that the LVO champs should be invitational. Open events should exist in that scene but not the championships. So you could still have "LVO- Mega tournament" which contributes to your rankings, but also have the LVO Championships, which require a rating of say 95 or higher over at least 4 RTT to enter. (maybe 100, but that might be too high)

I don't feel 40k lends itself well to marathon tournaments. To me, 40k would do far better as a league format. You play league games under a sanctioned body which contribute to your record. There would have to be a host of details fleshed out but it's the best way to play the game IMHO. But that won't fly with the majority of people so I don't really chase it or suggest it.

Of course I also still feel that 99% of games will be *clearly* decided by turn 4. If i had my way I would say the game ends at 4 turns, period.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

I have them all memorized as well, and your wrong about the special character it wasn't until CA 2017 that we got an official ruling on the edge cases for targeting a character, so the answer is not in the main rulebook, and it's the dumbest ruling of 8th ed which is the reason i used it as an example. See how it all blends together even for someone who claims to have all of the rules memorized? I've put in the time to memorize the rules, have over a hundred hours of playtime in 8th ed, and I still get the rules wrong. At some point you have to stop blaming the players for the volume of data they have to memorize, and start assigning blame where it belongs, this game is complex and often the rules decisions are often arbitrary (like why charge in a straight line when the model can not move that way without a rocket strapped to their back).

By all accounts open play and the other events such as the exhibitor hall were very popular, but the 40k LVO was the most popular event by far. Reece recently said he thinks most people are a hybrid of competitive and casual playstyles, and I think he is right. people want to go to a tournament, but not necessarily one with all of the overhead required to be the ultimate tourney of ultimate destiny. For the sake of marmatag (who went to the LVO but probably won't tell us how he placed) and other players of his discerning taste in opponents they should have an invitational, chess clocks, 2k points, the whole nine yards, you have something to prove and here is the venue to do it. It's rather odd that competitive 40k has a year end tournament that's open, you don't see that in other sports, it would be like making world class league players have to smurf for a few matches before they got to fight other world class teams.

So I'm wrong, but I'm right? I think what you meant was 'yeah you're right about the character thing since they added clarification'. So no I don't have to stop blaming the players, it is my belief that it is incumbent on the players to be prepared for the event. Know the rules you need to know and be prepared to play in the event under the structure set in place. If you don't do that and you have games go to time that is on you, not the system. Again I play a 150+ model Chaos army inside the 2.5 hour structure and rarely have a game where I don't make at least 5. If I can do so can other people. And again those players are welcome to play in the friendly or other events - if they want to play in the championship they know what they're signing up for. I'm not going to back off the idea that it is incumbent upon them to be prepared. Chess Clocks are a fine addition to the game and honestly if they scare you away from playing in the event - then that's why they have other events that don't use those rules.

A comic for levity and demonstration


You see the problem with "I can do it so everyone can" is that not everyone is like you. If you try and force your standards on allplayers at the LVO you will find the pool of available players is greatly reduced. The LVO is about sharing how awesome the hobby is, not about yelling at people because they forgot a rule. Also don't think I missed the jabs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Of course I also still feel that 99% of games will be *clearly* decided by turn 4. If i had my way I would say the game ends at 4 turns, period.

Then why not make tournaments 4 turns long and skip all of the heartache about clocks vs lowered points elite players vs pleb etc.

No jabs taken - any you read you inferred however I do apologize for writing in such a way as to create the inference. Ultimately you and I have a different view on what tournaments are for and we're not likely to find much common ground. Both of us have stated points so I do not see much of a reason to continuing to retread those.

About clocks. At the Glass City GT we were allowed to use them. Even had a check box for if we used one or not. None of my opponents wanted one. In fact I don't think anyone wanted one of the 53 people there playing. So, whatever that means to you guys. For me, it tells me that time isn't really an issue. At least around here.

 chimeara wrote:
About clocks. At the Glass City GT we were allowed to use them. Even had a check box for if we used one or not. None of my opponents wanted one. In fact I don't think anyone wanted one of the 53 people there playing. So, whatever that means to you guys. For me, it tells me that time isn't really an issue. At least around here.

Or people dont want to bother with it.

its possible just limiting the game to exactly 4 rounds rather than time might speed up the few people using time out as a way to win. whether or not its an actual issue its worth giving a shot. though

 Grimgold wrote:

Then why not make tournaments 4 turns long and skip all of the heartache about clocks vs lowered points elite players vs pleb etc.

Well I still think people playing slow is a problem.... or being unprepared.

Clocks are a good idea, even if they are purely there for informative purposes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think that's fine as long as GW (and people here) stop using tournament data for balance.

People losing because the clock dinged does not make the army bad, nor does people losing because the game went to Turn 3 or Turn 4 and the army didn't get the time to really function.

I totally agree - Astra Militarum would win almost every game if there was no time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

No it really isn't designed for 5-7 turns when my army can destroy/route yours in 3 turns. That might be what the game rules say but the army power says otherwise.

There's not really a universal standard to how quickly an army can get tabled. A super resilient Chaos list will take a lot longer to destroy than a pure Grey Knights list. I don't think we can really speak in absolutes about how long a game takes to resolve itself when 40k has such a wide variety of army compositions with very different strengths.

I think 1850 to 2000 points is fine, it's on both players to keep them selves and their opponent in check when it comes to time. If you feel your opponent is going to slow say something politely at first if they keep it up get a judge. Just make sure you do it with enough time left to make a difference.

 Desubot wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
About clocks. At the Glass City GT we were allowed to use them. Even had a check box for if we used one or not. None of my opponents wanted one. In fact I don't think anyone wanted one of the 53 people there playing. So, whatever that means to you guys. For me, it tells me that time isn't really an issue. At least around here.

Or people dont want to bother with it.

its possible just limiting the game to exactly 4 rounds rather than time might speed up the few people using time out as a way to win. whether or not its an actual issue its worth giving a shot. though

I could see that.

Now that I'm thinking about it, We had a rule where we got deducted points if we didn't finish 3 turns and even more if we didn't get 2 done. That might be more effective than timers. IMO.

 chimeara wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
About clocks. At the Glass City GT we were allowed to use them. Even had a check box for if we used one or not. None of my opponents wanted one. In fact I don't think anyone wanted one of the 53 people there playing. So, whatever that means to you guys. For me, it tells me that time isn't really an issue. At least around here.

Or people dont want to bother with it.

its possible just limiting the game to exactly 4 rounds rather than time might speed up the few people using time out as a way to win. whether or not its an actual issue its worth giving a shot. though

I could see that.

Now that I'm thinking about it, We had a rule where we got deducted points if we didn't finish 3 turns and even more if we didn't get 2 done. That might be more effective than timers. IMO.

Well there is the potential for devious players to purposefully time out an opponent so they lose points at the end.

its entirely possible

While it is possible for devious players to do that, I don't see them penalizing themselves just to spite their opponent. Unless they're already doing bad and want to be unsavory.

 chimeara wrote:
While it is possible for devious players to do that, I don't see them penalizing themselves just to spite their opponent. Unless they're already doing bad and want to be unsavory.

Some people, having already been elminated from top 8/16 contention, will gladly drag their opponents down with them out of spite. Tournament games just seem to attract that kind of personality.

You can use chess clocks at the top tables of big events, but apart from that the common 40k player will not like it. Warma/hordes players are really different from 40k players, that game encourages a "gamey" mindset, it's like playing MTG (and that's the reason why my Everblights are taking dust on a shelf).

The average 40k player wants to have a good time first and foremost, winning isn't really important, so if you enforce on them something like a chess clock, you will alienate them from the event. At the same time, asking someone who plays once a month to get better and faster at the game, is unfeasible.
I understand that competitive 40K players would like to enjoy their cutthroath games that are solved by turn 3 with ultra hard decision in the first 2 turns of the game, ultra optimized lists and so on, but the typical game with typical lists will take 5-7 turns to reach it's natural conclusion, and will take longer than 2,5 hours, because this isn't warma/hordes, this isn't a sport, and people want to have a good time.

This is the kind of people that plays in the events, so rules have to be made thinking mainly about them. For this reason, i think that lowering points is the way to go.

ITC rules are already a plague (or a necessary evil) that axes many lists, luckily in Europe we prefer standard rules. If you also want to enforce a fast play, were games of 3-4 turns are acceptable, you have completely lost contact with the game.

Spoletta wrote:
You can use chess clocks at the top tables of big events, but apart from that the common 40k player will not like it. Warma/hordes players are really different from 40k players, that game encourages a "gamey" mindset, it's like playing MTG (and that's the reason why my Everblights are taking dust on a shelf).

The average 40k player wants to have a good time first and foremost, winning isn't really important, so if you enforce on them something like a chess clock, you will alienate them from the event. At the same time, asking someone who plays once a month to get better and faster at the game, is unfeasible.
I understand that competitive 40K players would like to enjoy their cutthroath games that are solved by turn 3 with ultra hard decision in the first 2 turns of the game, ultra optimized lists and so on, but the typical game with typical lists will take 5-7 turns to reach it's natural conclusion, and will take longer than 2,5 hours, because this isn't warma/hordes, this isn't a sport, and people want to have a good time.

This is the kind of people that plays in the events, so rules have to be made thinking mainly about them. For this reason, i think that lowering points is the way to go.

ITC rules are already a plague (or a necessary evil) that axes many lists, luckily in Europe we prefer standard rules. If you also want to enforce a fast play, were games of 3-4 turns are acceptable, you have completely lost contact with the game.

I also would like to have fun which is why I encourage time keeping. It is not very fun to sit around bored for two hours and fifteen minutes because my opponent's turn is slow as a glacier whereas my turns take all of forty-five minutes.

 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?

I have played warhammer 40k for 20 years. I know my rules. I know my stats. It still takes way too long with 8th ed. I can play in 7th ed with ork swarm within time limit and SPARE. I'm usually among first to finish game. In 8th ed? It suddenly is race to finish in time.

8th ed with all it's rerolls after rerolls just takes ridiculously much time. Game sized needed to shrink in 8th ed. Instead they went up.

GW made slower edition. Tournament organizers rather than acknowledge it and adjust point sized went wrong way and make it even slower. Then some people claim "it's all right. 2 turns is fine!". Why bother with miniatures then as it's generally only on turns 3-4 where actually positioning models becomes meaningful in the first place. Before that models could be replaced by pen&paper for wound calculating.

 Desubot wrote:

 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.

They get bonuses since turn 1, but from 3 they get melee bonuses. Since games usually don't last that long drukhari are forced to play as gunlines in competitive games, because melee units have been nerfed badly and they won't see their bonuses anyway. Which is a shame as I don't like playing armies that are not assault oriented in fact I haven't played my drukhari since CA and won't field them again before the codex is out.

I'm sure I'm going to get BLAMMED for HERESY for having the audacity to suggest this, but... isn't it time we get with the times and start using a dice app (at least for massive amount of dice)? We are in an edition where it is entirely possible to have to roll 100+ dice for the attacks of a single unit (Ork Boyz for example). I once was attacked by a unit of Boyz that got 120 attacks, took about 15 minutes to just resolve that attack alone. With a dice app it would've been resolved in 2. I understand peoples' complaints about dice apps but for the gargantuan amount of dice that some factions can roll manual rolling is just too clumsy and time consuming. GW could even develop or commission their own app and approve it to prevent people from accusing others from potential cheating.

The main reason for slow games are the core rules, as they are not made to handle a horde style army

Talking about fun, no it is not fun to play 15 minutes and watch 2 hours your opponent to deploy and make his first turn and than lose the game because of timeout.

1500 points will help but not solve the problems
if you play the rules without disadvantages for your self, you still want make it in time

GW could speed up a lot of things by not having reroll rules. Would rather have rules have a fixed +1 to rolls even if it meant that some units would auto hit/wound.

 Desubot wrote:

 chimeara wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
About clocks. At the Glass City GT we were allowed to use them. Even had a check box for if we used one or not. None of my opponents wanted one. In fact I don't think anyone wanted one of the 53 people there playing. So, whatever that means to you guys. For me, it tells me that time isn't really an issue. At least around here.

Or people dont want to bother with it.

its possible just limiting the game to exactly 4 rounds rather than time might speed up the few people using time out as a way to win. whether or not its an actual issue its worth giving a shot. though

I could see that.

Now that I'm thinking about it, We had a rule where we got deducted points if we didn't finish 3 turns and even more if we didn't get 2 done. That might be more effective than timers. IMO.

Well there is the potential for devious players to purposefully time out an opponent so they lose points at the end.

its entirely possible

Not just possibly - probably.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
There is no valid other source of quantifiable data to make those decisions on.

Right, so if you have to choose between Bad Source A (tournaments, because of houserules like time limits) and Bad Source B (what people say on the internet) and Bad Source C (what your managers say about play in the stores) and Bad Source D (what you see from market research)...

....well, then they're all bad. You're right, not only is there no valid other source, but there is no valid source period. Which means that balancing the game is a silly effort, until tournaments allow games to go to their designed conclusions. Subsequently, we're back where we started: "balance" as the tournament players sense it is a hackneyed "lop the game off at the knees and it's balanced, trust me" style of play. I'm not surprised alpha strikes are so important, since the game only going for 3 turns means that you don't get punished for ignoring things like 5-man all-bolter tacts (because they take more than 3 turns to rack up the progressive scoring meaningfully) or you don't run out of rockets on your Manticores or you don't get to see all the benefits of Power from Pain or you don't get to leverage the superiority of better-quality units when the model numbers are equal.

No wonder martel is upset, he spends 3 turns tearing through Guardsmen, has 500 points of marines that should easily be able to handle what's left by simply touching it in combat and preventing it from shooting.... and then the game ends, with IG having killed 1500 points and the Marines having killed 4-600.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
There is no valid other source of quantifiable data to make those decisions on.

Right, so if you have to choose between Bad Source A (tournaments, because of houserules like time limits) and Bad Source B (what people say on the internet) and Bad Source C (what your managers say about play in the stores) and Bad Source D (what you see from market research)...

....well, then they're all bad. You're right, not only is there no valid other source, but there is no valid source period. Which means that balancing the game is a silly effort, until tournaments allow games to go to their designed conclusions. Subsequently, we're back where we started: "balance" as the tournament players sense it is a hackneyed "lop the game off at the knees and it's balanced, trust me" style of play. I'm not surprised alpha strikes are so important, since the game only going for 3 turns means that you don't get punished for ignoring things like 5-man all-bolter tacts (because they take more than 3 turns to rack up the progressive scoring meaningfully) or you don't run out of rockets on your Manticores or you don't get to see all the benefits of Power from Pain or you don't get to leverage the superiority of better-quality units when the model numbers are equal.

No wonder martel is upset, he spends 3 turns tearing through Guardsmen, has 500 points of marines that should easily be able to handle what's left by simply touching it in combat and preventing it from shooting.... and then the game ends, with IG having killed 1500 points and the Marines having killed 4-600.

I agree with you and disagree with you.

Gaurd has killed 1500 points and marines 500 points. Gaurd auto wins in this situation because the basalisks/russ/manticores at both ends of his deployment zone can easily mop up whats left.

Time limits hurt guard. Because as a gun line they probably ignore middle field objectives and just focus on destroying their opponent. So - if the opponent has more objective score but couldn't sustain another round of artillery fire but the game suddenly ends because you are out of time at the end of turn 3...the guard lose a game they were in complete control of.

This IMO makes tournaments a poor source of army strength because 90% of your games are not going to have a time limit. Plus - even if your game has to end early in a non torny setting - we as players acknowledge that they game is truly not over at that point and when we shake hands to determine the victor if one guy was about to get tabled next turn - he would likely would admit defeat. In a tourny - the player with the most points when time runs out wins (even if technically the rules state the game isn't even half over.)

I don't really think that lowering the point value would help much. That guy who takes an hour to set up and do his first turn will still take that same amount of time regardless. He doesn't seem to feel the need to "share the clock" with his opponent. He will take exactly as much time as he needs and the other player can just deal with it. To be honest he might be sped up just a bit due to less units but I doubt it would be a very meaningful figure.

At least with chess clocks if he wants to use all his time on his first turn then he can without effecting his opponent's ability to play a fair game. As far as I'm concerned a time limit is the same whether is based on an individual or both players. It just seems more fair if both players have the same limit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
There is no valid other source of quantifiable data to make those decisions on.

Right, so if you have to choose between Bad Source A (tournaments, because of houserules like time limits) and Bad Source B (what people say on the internet) and Bad Source C (what your managers say about play in the stores) and Bad Source D (what you see from market research)...

....well, then they're all bad. You're right, not only is there no valid other source, but there is no valid source period. Which means that balancing the game is a silly effort, until tournaments allow games to go to their designed conclusions. Subsequently, we're back where we started: "balance" as the tournament players sense it is a hackneyed "lop the game off at the knees and it's balanced, trust me" style of play. I'm not surprised alpha strikes are so important, since the game only going for 3 turns means that you don't get punished for ignoring things like 5-man all-bolter tacts (because they take more than 3 turns to rack up the progressive scoring meaningfully) or you don't run out of rockets on your Manticores or you don't get to see all the benefits of Power from Pain or you don't get to leverage the superiority of better-quality units when the model numbers are equal.

No wonder martel is upset, he spends 3 turns tearing through Guardsmen, has 500 points of marines that should easily be able to handle what's left by simply touching it in combat and preventing it from shooting.... and then the game ends, with IG having killed 1500 points and the Marines having killed 4-600.

That's not what happens. We usually play to the end. The IG tables me, because I can't touch enough things with two models. IG shooting is too efficient in 8th ed. Period.

2000 points is tedius in 8th. I already had a large force of daemons and I've had to buy more to play 8th ed effectively. Also, I want to get in a full game in 2 hours not be on turn two.....

As for all the IG disucssions here, the issue is poor missions, stop doing the "I line up you line up and we shoot each other" BS that is Eternal war. Mix it up! Stagger deployments, get creative, stop being so BOOOOORING.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
There is no valid other source of quantifiable data to make those decisions on.

Right, so if you have to choose between Bad Source A (tournaments, because of houserules like time limits) and Bad Source B (what people say on the internet) and Bad Source C (what your managers say about play in the stores) and Bad Source D (what you see from market research)...

....well, then they're all bad. You're right, not only is there no valid other source, but there is no valid source period. Which means that balancing the game is a silly effort, until tournaments allow games to go to their designed conclusions. Subsequently, we're back where we started: "balance" as the tournament players sense it is a hackneyed "lop the game off at the knees and it's balanced, trust me" style of play. I'm not surprised alpha strikes are so important, since the game only going for 3 turns means that you don't get punished for ignoring things like 5-man all-bolter tacts (because they take more than 3 turns to rack up the progressive scoring meaningfully) or you don't run out of rockets on your Manticores or you don't get to see all the benefits of Power from Pain or you don't get to leverage the superiority of better-quality units when the model numbers are equal.

No wonder martel is upset, he spends 3 turns tearing through Guardsmen, has 500 points of marines that should easily be able to handle what's left by simply touching it in combat and preventing it from shooting.... and then the game ends, with IG having killed 1500 points and the Marines having killed 4-600.

At this point we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. Our points share no common ground (and reasonably it doesn't appear our hobbies do either).