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.
2018/02/28 14:35:56
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
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.
Okay, yes, aside from my mathematical proofs to the contrary in another thread...
... do you have any specific counter-arguments to my claim that foreshortening the game makes it very difficult to balance, since armies can quite clearly be front-loaded and run out of steam later? Your hated Manticore thrives in 3-4 turn games, and feels anemic to me and my friends because we oftentimes get 7-turn games...
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).
I wish other people would agree to disagree. I get beaten over the head with the "BALANCE IS GOOD FOR ALL PLAYERS SO BALANCE TOURNAMENTS" book so many times in other threads that it hurts, even though I've demonstrated in this thread (and apparently to your satisfaction) that tournament play has nothing to do with other players, and that they are truly separate and unrelated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/28 14:37:32
2018/02/28 14:46:15
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
"nd feels anemic to me and my friends because we oftentimes get 7-turn games."
Someone in your play group frankly doesn't know what they are doing. Manticores dominate 7 turn games by neutering the enemy in the first 4. I understand this is hard to accept, but it happens far too often to be coincidence. There is no counter play to basilisk/manticore except deep strike, which is in turn neutered by cheap infantry. It may feel anemic to you, but to your opponent, its a white hot poker up the butt that they can't stop.
Proficient IG players are functionally immune to BA assault. Many players seem to agree that BA are one of the bigger assault threats in the game, as they should be, but army full of regular humans and non-flying tanks are proof by taking some time in the deployment phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/28 14:46:57
2018/02/28 14:50:09
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Martel732 wrote: "nd feels anemic to me and my friends because we oftentimes get 7-turn games."
Someone in your play group frankly doesn't know what they are doing. Manticores dominate 7 turn games by neutering the enemy in the first 4. I understand this is hard to accept, but it happens far too often to be coincidence. There is no counter play to basilisk/manticore except deep strike, which is in turn neutered by cheap infantry. It may feel anemic to you, but to your opponent, its a white hot poker up the butt that they can't stop.
Proficient IG players are functionally immune to BA assault. Many players seem to agree that BA are one of the bigger assault threats in the game, as they should be, but army full of regular humans and non-flying tanks are proof by taking some time in the deployment phase.
You seem to have forgotten how badly I destroy our local manticore spammer with my Sororitas. I never use manticores, because I don't play an artillery regiment.
So I am the opponent, and the white hot poker is the tip of a Sororitas stormbolter flamer murdering their guardsmen, and then gently rapping their knuckles against the artillery who panic and never get to fire again the whole game.
2018/02/28 14:54:58
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Martel732 wrote: "nd feels anemic to me and my friends because we oftentimes get 7-turn games."
Someone in your play group frankly doesn't know what they are doing. Manticores dominate 7 turn games by neutering the enemy in the first 4. I understand this is hard to accept, but it happens far too often to be coincidence. There is no counter play to basilisk/manticore except deep strike, which is in turn neutered by cheap infantry. It may feel anemic to you, but to your opponent, its a white hot poker up the butt that they can't stop.
Proficient IG players are functionally immune to BA assault. Many players seem to agree that BA are one of the bigger assault threats in the game, as they should be, but army full of regular humans and non-flying tanks are proof by taking some time in the deployment phase.
You seem to have forgotten how badly I destroy our local manticore spammer with my Sororitas. I never use manticores, because I don't play an artillery regiment.
So I am the opponent, and the white hot poker is the tip of a Sororitas stormbolter flamer murdering their guardsmen, and then gently rapping their knuckles against the artillery who panic and never get to fire again the whole game.
I wish i played these magically inept guard players.
2018/02/28 15:41:02
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
So, I voted 2k, simply because it currently allows (pretty much) every faction to build an army capable of being TAC and balanced. The moment we start lowering the points level, those factions that tend to be more elite suddenly start to have to make large sacrifices in army composition.
Lowering the points will also further increase the amount of soup lists IMO. Sure, you could still run pure lists, but, the advantages currently gained from souping become more pronounced once you limit your opponents ability to counter you.
As for time – I think we should be looking at other options. For starters, is 3 hours a game really “out of reach”? The last event I played had 4, 2.5 hour, games on day 1. Long day sure, but it does raise the question of running 3, 3 hour games, a day instead. Going from doors open, registration, brief, 3 games, lunch and a more than adequate 15 mins break between 2 of the games, you’re looking at a 11.5 hour day (doors open and registration 45 mins. Brief 30 mins. Game 1 3 hours. Lunch 1 hour. Game 2 3 hours, 15 min break, Game 3 3 hours.) Using that, you could then increase registration to 1 hour, make it a 30 min break between games 2 and 3 and still only come to 12 hours. Is this really such an impossibility?
Another option, is in regards to deployment. I think I agree with a previous poster, that we need to go back to “I deploy everything, you deploy everything”, but with a couple of changes. Basically a 3 stage deployment - phase 1, alternative drops with units that deploy outside of your zone (i.e Scouts). Phase 2, main armies get dropped + deep strikers identified. Phase 3, alternative drops for end of phase deployments (i.e Raven Guard strat, Ratlings, Scout moves etc). Maybe it will speed things up, maybe it won’t – but I’m inclined to believe it will.
If slow play still shows as a consistent issue, then, we have to look at options regarding this. As others have said, most people don’t do it intentionally, but, those that do, rarely get punished for it.
But, before all that, I think something should be trialled. 3 hour game time, Chapter Approved only games. If Chapter Approved missions can be reliably completed in time, and ITC ones can’t, we know where to start with alterations. We can’t work on that though until we have data from a few trial runs.
As for all the “get good”/”have to know millions of things” counter punches, I firmly believe that a player can help themselves in regards to this. At the 60 man event I went to in Jan, I made copies of every players lists beforehand, identified my “top 4” secondaries for each list, and listed top threats. Now, this might not be possible in events where lists are published beforehand, but, worth thinking about. I also created myself a mini “cheat sheet”. Simply a single piece of paper with all my units stats on, noted the special rules/interactions (like degrading stat lines etc) and noted my top stratagems. Handy for quick glances if/when required.
Another option is put together a document containing the top 6-8 stratagems for each faction and print them off (one page per faction). You then have a handy reference sheet before the game begins to go over and refresh yourself. As you generally know who you are playing against up to 15 mins in advance, you have time to dig up their list, review their top stratagems, and go from there.
It's all a lot of work, that most people won’t be bothered to put in, and would rather complain about not knowing things, but, it speeds up your games, it builds your knowledge, and it allows you to spend more time planning your next moves in advance.
Just some thoughts.
2018/02/28 15:47:02
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Eldarsif wrote: 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.
This is literally the most shortsighted post I've seen in awhile.
Slow play is the issue. Watch the vids of those tournament games vs their more casual games with the same lists. It's pretty obvious once you've observed that little event.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/02/28 15:53:25
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
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.
Okay, yes, aside from my mathematical proofs to the contrary in another thread...
... do you have any specific counter-arguments to my claim that foreshortening the game makes it very difficult to balance, since armies can quite clearly be front-loaded and run out of steam later? Your hated Manticore thrives in 3-4 turn games, and feels anemic to me and my friends because we oftentimes get 7-turn games...
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).
I wish other people would agree to disagree. I get beaten over the head with the "BALANCE IS GOOD FOR ALL PLAYERS SO BALANCE TOURNAMENTS" book so many times in other threads that it hurts, even though I've demonstrated in this thread (and apparently to your satisfaction) that tournament play has nothing to do with other players, and that they are truly separate and unrelated.
The game needs to be balanced for tournament play whether you like it or not. Otherwise you really prove you're no better than the other people that like their broken models but simply don't act like because you only use a limited amount. As though that somehow makes you better.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2018/02/28 15:54:04
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
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.
Tournament data is always useful for determining balance. You just have to use the actual games to see what's wrong. Like, you can't look at LVO results and say " well, Eldar won so every model in this army is broken and needs to be nerfed!" You have to look to the game itself and see what overperformed. Likewise, if losing on clock becomes a defining and meta altering facet of tournament play, it shouldn't tell you to change models (except that unit with each guy getting D6 shots that get exploding 6's and rerolling 1's) it makes it clear that the current time limits don't support the game and either the time needs to be expanded or the format needs to be trimmed.
2018/02/28 15:58:49
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
of course slow play is an issue, as using the rules for fast dice rolling or doing fast wound allocation is a huge disadvantage you won't take in a tournament
So the rules are written for slow play or with 30-40 models per army in mind and slow the game down on larger point games if you stick to those rules.
Long day sure, but it does raise the question of running 3, 3 hour games, a day instead.
this is more or less standard here and still most games don't make it past turn 3.
And while I see your point of building a TAC army at 2k, this argument has always been there as there was always one that complaint not getting everything he wants and therefore play more points.
Following that and 2500 will be the new standard next year
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/28 16:01:40
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2018/02/28 16:06:26
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
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.
Tournament data is always useful for determining balance. You just have to use the actual games to see what's wrong. Like, you can't look at LVO results and say " well, Eldar won so every model in this army is broken and needs to be nerfed!" You have to look to the game itself and see what overperformed. Likewise, if losing on clock becomes a defining and meta altering facet of tournament play, it shouldn't tell you to change models (except that unit with each guy getting D6 shots that get exploding 6's and rerolling 1's) it makes it clear that the current time limits don't support the game and either the time needs to be expanded or the format needs to be trimmed.
I am operating with the premise that the clock is already a defining meta-altering facet of tournament play, which is why this thread exists. So I completely agree with you. Your point is exactly mine: current time limits don't support the game, and the format therefore needs trimming (or the time extended *shrug*).
Until those are fixed, the tournament meta is different from the casual meta in very significant ways, and what's balanced for the first 3 turns of the game may be unbalanced for the last 4 turns, creating a dichotomy where a unit appears OP or UP in tournaments but is less so in casual experiences. A perfect example of this already happening is the Manticore - a person in my local meta spams them in casual games, and I routinely wreck them with a foot Sororitas list. Instrumental in a good majority of my victories (60+%) was the fact that the ones that I couldn't kill or disable somehow were incapable of meaningful offensive action past Turn 4. In a tournament, the IG player can, should he choose, run the clock out, ensure the game does not go past Turn 4, and the Manticore never sees the abrupt and crippling damage drop which it is designed (and priced) to suffer from. The problem is not solved by chess clocks, as my turns will take a while (foot Sororitas with 104 models), so I will probably need my allotted time, meaning all he needs to do is take up all of his and the game ends.
2018/02/28 16:34:32
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Fair enough. I just think its hard to get an idea just how much needs to change until players are on timers that ensures the problem is in the format and not the players. I know personally I run elite forces that can clear a game in a couple hours easy enough. I also know if I'm not playing to time I can spend 3-4 hours on the same game just by not being focused.
2018/02/28 16:40:39
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
LunarSol wrote: Fair enough. I just think its hard to get an idea just how much needs to change until players are on timers that ensures the problem is in the format and not the players. I know personally I run elite forces that can clear a game in a couple hours easy enough. I also know if I'm not playing to time I can spend 3-4 hours on the same game just by not being focused.
The problem with using timers is that it doesn't help, because one player still auto-loses when the time runs out. If you have 2.5 hours to play the game, then there is simply no way a game that by rights should take 3-4 hours is going to finish. If the players play faster than normal, they may make mistakes - lord knows I do when I rush through games (EDIT: and I don't mean tactical errors. I mean things like knocking over the terrain, or placing my deepstrikers before finishing my movement phase... which literally happened on the top tables at LVO, and caused a huge ruckus). And if they don't rush, the time will end, and someone loses, irrespective of whether they should have or not.
The fundamental problem is that 40k is not balanced around time limits for games, but rather around turn limits. Hell, even within the existing rules, whether or not a game goes 5 turns or 7 turns can change the ending time by 20-30 minutes, and can also be a crucial mechanic. I have no idea how many times I heard "I'd've won if it ended on turn 5!" or conversely "I'd've won if the game had gone on to turn 7." or whatever. I've even experienced it myself - my recent game of superheavies vs orks ended on Turn 5, and he won by one point because of one flubbed to-wound roll that wouldn't have happened twice, or even three more, times. Them's the breaks, though, of playing by the system!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/28 16:41:46
2018/02/28 17:04:13
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
I suppose I'm also of the opinion that even if time isn't a factor for casual play, its still beneficial to be able to play the game in under 3 hours, so anything that makes that happen in tournaments would make the casual experience better as well.
Ultimately, if you're going to add Chess Clocks you have to decide what happens at time out. Guild Ball, for example, lets you keep playing but causes you to quickly "bleed out" points so you can really only win if you're an activation or 2 away from victory.
I think something 40k desperately needs is scenario consistency. GW scenarios should be the norm and honestly, GW should be the one introducing timing rules too. At that point, you can design scenarios with the timer in mind. Maybe when you time out your opponent gets to immediately start their turn with their remaining time. Maybe if you time out you give up VP equal to the rounds that should remain (which gives up a semi random about of VP based on the random turn limit)? There are options, but none that really work as long as the community isn't working off a consistent ruleset.
2018/02/28 17:09:17
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/02/28 18:01:21
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Long day sure, but it does raise the question of running 3, 3 hour games, a day instead.
this is more or less standard here and still most games don't make it past turn 3.
And while I see your point of building a TAC army at 2k, this argument has always been there as there was always one that complaint not getting everything he wants and therefore play more points.
Following that and 2500 will be the new standard next year
That for me, is kinda surprising. What is happening in those 3 hours, that is preventing a game from either ending via a tabling or getting to turn 4-5? What armies are being played, and what units? Genuinely curious, cos i want to then go away and test it for myself to see where the sticking points are. 2.5 hours usually sees at least turn 3 complete (and that's with a "no new battle round to begin if less than 20 mins left" rule). That extra 30-45 mins should EASILY allow for an extra turn, especially as by this point, most armies are down to a couple of units left.
The only games i got timed on in my last event (with 2.5 hour games) was vs Berserker and Cultist spam (sooooo many dice) and when i was up against 14 Guard tanks. Guard game involved a lot of slow play from my opponent turn 1, but still got to turn 4, and the Berserker one got timed at turn 4 because of 2 massive turns of berserker combat and cultist respawning. (my army itself contained 55 models, and took part in both psychic and assault phases - which also adds to time)
I know, big blobs take time to move etc, but, it's still not THAT much time. For example, i just timed myself rolling for advance and moving 30 models - taking my time and using 1 hand while still measuring distance. I got all of them moved in 51 seconds. easily be able to do it faster if i used 2 hands or moved more than 1 model at a time. Moving 4 30 man blobs within 4 minutes seems pretty reasonable to me.
Now, lets take 30 conscripts and have them frfsrf and re-roll 1's for being cadia. Time taken (including armour saves) = 3 minutes 26 seconds. I rolled them in batches of 30 due to dice and holding dice. As it stands, i would have killed him "test" target of 5 marines on the 2nd roll of 30 due to some good dice, but thought i'd roll everything for the time.
Incidentally, 30 frfsrf is the same amount of dice as 30 orc boyz fighting in combat. So, for an orc unit's turn, we can reasonably say takes 5 minutes 43 seconds (51 seconds for move + advance. 51 for charge. 35 for pile in (also timed) 3 minutes 26 for combat). So, an army of 120 boyz, could be timed at turn 1 being at least 24 minutes for the boyz alone.You then have the rest of the army to time, but, after that, the rest of the army is reasonably quick.
If you are taking over 30-35 mins for turn 1, i'd argue that you are doing something wrong.
2018/02/28 18:16:26
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
I just can't get behind this. It would completely force me out of the a workable brigade while others have no issues at all. It also makes it so some units are no longer on my radar. I'm sure GW could tweak things, but it throws the whole game into disarray for lots of people.
2018/02/28 18:46:29
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
I just can't get behind this. It would completely force me out of the a workable brigade while others have no issues at all. It also makes it so some units are no longer on my radar. I'm sure GW could tweak things, but it throws the whole game into disarray for lots of people.
This is what I was saying back in the beginning. Elite armies can't make TAC lists at those point levels. Least not very good ones.
2018/02/28 19:06:02
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Long day sure, but it does raise the question of running 3, 3 hour games, a day instead.
this is more or less standard here and still most games don't make it past turn 3.
And while I see your point of building a TAC army at 2k, this argument has always been there as there was always one that complaint not getting everything he wants and therefore play more points.
Following that and 2500 will be the new standard next year
That for me, is kinda surprising. What is happening in those 3 hours, that is preventing a game from either ending via a tabling or getting to turn 4-5? What armies are being played, and what units? Genuinely curious, cos i want to then go away and test it for myself to see where the sticking points are. 2.5 hours usually sees at least turn 3 complete (and that's with a "no new battle round to begin if less than 20 mins left" rule). That extra 30-45 mins should EASILY allow for an extra turn, especially as by this point, most armies are down to a couple of units left.
The only games i got timed on in my last event (with 2.5 hour games) was vs Berserker and Cultist spam (sooooo many dice) and when i was up against 14 Guard tanks. Guard game involved a lot of slow play from my opponent turn 1, but still got to turn 4, and the Berserker one got timed at turn 4 because of 2 massive turns of berserker combat and cultist respawning. (my army itself contained 55 models, and took part in both psychic and assault phases - which also adds to time)
I know, big blobs take time to move etc, but, it's still not THAT much time. For example, i just timed myself rolling for advance and moving 30 models - taking my time and using 1 hand while still measuring distance. I got all of them moved in 51 seconds. easily be able to do it faster if i used 2 hands or moved more than 1 model at a time. Moving 4 30 man blobs within 4 minutes seems pretty reasonable to me.
Now, lets take 30 conscripts and have them frfsrf and re-roll 1's for being cadia. Time taken (including armour saves) = 3 minutes 26 seconds. I rolled them in batches of 30 due to dice and holding dice. As it stands, i would have killed him "test" target of 5 marines on the 2nd roll of 30 due to some good dice, but thought i'd roll everything for the time.
Incidentally, 30 frfsrf is the same amount of dice as 30 orc boyz fighting in combat. So, for an orc unit's turn, we can reasonably say takes 5 minutes 43 seconds (51 seconds for move + advance. 51 for charge. 35 for pile in (also timed) 3 minutes 26 for combat). So, an army of 120 boyz, could be timed at turn 1 being at least 24 minutes for the boyz alone.You then have the rest of the army to time, but, after that, the rest of the army is reasonably quick.
If you are taking over 30-35 mins for turn 1, i'd argue that you are doing something wrong.
Using your own mathematics:
30-35 minutes per player turn, times two for a full battle round, is about an hour. To fit 5 to 7 full battle rounds (the amount the game is balanced around), a game between two Ork players would take 5-7 hours.
That's why games don't finish in 3 hours.
2018/02/28 19:16:27
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Long day sure, but it does raise the question of running 3, 3 hour games, a day instead.
this is more or less standard here and still most games don't make it past turn 3.
And while I see your point of building a TAC army at 2k, this argument has always been there as there was always one that complaint not getting everything he wants and therefore play more points.
Following that and 2500 will be the new standard next year
That for me, is kinda surprising. What is happening in those 3 hours, that is preventing a game from either ending via a tabling or getting to turn 4-5? What armies are being played, and what units? Genuinely curious, cos i want to then go away and test it for myself to see where the sticking points are. 2.5 hours usually sees at least turn 3 complete (and that's with a "no new battle round to begin if less than 20 mins left" rule). That extra 30-45 mins should EASILY allow for an extra turn, especially as by this point, most armies are down to a couple of units left.
The only games i got timed on in my last event (with 2.5 hour games) was vs Berserker and Cultist spam (sooooo many dice) and when i was up against 14 Guard tanks. Guard game involved a lot of slow play from my opponent turn 1, but still got to turn 4, and the Berserker one got timed at turn 4 because of 2 massive turns of berserker combat and cultist respawning. (my army itself contained 55 models, and took part in both psychic and assault phases - which also adds to time)
I know, big blobs take time to move etc, but, it's still not THAT much time. For example, i just timed myself rolling for advance and moving 30 models - taking my time and using 1 hand while still measuring distance. I got all of them moved in 51 seconds. easily be able to do it faster if i used 2 hands or moved more than 1 model at a time. Moving 4 30 man blobs within 4 minutes seems pretty reasonable to me.
Now, lets take 30 conscripts and have them frfsrf and re-roll 1's for being cadia. Time taken (including armour saves) = 3 minutes 26 seconds. I rolled them in batches of 30 due to dice and holding dice. As it stands, i would have killed him "test" target of 5 marines on the 2nd roll of 30 due to some good dice, but thought i'd roll everything for the time.
Incidentally, 30 frfsrf is the same amount of dice as 30 orc boyz fighting in combat. So, for an orc unit's turn, we can reasonably say takes 5 minutes 43 seconds (51 seconds for move + advance. 51 for charge. 35 for pile in (also timed) 3 minutes 26 for combat). So, an army of 120 boyz, could be timed at turn 1 being at least 24 minutes for the boyz alone.You then have the rest of the army to time, but, after that, the rest of the army is reasonably quick.
If you are taking over 30-35 mins for turn 1, i'd argue that you are doing something wrong.
Using your own mathematics:
30-35 minutes per player turn, times two for a full battle round, is about an hour. To fit 5 to 7 full battle rounds (the amount the game is balanced around), a game between two Ork players would take 5-7 hours.
That's why games don't finish in 3 hours.
Also, what if those 5 dead marines are standing next to the ancient banner. Time out. Time for 5 marines to fire back at you real quick. There's another unexpected 2-3 minutes. As well as some more clock slappin'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/28 19:17:17
2018/02/28 19:23:03
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Using your own mathematics:
30-35 minutes per player turn, times two for a full battle round, is about an hour. To fit 5 to 7 full battle rounds (the amount the game is balanced around), a game between two Ork players would take 5-7 hours.
That's why games don't finish in 3 hours.
Hopefully after turn 1 players don't have as much to do and turns take far less time. In my experience, turns 4 and 5 are like.... less than turn 1 in overall game length.
2018/02/28 19:26:12
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Using your own mathematics:
30-35 minutes per player turn, times two for a full battle round, is about an hour. To fit 5 to 7 full battle rounds (the amount the game is balanced around), a game between two Ork players would take 5-7 hours.
That's why games don't finish in 3 hours.
Hopefully after turn 1 players don't have as much to do and turns take far less time. In my experience, turns 4 and 5 are like.... less than turn 1 in overall game length.
Yes, this is true, and a good point. 5-7 hours is way too long, even for just a hobby game. But 3, 3.5, or 4 is not unheard of. 4 is too much braindrain for me, though. Even if the game should, by rights, go longer than 4 hours, I'd be done. That's why I don't wheel my Sororitas out that often. It's 104 models, and gets Acts of Faith (at least 2 usually, though max 4) to do even more extra shenanigans during the turn.
2018/02/28 19:30:25
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Deviantduck- have you actually used a chess clock to play a game or 2 of 40K or are you just theory moaning? If you have played with a clock then what, specifically, made the game harder for you to play? If you haven't tried to use a chess clock then maybe you should before you make a fool of yourself by pleading "It's too hard to push a button."
2018/02/28 19:31:12
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
Using your own mathematics:
30-35 minutes per player turn, times two for a full battle round, is about an hour. To fit 5 to 7 full battle rounds (the amount the game is balanced around), a game between two Ork players would take 5-7 hours.
That's why games don't finish in 3 hours.
Hopefully after turn 1 players don't have as much to do and turns take far less time. In my experience, turns 4 and 5 are like.... less than turn 1 in overall game length.
Yes, this is true, and a good point. 5-7 hours is way too long, even for just a hobby game. But 3, 3.5, or 4 is not unheard of. 4 is too much braindrain for me, though. Even if the game should, by rights, go longer than 4 hours, I'd be done. That's why I don't wheel my Sororitas out that often. It's 104 models, and gets Acts of Faith (at least 2 usually, though max 4) to do even more extra shenanigans during the turn.
I know we've agree'd to disagree but man I have to point out this is cripplingly slow to me. I play over 150 models in my chaos army with access to re-rolls, double shooting, a fairly complex psychic phase, the works and I still can finish a 2k game in less than 3 hours (at my natural pace against a similar army its maybe 2:45).
2018/02/28 19:32:32
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
I know, big blobs take time to move etc, but, it's still not THAT much time. For example, i just timed myself rolling for advance and moving 30 models - taking my time and using 1 hand while still measuring distance. I got all of them moved in 51 seconds. easily be able to do it faster if i used 2 hands or moved more than 1 model at a time. Moving 4 30 man blobs within 4 minutes seems pretty reasonable to me.
Now, lets take 30 conscripts and have them frfsrf and re-roll 1's for being cadia. Time taken (including armour saves) = 3 minutes 26 seconds. I rolled them in batches of 30 due to dice and holding dice. As it stands, i would have killed him "test" target of 5 marines on the 2nd roll of 30 due to some good dice, but thought i'd roll everything for the time.
Incidentally, 30 frfsrf is the same amount of dice as 30 orc boyz fighting in combat. So, for an orc unit's turn, we can reasonably say takes 5 minutes 43 seconds (51 seconds for move + advance. 51 for charge. 35 for pile in (also timed) 3 minutes 26 for combat). So, an army of 120 boyz, could be timed at turn 1 being at least 24 minutes for the boyz alone.You then have the rest of the army to time, but, after that, the rest of the army is reasonably quick.
Rolling dice is not the problem, it never was.
What takes time usually is wound allocation, is if the opponent see a benefit he is strict to the rules and roll one by one
Checking Line of Sight and Cover carefully and measuring distances for each model etc, it can take a while before the opponent even start moving and placing the models
calculating how to split fire to make the most damage and/or which models take it to prevent most of it
adapting to new drawn maelstrom cards or changed situation on the table (there are those who just take 10-15 minutes just to see how they can turn their new card in before moving a model)
Than there are those who just don't want to play past turn 3/4
actually it depends on the player if he is used to playing fast or not
I have seen guys playing an elite army with 30 models taking more time than an Tyranid swarm player with 100 models
But the rules by itself are not meant to be played fast. Other companies making games to be played in 1-2 hours and GW designs their games to take the whole evening
(problems I see that take unnecessary much time are cover, line of sight, wound allocation, no real anti-horde weapon available to most armies)
That for me, is kinda surprising. What is happening in those 3 hours, that is preventing a game from either ending via a tabling or getting to turn 4-5? What armies are being played, and what units? Genuinely curious, cos i want to then go away and test it for myself to see where the sticking points are. 2.5 hours usually sees at least turn 3 complete (and that's with a "no new battle round to begin if less than 20 mins left" rule). That extra 30-45 mins should EASILY allow for an extra turn, especially as by this point, most armies are down to a couple of units left.
3 hours is standard here for quite a while now (5th edition?) with 3 games per day maximum
but it includes deployment etc and because there are 3 hours people are not an a hurry to get through the first turns very fast. But this also something new to me, as even horde/swarm armies were able to make it to turn 6 in my 5th edition tournaments
for example lists, I just post 3 from the first tournament I found (maybe not the perfect example as I don't know if they had time problems or played against each other)
#3
Supreme Command Detachment -1CP [664pts]
HQ [664pts]
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf [WARLORD][108pts]Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts](Imperium - Space Wolves,Index 1)
Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf [108pts]Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts](Imperium - Space Wolves,Index 1)
Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Thunderwolf [94pts]Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts](Imperium - Space Wolves,Index 1)
Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Thunderwolf [94pts]Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts](Imperium - Space Wolves,Index 1)
Wolf Priest [75pts]Jump Packs [22pts]Combi-melta [19pts](Imperium - Space Wolves,Index 1)
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Deviantduck- have you actually used a chess clock to play a game or 2 of 40K or are you just theory moaning? If you have played with a clock then what, specifically, made the game harder for you to play? If you haven't tried to use a chess clock then maybe you should before you make a fool of yourself by pleading "It's too hard to push a button."
I haven't had the chance yet. I still intend to try it out, but I do some some scenarios where you might be bouncing between each end of the table to slap the clock. Probably not a big deal though.
2018/02/28 19:36:16
Subject: What should tournaments use for point value?
It's reasonable to expect that all of the pre-game activities take about 20-30 minutes. Let's just say 30. This includes setting up the map, deploying, secondaries, pre-game stratagems, etc.
7 turns = 8.5 minutes per player per turn.
6 turns = 10 minutes per player per turn.
5 turns = 12 minutes per player per turn.
4 turns = 15 minutes per player per turn.
3 turns = 20 minutes per player per turn.
People voting for games to average 5 or more turns have no idea how impossible this is. If you need to have a 5 minute discussion over how rules worth together, suddenly you've literally lost the possibility for an extra whole game turn.
For example. If i have a Hive Tyrant, and you have a model on the other side of a ruins, on the other side of a wall. My Hive Tyrant is right up against the wall. I declare a charge on your model that i cannot see. I roll a 5. it is not enough to get around the wall. but it is enough to get right up against the wall, and places me within 1". I want to fight with my HT. Is this legal?
The answer is yes, it is legal, but you can easily see how this would be something that might cause a discussion, especially for an inexperienced player. If the discussion takes 5 minutes, we no longer have the possibility to get to game turn 5 if we're averaging about 15 minutes per player turn.
Dropping the points by 500 would not solve any of the timing problems. The simple fact is that this game is NOT designed to be played in 2.5 hours. With that in mind, tournament games should end at turn 4. Isn't an average of 15 minutes per player turn fast enough?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
