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.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Depends, some players play more carefully with less models in game or when the points are close together
I have made the different experience, as if the game is not already clear on who wins, turn 4 to 6 take much more time than turn 1

 Marmatag wrote:

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?

It should be more around 1000-1250 points as I agree that there would not be much a difference in 1500 or 2000 points.

But than, 40k as it is now should not be played at tournaments at all as the main issue for the timing problem is within the core rules

Play fewer, more complete games.

 Marmatag wrote:
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?

Orrrrrrrr you could consider the 2.5 hours to be cripplingly short, instead of chopping games off at the knees and going "LONG ENOUGH!" while all the Manticores sigh in relief and look at their just-now empty ammo racks.

So out of all Warhammer 40k games played by the rules:
Very few should ever end on Turns 1-4
33% should end on Turn 5 (3+ to go to turn 6!)
33% should end on Turn 6 (4+ to go to turn 7, so half of the remaining 66% after turn 5 is subtracted)
33% should end Turn 7.

Empty ammo racks don't matter when the opponent is tabled/crippled. They are too front end loaded.

Martel732 wrote:
Empty ammo racks don't matter when the opponent is tabled/crippled. They are too front end loaded.

Stop derailing please. Yes, the Manticore is too good, sure, whatever. Delete its unit entry, if it makes Martel cry fewer tears and gets all the salt out of his bed when he's trying to sleep. We're talking about time limits, and Manticores are merely an extreme example of front-end-loaded units that, in their current iteration (because, regrettably, they exist), take extreme advantage of the tournament structure. This inflates their value beyond what it really is for most games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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?

Orrrrrrrr you could consider the 2.5 hours to be cripplingly short

I would be in favor of 3 hour games. But right now, we have 2.5 hour games. And this thread is about how 2000 point games are the devil.

You also have a biased stance towards game time because you play an army that has the world's shortest turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And i mean seriously is it FAIR to expect players to take turns in under 10 minutes?

Let's say you have an army that uses all phases of the game.

~2 minutes movement
~1 minute psychic
~4 minutes shooting
~1 minute charge
~4 minutes fight

Is that seriously fair? This is what people advocating 5 rounds in a tournament are expecting.

Can someone explain to me how i achieve this level of speed with Tyranids at ANY point level?

I chose 1500 as I think this game just cannot be reliably played well at 2k with or without clocks/slow-play. It’s simply too large a point size for 2.5 hours. I am going on the assumption here that the goal is to have a majority of games not go to time.

Then again, I don’t really think this game is good for tournament play in general.

GW needs to stop treating their matched play rules, and the rules in general, like everyone is playing some kind of competitive/casual hybrid that always ends on turn 6 or 7 after an unlimited amount of time.

If you think the game is better at higher point values but only going to turn 3or 4 is acceptable, awesome, but the rules and missions should be rewritten to take that into account.

What we have right now are tournament games being decided by playing half the game and calling it quits in the middle of every game. Doesn’t seem right.

No?

What? You misunderstand my position. I am advocating for the uselessness of the 2.5 hour time limit.

The solutions are:
1) raise the limit
2) decrease the points

I don't expect anyone to play to the game's intended conclusion in 2.5 hours, and that's exactly the identified problem that needs addressing. Ending games turn 4 skews the meta pretty badly, and makes the game unbalanced for someone: either it's balanced around 5-7 turn games but appears unbalanced at tournaments, or it's balanced for tournaments but unbalanced for 5-7 turn casual games.

If we want to balance the game for everyone, we need everyone to play the same way. I think the 5-7 turns is a fine way to play, and gives me great joy. I think it is regrettable to cut a game off prematurely at 4 or heaven forbid 3 turns.

Not all turns are equal. The first ones are much longer than the last ones. The turns 4-5 of a game you normally can do them in 6-8 minutes (Yeah I move this unit... I shot this two units... I have nothing to charge or in combat. Done)

dosiere wrote:

If you think the game is better at higher point values but only going to turn 3or 4 is acceptable, awesome, but the rules and missions should be rewritten to take that into account.

They are.

Secondaries max at 4 points each. So you can achieve 4 points of position based secondaries in 4 turns. And with progressive scoring, everyone has equal objective & kill scoring opportunities over that time. Rules are also written such that it is "final turn," meaning you can score final turn points regardless of when the game ends.

Just be aware of how long the game is taking and plan accordingly.

Once you've scored 12 points each on secondaries (entirely feasible) - you're looking at most likely 2 points per player for kill/hold. Then it's just a question of who gets the bonuses, which is 0-3 points depending.

At that point if you're on turn 4 and behind by 7 points, odds are good you're not winning the game. So playing it out becomes an exercise in how much can you score, instead of can you actually win.


The 40k tournament community is thriving. I have played in 3 singles tournaments this year, and the attendance was 14, 16, 16. Bay Area Open sold out in like 1 day. There is a reason for this. The current missions and structure, in conjunction with the overall balance, has 40k in the best state i've ever seen it for tournament players. Why disrupt the apple cart, when you can just have judges enforce rules against slowplaying?

 Galas wrote:
Not all turns are equal. The first ones are much longer than the last ones. The turns 4-5 of a game you normally can do them in 6-8 minutes (Yeah I move this unit... I shot this two units... I have nothing to charge or in combat. Done)

Conversely, they can also take longer. I've had endgames where there's a whole bunch of combats across the board, and allocating your attacks to the decimated units is crucial (e.g. my six guardsmen are putting two attacks on this one remaining Fire Warrior and five attacks on the Suit... actually, no, four on the Fire Warrior, he needs to die. Then over here my Sororitas Canoness is putting 2 Eviscerator attacks on your commander, and 2 on the crisis bodyguard, because I have to finish them off to get this objective...). As the number of units decreases, the amount of time can actually increase because you have to be VERY careful with how you play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

dosiere wrote:

If you think the game is better at higher point values but only going to turn 3or 4 is acceptable, awesome, but the rules and missions should be rewritten to take that into account.

They are.

Secondaries max at 4 points each. So you can achieve 4 points of position based secondaries in 4 turns. And with progressive scoring, everyone has equal objective & kill scoring opportunities over that time. Rules are also written such that it is "final turn," meaning you can score final turn points regardless of when the game ends.

Just be aware of how long the game is taking and plan accordingly.

Once you've scored 12 points each on secondaries (entirely feasible) - you're looking at most likely 2 points per player for kill/hold. Then it's just a question of who gets the bonuses, which is 0-3 points depending.

At that point if you're on turn 4 and behind by 7 points, odds are good you're not winning the game. So playing it out becomes an exercise in how much can you score, instead of can you actually win.

What about unit design, like Manticores or Power from Pain or Deathstrike Missiles or any number of other random things that are based on turn number, and don't start seeing their effects (or, alternatively, lose effectiveness) around Turn 4?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Not all turns are equal. The first ones are much longer than the last ones. The turns 4-5 of a game you normally can do them in 6-8 minutes (Yeah I move this unit... I shot this two units... I have nothing to charge or in combat. Done)

Conversely, they can also take longer. I've had endgames where there's a whole bunch of combats across the board, and allocating your attacks to the decimated units is crucial (e.g. my six guardsmen are putting two attacks on this one remaining Fire Warrior and five attacks on the Suit... actually, no, four on the Fire Warrior, he needs to die. Then over here my Sororitas Canoness is putting 2 Eviscerator attacks on your commander, and 2 on the crisis bodyguard, because I have to finish them off to get this objective...). As the number of units decreases, the amount of time can actually increase because you have to be VERY careful with how you play.

I don't know what to say. I normally think all of that in my opponent turn. When my turn start I have allready decided an strategy. It can change based in rolls, etc... but the basic is allready settled.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Not all turns are equal. The first ones are much longer than the last ones. The turns 4-5 of a game you normally can do them in 6-8 minutes (Yeah I move this unit... I shot this two units... I have nothing to charge or in combat. Done)

Conversely, they can also take longer. I've had endgames where there's a whole bunch of combats across the board, and allocating your attacks to the decimated units is crucial (e.g. my six guardsmen are putting two attacks on this one remaining Fire Warrior and five attacks on the Suit... actually, no, four on the Fire Warrior, he needs to die. Then over here my Sororitas Canoness is putting 2 Eviscerator attacks on your commander, and 2 on the crisis bodyguard, because I have to finish them off to get this objective...). As the number of units decreases, the amount of time can actually increase because you have to be VERY careful with how you play.

I don't know what to say. I normally think all of that in my opponent turn. When my turn start I have allready decided an strategy. It can change based in rolls, etc... but the basic is allready settled.

I try to plan in my opponent's turn too... but SURPRISE! his commander killed my Canoness in the last roll of the last assault phase. Redirect the attacks! Change your charge or shooting plan, now that he's free from combat! Decide who to charge with first! Oh, and don't forget now you need to kill the suits on the objective to take that into account... and the game might just go on to turn 6 so try to hold at least something from your dilapidated and diminishing army in reserve...

IG is a horrible example because they break the game in so many ways. The offensive output of that army in the first 4 turns is absolutely bananas, and their game turns take *FOREVER* because of all the orders, and the fact that they're shooting with so much stuff thanks to infinite range.

As a Tyranids player I don't have much of my shooting live past turn 3 so i can't really relate to the concept of having badass shooting models live through 4 turns.

If orders had a hard cap of 2 per army I bet the average game length would improve by a whole turn. not even kidding. Not suggesting this as a nerf but good night IG take forever.

This just seems like poor planning from earlier in the game, you should be fairly aware during each turn what the possible outcomes are and have at least a framework of a plan in place for each given occurrence. Stuff like this makes no sense to me, I'm an average guy by almost every regard yet I have no problems framing up the sequence of a turn based on the available inputs. Like you knew the cannoness was in a vulnerable position and COULD die so you'd plan for the chance it happens right? You saw him move the suits to the objective in his turn and you know what capacity you have to deal with them based on your current resources. These are all known factors and with just a little predictive thinking you should be able to put together the structure of a plan for each turn.

 Marmatag wrote:
IG is a horrible example because they break the game in so many ways. The offensive output of that army in the first 4 turns is absolutely bananas, and their game turns take *FOREVER* because of all the orders, and the fact that they're shooting with so much stuff thanks to infinite range.

As a Tyranids player I don't have much of my shooting live past turn 3 so i can't really relate to the concept of having badass shooting models live through 4 turns.

In my experience, it's actually IG who are OP in tournaments because they're only 4 turns. In my regular, untimed, more casual meta, IG players are usually pulling ahead early and then the other army claws its way back in the game by turn 5 or 6, mostly by hemming the enemy into their deployment zone with early rapid maneuver and then grinding the guard army away, touching as many shooting units as possible, until they win.

This is, of course, provided the IG wunderwaffe that instantly slay Martel's marines for just being on the table don't utterly wipe the enemy out. But that really hasn't been the local experience - though it may seem like it after taking 3 turns of shooting. People just overcome the psychological effects of such an alpha strike and press on to victory.

Putting models back in the case is not psychological. It is real.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Not all turns are equal. The first ones are much longer than the last ones. The turns 4-5 of a game you normally can do them in 6-8 minutes (Yeah I move this unit... I shot this two units... I have nothing to charge or in combat. Done)

Conversely, they can also take longer. I've had endgames where there's a whole bunch of combats across the board, and allocating your attacks to the decimated units is crucial (e.g. my six guardsmen are putting two attacks on this one remaining Fire Warrior and five attacks on the Suit... actually, no, four on the Fire Warrior, he needs to die. Then over here my Sororitas Canoness is putting 2 Eviscerator attacks on your commander, and 2 on the crisis bodyguard, because I have to finish them off to get this objective...). As the number of units decreases, the amount of time can actually increase because you have to be VERY careful with how you play.

I don't know what to say. I normally think all of that in my opponent turn. When my turn start I have allready decided an strategy. It can change based in rolls, etc... but the basic is allready settled.

I try to plan in my opponent's turn too... but SURPRISE! his commander killed my Canoness in the last roll of the last assault phase. Redirect the attacks! Change your charge or shooting plan, now that he's free from combat! Decide who to charge with first! Oh, and don't forget now you need to kill the suits on the objective to take that into account... and the game might just go on to turn 6 so try to hold at least something from your dilapidated and diminishing army in reserve...

This just seems like poor planning from earlier in the game, you should be fairly aware during each turn what the possible outcomes are and have at least a framework of a plan in place for each given occurrence. Stuff like this makes no sense to me, I'm an average guy by almost every regard yet I have no problems framing up the sequence of a turn based on the available inputs. Like you knew the cannoness was in a vulnerable position and COULD die so you'd plan for the chance it happens right? You saw him move the suits to the objective in his turn and you know what capacity you have to deal with them based on your current resources. These are all known factors and with just a little predictive thinking you should be able to put together the structure of a plan for each turn.

Usually, when it's to the end of the game, I don't have enough resources left for "backup" plans. Take my last game for example: I had a single superheavy, an astrotelepath, and a lord commissar left. I needed one point, which in Kill Confirmed is a single unit dead. The commissar was in the middle of the board, the astrotelepath was in combat with a biker mek, and the superheavy had free reign in the enemy DZ. My plan was to wipe out an enemy unit with the superheavy. He had a few orks left and whatnot. So I wipe a unit down to the nob who suffers 1 wound, in shooting. I charge, get 3 hits, (as one would expect from a 9 attack superheavy hitting on 5s) and I think "wow, this is good stuff, I'm definitely going to kill him wounding on 2s and ignoring saves".

So I rolled 3 ones and lost the game.

What was my backup plan, make a 34" charge with the commissar? Or how about like a 50" charge with the astrotelepath?

Firstly, i just want to say i accept that my timings and maths was somewhat hyperbole, but, they were meant as an example to highlight that, given some thought, given some planning you can work through games at a good pace with lots of dice rolling and lots of movement.

Unit - while i agree, that the first turn would take ~70 minutes, and if we are accepting a 20-30 min pre game, we'd be down to a remaining time of 80 minutes.Not a lot of time, i accept, but, i'd argue that after that first turn, following turns would be substantially quicker due to the amount of attrition both army would have suffered - or at least 1 of the armies. Combat is a weird phase from the time point of view. Yes, you roll more dice, but, it also has the impact of reducing future dice rolling for both players, and potentially reduces time from other aspects - such as no shooting phase for units.

As for the "unexpected" interactions - such as the SM banner, if 5 marines are taking 2-3 minutes to roll 5 d6, roll up to 10 d6, roll up to 10 d6, followed by saves, then that player is wasting time. Harsh? Maybe, but a fair interpretation. I accept that other interactions will take longer (soul burst etc) but, i think there has to come a time when everyone just flat out accepts that 99% of the time, they could player faster if they wanted to.

Please forgive me if i'm coming across as confrontational or overbearing etc - i just believe that more often than not, issues with time comes down to the players themselves, but, most players won't accept that.

A good example, is that elite army taking longer for a turn than a tyranid horde army. The issue there, is nothing to do with the game. It is simply the player - even if it was something like a Grey Knight army, with every unit moving, every unit casting powers, shooting and charging, there is no way the turn length should be longer than a tyranid horde turn length.

The only other issue, that i think needs fixing, that is outside of player control to a certain degree (the player still has a HUGE impact on it though) is deployment. The 1 unit at a time system really does eat into time - again though, how much of the time can be saved by the players themselves is something that needs answering. In most tournaments, you have a fixed deployment, fixed objectives and fixed missions. This part of the setup - to me, is as much the TO's responsibility as it is the players. Now, i get that it's waaaaay harder on something like the LVO scale of things, but, in smaller events and with players finishing games at different times, next round table setup is possible. This was showcased fantastically at the LCO in Jan.

If people are willing and able - and importantly practised in the tournament environment, i'd like to suggest a dakka experiment. It would simply be, 2 players playing Chapter Approved missions (score at end of turn ones) and timing their games down to deployment and player turn levels. Games would be played on a pre-determined table (objectives, mission and deployment type pre-set) and would be 2k points. (timer would of course be stopped at the end of each player turn to note down times and thoughts). It goes without saying, that the players should be intentionally trying their best not to deliberately waste time. Games would also go to their natural conclusion, not to a time limit.
Then, using the army lists, recorded times, and player comments we can then start to build a picture. (and gives us an opportunity to prove my thoughts to be wrong )

Who would be willing to do something like this, if i collate all the data and feed it back to everyone?

That has 0 bearing on your initial statement of 'the game plays slow because of changes in input (i.e. my cannoness unexpectedly died). That scenario there was only one choice, this is about being time efficient not weather or not you're a good player. In your scenario its easy because there is only 1 choice, the game in theory slows down when there are multiple choices available because people cannot deal with the various possible input output scenarios.

Kdash wrote:
Firstly, i just want to say i accept that my timings and maths was somewhat hyperbole, but, they were meant as an example to highlight that, given some thought, given some planning you can work through games at a good pace with lots of dice rolling and lots of movement.

Unit - while i agree, that the first turn would take ~70 minutes, and if we are accepting a 20-30 min pre game, we'd be down to a remaining time of 80 minutes.Not a lot of time, i accept, but, i'd argue that after that first turn, following turns would be substantially quicker due to the amount of attrition both army would have suffered - or at least 1 of the armies. Combat is a weird phase from the time point of view. Yes, you roll more dice, but, it also has the impact of reducing future dice rolling for both players, and potentially reduces time from other aspects - such as no shooting phase for units.

As for the "unexpected" interactions - such as the SM banner, if 5 marines are taking 2-3 minutes to roll 5 d6, roll up to 10 d6, roll up to 10 d6, followed by saves, then that player is wasting time. Harsh? Maybe, but a fair interpretation. I accept that other interactions will take longer (soul burst etc) but, i think there has to come a time when everyone just flat out accepts that 99% of the time, they could player faster if they wanted to.

Please forgive me if i'm coming across as confrontational or overbearing etc - i just believe that more often than not, issues with time comes down to the players themselves, but, most players won't accept that.

A good example, is that elite army taking longer for a turn than a tyranid horde army. The issue there, is nothing to do with the game. It is simply the player - even if it was something like a Grey Knight army, with every unit moving, every unit casting powers, shooting and charging, there is no way the turn length should be longer than a tyranid horde turn length.

The only other issue, that i think needs fixing, that is outside of player control to a certain degree (the player still has a HUGE impact on it though) is deployment. The 1 unit at a time system really does eat into time - again though, how much of the time can be saved by the players themselves is something that needs answering. In most tournaments, you have a fixed deployment, fixed objectives and fixed missions. This part of the setup - to me, is as much the TO's responsibility as it is the players. Now, i get that it's waaaaay harder on something like the LVO scale of things, but, in smaller events and with players finishing games at different times, next round table setup is possible. This was showcased fantastically at the LCO in Jan.

If people are willing and able - and importantly practised in the tournament environment, i'd like to suggest a dakka experiment. It would simply be, 2 players playing Chapter Approved missions (score at end of turn ones) and timing their games down to deployment and player turn levels. Games would be played on a pre-determined table (objectives, mission and deployment type pre-set) and would be 2k points. (timer would of course be stopped at the end of each player turn to note down times and thoughts). It goes without saying, that the players should be intentionally trying their best not to deliberately waste time. Games would also go to their natural conclusion, not to a time limit.
Then, using the army lists, recorded times, and player comments we can then start to build a picture. (and gives us an opportunity to prove my thoughts to be wrong )

Who would be willing to do something like this, if i collate all the data and feed it back to everyone?

I've been practicing playing with chess clocks lately, so it shouldn't be too hard to record.

If the tourney organizer has decreed a 3 hour game time, and your forces take more than 1.5 hours to play through turn 5, you should be disqualified.

Having a chess clock makes sure that people aren’t disqualified on accident.

If we're putting down how long our turns take, in my area it seems to go:

~80 minutes for both players to setup and do T1.
~40 minutes for both players to do T2.
~20 minutes for both players to do T3.
~15 minutes for both to do T4.
~10 minutes for both to do T5.
~5 or less to do T6-T7.

2 hours and 50 minutes, ish. Now we use NOVA structure, which last year allowed 3 hours for a match, but I did not notice many tables at NOVA struggling to naturally finish within that time limit nor does my local meta struggle to finish in that time limit.

So maybe just try raising it to 3 hours first? I just can't fathom how anybodies' games take longer than 3 hours without substantial rules referencing or long pauses before each action.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
That has 0 bearing on your initial statement of 'the game plays slow because of changes in input (i.e. my cannoness unexpectedly died). That scenario there was only one choice, this is about being time efficient not weather or not you're a good player. In your scenario its easy because there is only 1 choice, the game in theory slows down when there are multiple choices available because people cannot deal with the various possible input output scenarios.

Alright, sure, players just need to git good. We can stop holding tournaments until they learn their lesson.

There really needs to be an eye roll emoji.

EDIT:
Yes, three hours has been a positive experience for me as well. Like I said, by the time you get to four hours my brain is fried, so 3 seems excellent.

Right, tomorrow, (probably while at work... cos... Unless the "Beast from the East" snows me in...) i'll put together a frame work for the idea of gathering game time data. I'll then reach out for suggestions, then try to reach out to various places to get the word out and info coming in.

I believe it's worth trying, even if it just helps support the idea that tournaments in 40k are completely impractical

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
That has 0 bearing on your initial statement of 'the game plays slow because of changes in input (i.e. my cannoness unexpectedly died). That scenario there was only one choice, this is about being time efficient not weather or not you're a good player. In your scenario its easy because there is only 1 choice, the game in theory slows down when there are multiple choices available because people cannot deal with the various possible input output scenarios.

Alright, sure, players just need to git good. We can stop holding tournaments until they learn their lesson.

There really needs to be an eye roll emoji.

EDIT:
Yes, three hours has been a positive experience for me as well. Like I said, by the time you get to four hours my brain is fried, so 3 seems excellent.

They should 100% endeavor to be better (as should I) - everyone should always be looking for ways to improve. Cancelling tournaments has nothing to do with that - self improvement should always be the goal, be it in hobby or work.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
That has 0 bearing on your initial statement of 'the game plays slow because of changes in input (i.e. my cannoness unexpectedly died). That scenario there was only one choice, this is about being time efficient not weather or not you're a good player. In your scenario its easy because there is only 1 choice, the game in theory slows down when there are multiple choices available because people cannot deal with the various possible input output scenarios.

Alright, sure, players just need to git good. We can stop holding tournaments until they learn their lesson.

There really needs to be an eye roll emoji.

EDIT:
Yes, three hours has been a positive experience for me as well. Like I said, by the time you get to four hours my brain is fried, so 3 seems excellent.

They should 100% endeavor to be better (as should I) - everyone should always be looking for ways to improve. Cancelling tournaments has nothing to do with that - self improvement should always be the goal, be it in hobby or work.

Some people don't have the time or commitment needed to get better, while others have skill caps that would take more effort than they're willing to put into the hobby to overcome. Still others aren't stressed enough in their metas to improve, and only visit a few tournaments a year, while others simply blame their army, decide it is unplayably bad, and never improve.

I think it's asking a bit much of people to "git good or don't come to GTs" when there's all these factors to consider. I don't disagree that self-improvement is a good goal, but not everyone has infinite energy, and 40k is, fundamentally, merely a game. I know I put far more energy into work than I do into 40k, and I consider myself one of the most active 40kers in my community (looking for a game tonight, in fact). I totally see how others don't take it seriously enough to meaningfully or quickly improve.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
That has 0 bearing on your initial statement of 'the game plays slow because of changes in input (i.e. my cannoness unexpectedly died). That scenario there was only one choice, this is about being time efficient not weather or not you're a good player. In your scenario its easy because there is only 1 choice, the game in theory slows down when there are multiple choices available because people cannot deal with the various possible input output scenarios.

Alright, sure, players just need to git good. We can stop holding tournaments until they learn their lesson.

There really needs to be an eye roll emoji.

EDIT:
Yes, three hours has been a positive experience for me as well. Like I said, by the time you get to four hours my brain is fried, so 3 seems excellent.

They should 100% endeavor to be better (as should I) - everyone should always be looking for ways to improve. Cancelling tournaments has nothing to do with that - self improvement should always be the goal, be it in hobby or work.

Some people don't have the time or commitment needed to get better, while others have skill caps that would take more effort than they're willing to put into the hobby to overcome. Still others aren't stressed enough in their metas to improve, and only visit a few tournaments a year, while others simply blame their army, decide it is unplayably bad, and never improve.

I think it's asking a bit much of people to "git good or don't come to GTs" when there's all these factors to consider. I don't disagree that self-improvement is a good goal, but not everyone has infinite energy, and 40k is, fundamentally, merely a game. I know I put far more energy into work than I do into 40k, and I consider myself one of the most active 40kers in my community (looking for a game tonight, in fact). I totally see how others don't take it seriously enough to meaningfully or quickly improve.

I don't accept excuses in this regard. Getting better doesn't have to be monumental, it can be small incremental wins (finishing a game 5 minutes faster than your previous game). I know this is a personal thing but there is nothing I am passionate about (my hobbies and my career) that I'm not always striving to be better at, even if it's just a small win for the day. And ultimately I've never asked that those players not come to GTs, only that they not be given an outsized voice as far as influencing those events is concerned. Everyone is welcome to attend (and honestly the middle low tables tend to be a lot of fun). If you aren't trying to get better why should you get to whine that the GT doesn't cater to you?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I think it's asking a bit much of people to "git good or don't come to GTs" when there's all these factors to consider. I don't disagree that self-improvement is a good goal, but not everyone has infinite energy, and 40k is, fundamentally, merely a game. I know I put far more energy into work than I do into 40k, and I consider myself one of the most active 40kers in my community (looking for a game tonight, in fact). I totally see how others don't take it seriously enough to meaningfully or quickly improve.

I don't accept excuses in this regard. Getting better doesn't have to be monumental, it can be small incremental wins (finishing a game 5 minutes faster than your previous game). I know this is a personal thing but there is nothing I am passionate about (my hobbies and my career) that I'm not always striving to be better at, even if it's just a small win for the day. And ultimately I've never asked that those players not come to GTs, only that they not be given an outsized voice as far as influencing those events is concerned. Everyone is welcome to attend (and honestly the middle low tables tend to be a lot of fun). If you aren't trying to get better why should you get to whine that the GT doesn't cater to you?

This guy gets it.

Farseer_V2 wrote:I don't accept excuses in this regard. Getting better doesn't have to be monumental, it can be small incremental wins (finishing a game 5 minutes faster than your previous game). I know this is a personal thing but there is nothing I am passionate about (my hobbies and my career) that I'm not always striving to be better at, even if it's just a small win for the day. And ultimately I've never asked that those players not come to GTs, only that they not be given an outsized voice as far as influencing those events is concerned. Everyone is welcome to attend (and honestly the middle low tables tend to be a lot of fun). If you aren't trying to get better why should you get to whine that the GT doesn't cater to you?

Marmatag wrote:This guy gets it.

The reason it is bad that GTs don't cater to casual players is that GW does the balancing around GTs (and competitive players at least on DakkaDakka think this is a good thing). So having a major, insurmountable difference between casual and competitive play means that GW is balancing around a paradigm that a majority of its players don't play to. If the rules are different, then the balance changes. Everyone should play by the same rules, if you're going to select only as "subset" of everyone to balance by. If your gaming method excludes the majority of players because of its rules, then it's not a good litmus test of how balanced the game is for everyone.

Like I've been saying this whole thread.

I'm completely okay with tournaments having their own rules, as long as GW recognizes that many of the balance issues that crop up in those tournaments may not exist in casual play, and that casual play may have some balance issues that do not show up in tournament play. But I've had competitive players here on dakkadakka scream till their eyes bleed that competitive play balance is balance for everyone - even though the rules (and therefore meta, and therefore balance) are different.