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.

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 have used chess clocks before. They are great for Chess. Or Checkers. Or Chutes and Ladders or other games with simple interactions like Warmahordes. There's a very long locked thread about LVO and chess clocks in the Tournaments forums, so I won't go on about how terrible of an idea it is for 40k.

If they become the norm in 40k, so be it. I'm not going to stop playing the game or stop going to tournaments, but I am going to complain about it every chance I get.

What balance decision do you feel was based around tournaments that doesn't benefit casual play?

You need to demonstrate:

(a) decisions are being made based solely on tournament data

and

(b) that these decisions didn't benefit casual tables, too.

I usually don't like "git gud" as an attitude but some basics , and not so basics, are expected when you attend an event.

The game is designed for 5 turns or more. Playing less often due to time issues. Breaks certain armies (nids for instance).

And as Reece said in the latest FLG podcast: "How is it fair that in a 2.5 hour game one guy gets 1.5 hours of play?"

If you know chess clocks are a thing in a tournament and you know your army doesn't work in that time limit. Adjust your list. A TO busting out one unexpectedly? That's just bad form.

 Marmatag wrote:
What balance decision do you feel was based around tournaments that doesn't benefit casual play?

You need to demonstrate:

(a) decisions are being made based solely on tournament data

and

(b) that these decisions didn't benefit casual tables, too.

It's not necessarily that it's happened yet, because I don't know GW's balancing process. It's that people claim that's what's best for the game. If people stopped claiming that balancing around tournament play makes the game better for non-tournament players, I'd stop worrying about it and get on with my casual gaming.

An example of what could happen are Manticore changes. In my fairly non-competitive, casual meta, the Manticore spammer is actually a fairly easy list to play against, because all you have to do is "endure" for four turns, and then come out and win the game. People bring more fortifications, for example, because enduring enemy firepower the first two turns using a 30-wound Toughness 10 monstrosity into which your troops can go is actually a fairly good tactic, when you can get out Turn 3 or 4 and still have up to half the game to play. In a tournament, that would be suicide. But people might make the Manticore more expensive, because in 4-turn tournament games it's amazing, and might make fortifications cheaper because you never see them, which could throw everything out of whack.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

You A) continue to cite this with no real evidence that this is how GW balances the game and B) never offering an alternative solution for GW to gather data. How else is GW going to look at the current state of the game sans the results of tournament play? And ultimately yes competitive balance is balance for everyone, if the top table players cannot break the game the neither can you or your local.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

clownshoes wrote:
We have found 1500 - 1750 is our sweet spot.

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.

Many armies can't get a workable brigade at 2000. The cheapest Eldar brigade clocks in at 1065, while the cheapest Harlequin brigade is 1416. Neither of those choices are good starting points, nor will they result in competitive armies on the table. The game is already in disarray for most people because the generic force org charts don't cater equally to all armies. Most people except that and make due with what they have. At 1500 points, choices have to be made. You can't have your cake and eat it too like at 2000 points.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You A) continue to cite this with no real evidence that this is how GW balances the game and B) never offering an alternative solution for GW to gather data. How else is GW going to look at the current state of the game sans the results of tournament play? And ultimately yes competitive balance is balance for everyone, if the top table players cannot break the game the neither can you or your local.

My post laid out my issues:
1) I have no idea how GW balances the game.
2) My argument is against people who say competitive play should be how they balance it, whether or not that is the case.
3) That's a very good question, which I don't have an answer to. This is why I think it is better to make tournaments play by the same rules as everyone else, or, in other words, make tournaments accessible to everyone, which you seem to be against.
4) That's not true at all, because what's broken in 4 turns may not be so broken in 7, and what's broken in 7 turns may not be broken in 4. There are plenty of turn-based mechanics in this game that are either over-emphasized by 4 turn games (Manticores) or under-emphasized by 4 turn games (deathstrikes, Power from Pain).

EDIT:
Even command point expenditures and the utility of stratagems is altered by game length. Command points are more important (or alternatively, less important, depending on your philosophy) depending on game length. For example, I think 9 is barely adequate at 2k, and 12 is better, while I know some tournament players who take 6-7 CP and call it a day. They probably do the same stratagems as me or others, but only have to do them for 4 turns instead of 7, or 2 turns instead of 3, or whatever. They don't have to make their CP last as long.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
What balance decision do you feel was based around tournaments that doesn't benefit casual play?

You need to demonstrate:

(a) decisions are being made based solely on tournament data

and

(b) that these decisions didn't benefit casual tables, too.

It's not necessarily that it's happened yet, because I don't know GW's balancing process. It's that people claim that's what's best for the game. If people stopped claiming that balancing around tournament play makes the game better for non-tournament players, I'd stop worrying about it and get on with my casual gaming.

An example of what could happen are Manticore changes. In my fairly non-competitive, casual meta, the Manticore spammer is actually a fairly easy list to play against, because all you have to do is "endure" for four turns, and then come out and win the game. People bring more fortifications, for example, because enduring enemy firepower the first two turns using a 30-wound Toughness 10 monstrosity into which your troops can go is actually a fairly good tactic, when you can get out Turn 3 or 4 and still have up to half the game to play. In a tournament, that would be suicide. But people might make the Manticore more expensive, because in 4-turn tournament games it's amazing, and might make fortifications cheaper because you never see them, which could throw everything out of whack.

The issue here is that just because this is happening at your local meta doesn't change that these are breakable things. What are you going to do when, in your casual meta, someone comes in and does break the hell out of manticores by playing them properly (i.e. not just spamming them)? The tournament exposes that they're broken not just from a turn limit but from a usage stand point (for the record I don't think Manticores are that big an issue). That's what you're failing to grasp - what's happening at your local is a result of environment and skill but all it takes is one new guy to come in completely wreck up the place because of bad balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You A) continue to cite this with no real evidence that this is how GW balances the game and B) never offering an alternative solution for GW to gather data. How else is GW going to look at the current state of the game sans the results of tournament play? And ultimately yes competitive balance is balance for everyone, if the top table players cannot break the game the neither can you or your local.

My post laid out my issues:
1) I have no idea how GW balances the game.
2) My argument is against people who say competitive play should be how they balance it, whether or not that is the case.
3) That's a very good question, which I don't have an answer to. This is why I think it is better to make tournaments play by the same rules as everyone else, or, in other words, make tournaments accessible to everyone, which you seem to be against.
4) That's not true at all, because what's broken in 4 turns may not be so broken in 7, and what's broken in 7 turns may not be broken in 4. There are plenty of turn-based mechanics in this game that are either over-emphasized by 4 turn games (Manticores) or under-emphasized by 4 turn games (deathstrikes, Power from Pain).

Tournaments are for everyone - not everyone is going to be good at them. Altering them to make them more accessible won't actually make them more accessible - or do you think that by changing the points levels and time limits Nick Nanvati isn't going to be as good as he is or Josh Death? You can't make a tournament more accessible because there are always going to be better than other players who create skew.

Your meta is stale and people are bringing hard counters.

No game should be balanced with list tailoring in mind. This is how that Katherine person was boasting about being 80-0 at the start of 8th edition. She list tailored hard core to face her opponents lists and smashed them in a casual meta. Remember Sisters of Battle win/loss in the game tracking thread? It was nonsense. How do you balance around that?

And open war cards and numerous missions have games ending at 5 turns. Meaning if you look at 40k holistically - tournaments and casual - manticores fire for 80% of the expected game length across all formats.

What makes tournament play balance good for the game is the sheer volume of data being recorded about how the game is played. Casual vs tournament is irrelevant. The way the most people play the game should be considered.

If you want casual to be the basis for balance, start collecting & formalizing standardized casual play data from across the globe in a normalized, balanced, and generally unchanging format that you support.

You are not making a good argument here.

I think you guys seriously don't understand the argument.

4 turns is not long enough for a game designed for 5, 6, or 7 turns. There are unit interactions, and entire army special rules, designed around game length, which are skewed in a meta where 4 turns is best turns.

"Using a manticore right" still means it can only fire for 4 turns, and it has a hard damage cap that another vehicle/unit might exceed over 5 or 7 turns, but cannot match in 4 turns. That's just a fact, and I'm surprised you disagree.

The problem with only using tournaments to influence balance (if this in fact the only data they are using on a large scale) is that it skews the unit choices to only the best units. The majority of players will field competitive lists meaning that certain units are not being played.

How does one balance a unit that is never taken? Random points drop? Rules tweak? Both of those can lead to some unintended consequences.

mokoshkana wrote:
The problem with only using tournaments to influence balance (if this in fact the only data they are using on a large scale) is that it skews the unit choices to only the best units. The majority of players will field competitive lists meaning that certain units are not being played.

How does one balance a unit that is never taken? Random points drop? Rules tweak? Both of those can lead to some unintended consequences.

SLOWLY drop the points until you start seeing them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think you guys seriously don't understand the argument.

4 turns is not long enough for a game designed for 5, 6, or 7 turns. There are unit interactions, and entire army special rules, designed around game length, which are skewed in a meta where 4 turns is best turns.

"Using a manticore right" still means it can only fire for 4 turns, and it has a hard damage cap that another vehicle/unit might exceed over 5 or 7 turns, but cannot match in 4 turns. That's just a fact, and I'm surprised you disagree.

1. I disagree that the game is intended to be 5+ turns. Please prove this.
2. You are not demonstrating that this is skewed. Simply because something has an effect based on later battle rounds doesn't mean that it is generally intended for this to come into play.
3. Damage on turns 5+ matter far less than damage on turns 1,2, and 3. Surprised you disagree.

I think the game should go 5-7 turns, but the damage in turns 1,2,3 is definitely most critical.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think you guys seriously don't understand the argument.

4 turns is not long enough for a game designed for 5, 6, or 7 turns. There are unit interactions, and entire army special rules, designed around game length, which are skewed in a meta where 4 turns is best turns.

"Using a manticore right" still means it can only fire for 4 turns, and it has a hard damage cap that another vehicle/unit might exceed over 5 or 7 turns, but cannot match in 4 turns. That's just a fact, and I'm surprised you disagree.

No I get your argument, its just a bad argument because it starts from a flawed space. You start with 'in my casual meta this isn't broken' but you never acknowledge that your casual meta is susceptible to the same level of game breaking play that is seen in tournaments, You've fallen into this 'well the manticore is amazing in 4 but not in 7' rhythm which is still failing to address the total issue. Ultimately the manticore is one tank - it isn't markedly better in shorter games because even in 'proper' games it can still possibly shoot 80% of the game. The bigger issue is that tournaments exposes balance issues (Ynnari Dark Reapers and Spears are too good with 3 or 7 turns for example) and your casual meta is just as vulnerable to them as my competitive meta.

Martel732 wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
The problem with only using tournaments to influence balance (if this in fact the only data they are using on a large scale) is that it skews the unit choices to only the best units. The majority of players will field competitive lists meaning that certain units are not being played.

How does one balance a unit that is never taken? Random points drop? Rules tweak? Both of those can lead to some unintended consequences.

SLOWLY drop the points until you start seeing them.

This could absolutely work if GW did monthly "balance" patches. Unfortunately it appears that balancing is only to be done every 6 months. The last few editions only lasted an average of 3 years, meaning that about the time unit X was playable, a new edition would come out and press the reset button.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
1. I disagree that the game is intended to be 5+ turns. Please prove this.

To be fair, if the mission is a random game length, its minimum 5 turns. Fixed game lengths usually tend to be 6 turns. If the game wasn't intended to last that long, then those turn numbers would probably lower...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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?

Backup plan : don't take 3 superheavies and expect flexibility.

Ehhm Marmatag almost every scenario in mathched play uses variable length wich is 5-7. With an extreme case in the open war in open play deck having no limit whatsoever.

mokoshkana wrote:

Many armies can't get a workable brigade at 2000. The cheapest Eldar brigade clocks in at 1065, while the cheapest Harlequin brigade is 1416. Neither of those choices are good starting points, nor will they result in competitive armies on the table. The game is already in disarray for most people because the generic force org charts don't cater equally to all armies. Most people except that and make due with what they have. At 1500 points, choices have to be made. You can't have your cake and eat it too like at 2000 points.

But some CAN and even more can't. I'd care less about not getting cake if other people were still getting really good cake.

The game can support up to 7 turns, but that doesn't mean getting there is intended on a game by game basis.

GW tournaments have a time limit on games. If the game was designed around getting to turn 5+, they wouldn't need to impose a time limit, would they?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:

Many armies can't get a workable brigade at 2000. The cheapest Eldar brigade clocks in at 1065, while the cheapest Harlequin brigade is 1416. Neither of those choices are good starting points, nor will they result in competitive armies on the table. The game is already in disarray for most people because the generic force org charts don't cater equally to all armies. Most people except that and make due with what they have. At 1500 points, choices have to be made. You can't have your cake and eat it too like at 2000 points.

But some CAN and even more can't. I'd care less about not getting cake if other people were still getting really good cake.

Gotta be honest, not picking up whatever you're trying to say with your cake analogy.

Every tournament has time limits. You need to actually get done and organised.

W40K is designed around turn number not time played. Apocalypse sixt edition and CA have ideas around time management the breaks system.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think you guys seriously don't understand the argument.

4 turns is not long enough for a game designed for 5, 6, or 7 turns. There are unit interactions, and entire army special rules, designed around game length, which are skewed in a meta where 4 turns is best turns.

"Using a manticore right" still means it can only fire for 4 turns, and it has a hard damage cap that another vehicle/unit might exceed over 5 or 7 turns, but cannot match in 4 turns. That's just a fact, and I'm surprised you disagree.

1. I disagree that the game is intended to be 5+ turns. Please prove this.
2. You are not demonstrating that this is skewed. Simply because something has an effect based on later battle rounds doesn't mean that it is generally intended for this to come into play.
3. Damage on turns 5+ matter far less than damage on turns 1,2, and 3. Surprised you disagree.

1. i looked it up and in the case of the Drew Carey power from pain caps at T5 kinda messed up that an armies whole stick cant be fully used.

not that it should always be used in the case of being wiped but still.

 Earth127 wrote:
Every tournament has time limits. You need to actually get done and organised.

W40K is designed around turn number not time played. Apocalypse sixt edition and CA have ideas around time management the breaks system.

The problem with this argument is that its true of every competitive table top game out there I'm aware of. I cannot think of a game system in which a time limit is part of the base rules and not something that only applies to tournaments.

 LunarSol wrote:

The problem with this argument is that its true of every competitive table top game out there I'm aware of. I cannot think of a game system in which a time limit is part of the base rules and not something that only applies to tournaments.

Kings of War has the time limit in their core rules as alternative to a capped number of turns (play 6 turns or 2 hours) and extra rules for timed games (about using chess clocks, also in the base rules)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

1. I disagree that the game is intended to be 5+ turns. Please prove this.

page 183 in the rulebook, the game last 5 turn
page 194 in the rulebook, the game last 5+ turns (this is the page all the scenarios refer to)

so the rules in the scenarios are clear that there should be 5+ turns so if the game last less than 5 your are playing a homebrew version of the rules

You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

If that is indeed the case why did GW place a time limit on their rounds? Surely they know that would result in games ending before turn 5?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is a time limit exists. So the claim that tournament games are intended to reach turn 5 isn't really accurate, for both GW and otherwise. If the intent was to reach turn 5, they wouldn't need a time limit, as the game would be designed to end in that time frame.

And, seriously, when you play your games, isn't the winner clearly determined by end of turn 3 already?

Just like amateur sports events, the problem seems (to me) to be trying to cram in too many games into too short a timeframe. If the game is played at 2K, allow sufficient time for that to be done, barring exceptions (like slow play, etc. that can be ruled against). Suggesting wholesale changes like lower points plus comp changes the game. You can have that event, but it's not the same game, and the experience changes. Allowing enough time seems to be the key. If that means fewer games per player adjust your brackets/scoring system. Running bare minimum times is a recipe for disaster.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

If that is indeed the case why did GW place a time limit on their rounds? Surely they know that would result in games ending before turn 5?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is a time limit exists. So the claim that tournament games are intended to reach turn 5 isn't really accurate, for both GW and otherwise. If the intent was to reach turn 5, they wouldn't need a time limit, as the game would be designed to end in that time frame.

And, seriously, when you play your games, isn't the winner clearly determined by end of turn 3 already?

A time limit exists, simply because it is an event with time restraints and set number of games. This has nothing to do with whether or not the game is balanced around turn numbers.

Ideally, time wouldn’t be an issue or a factor. Games could run until their natural end – however, you cant have 1 game running for 2 hours and 1 game running for 4 hours in round 1, and then still expect to play 2 more games that day. It is just completely impractical. In half my games at my last event, 2 went to/close to time, the other 4 ended before the 20 min last turn cut-off – as such I could determine that 66.6% of the time, 2.5 hours is enough for tournament games… However, this is such a tiny sample size.

I’d agree and say that the majority of games (in the tournament environment – not including casual) can be decided by turn 2-3, but, as others have said, certain armies and certain builds have distinct advantages going into later turns – of course, it all depends on match up though.



Going to start working on the frame work for some data gathering soon, I just need to think about how to “roll it out”.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're conflating missions with a general rule. Missions have varying lengths.

If that is indeed the case why did GW place a time limit on their rounds? Surely they know that would result in games ending before turn 5?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is a time limit exists. So the claim that tournament games are intended to reach turn 5 isn't really accurate, for both GW and otherwise. If the intent was to reach turn 5, they wouldn't need a time limit, as the game would be designed to end in that time frame.

And, seriously, when you play your games, isn't the winner clearly determined by end of turn 3 already?

Except game isn't designed to end in X timeframe. That's tournament's additional rule. GAME is designed for reaching turn 5+. Tournaments then decided for their own practical reasons to change the game to have additional restrictriction. but that's still changing how game is DESIGNED to be played. So tournaments needs to ensure that the POINT LEVEL of tournament is appropriate for the time allowed. If they make point sizes stupidly big for time allowed they are changing how game is DESIGNED to be played which means altering also balance of the game as it's SUPPOSED to be played.

Tournaments thus needs to either increase time or if that's not feasible drop point cost. Which at least for this poll is also what players want.

Ideally you should be able to finish a game within the time limit.

Finishing the game means playing it to an end, so all the turns. There are plenty games out there which have an even higher variance of turns than WH40k, and they still mange.

I have yet to see another game that is played in tournaments where it is normal that a game ends early. Time limits are there to enforce faster playing, not to make a tournament possible in the first place.

Therefore the game rules must be adjusted to enable finishing games in a timely manner. Reducing points could be one way, but changes to the rules to speed up certain things would also be a good thing.