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.

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

When I'm playing my orks, the biggest time sink has always been disembarking from transports and resolving combat. Since movement no longer requires you to space everything exactly 2" apart (even for screening eyeballing it is enough), you can move blobs of 30 models pretty fast, and I'm not even using movement trays.

Nidzrule! wrote:
David Glaysher (top chap btw) took a horde daemon army and he manage to finish by turn 5 and 6! What's the difference between his army and the ork's in terms of model count?

Not model count related but maybe what needs to be looked is what those models are. Orks have tons of BS5+ not that amazing shooting that takes time to resolve while amounting to odd wound here and there generally(sometimes I don't even bother shooting but that's putting unfair handicap game is not designed...If you want to go that way guns should be removed from models and reflected in point costs). Did that daemon army have primarily no-guns models? Or no-h2h but shoot instead? Hell shooty horde plays generally faster than choppy horde and even more faster than choppy horde that shoots also. Also daemons might be better killing stuff than orks anyway which fastens up. Orks tend to...Well soak up firepower and sit around but actually killing stuff is tricky. Slow so hard to get anywhere and their main form of attacks is pile of S4 -0 D1 attacks.

Orks also have the da jump which basically involves moving one 30+ model squad twice a turn. Plus possible charge move. That takes time as well.

Model count does not tell all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

Scenarios say 5 turns with possibly up to longer. Game is designed without time limit. If you put in time limit that forces to play less than scenario rules you are automatically altering game from intended.

Game(as in warhammer 40k) ASSUMES minimum 5 turns with 6 or 7 possibility.

To clarify on paul dennetts dark angels army list:
Sammael on speeder
2 talonmaster one has heavenfall blade
1x8 black knights
2x3 bikes one unit is flamer, other is grav
3x5 scouts
3 dark talons
1 darkshroud.

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.

Think of it differently.

Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?

Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.

As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.

2.5 hour mark is exactly the middle of turn 3 for an ork horde. Orks fall apart after turn 3 and it's clearly seen in regular 4+ hour games. But tourneys have time limit and we get what you see there.
Not only you have to move and plan for a lot of bodies but also you got to roll a ton of dice. 6+ saves followed up by 6+ fnp. Than 100+ attacks if you actually reach something. That's how this army is designed to be.

I dont think we can have an army archetype in a tournament setting which basically has an advantage because it takes too long to play out the turns when the game is designed to go to turn 5 plus.

The point is that whether there was intentional slow play or the army itself plays slowly - this has resulted in 5 game wins which will frustrate the other player.

The reality is that there were others that played horde armies that went to 5 turns plus. David was not the only one. I know another horde ork player Jonathan Jones who did so too except for his last game, which was not driven by him but by his opponent.

Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.

We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.

Competition isn't for everyone, after all.

Totally agree.

 Kirasu wrote:
Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.

We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.

Competition isn't for everyone, after all.

Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.

Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.

Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.

We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.

Competition isn't for everyone, after all.

Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.

Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.

Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.

Are you asking if its fair that each player gets the exact same amount of time? Yes, it's fair. What is unfair is one player getting 30 minutes and the slow player getting 2 hours as they are an equal participant in the tournament game. Like I said, if you can't play your army in the allotted time then it should be on you to figure it out or pick a different army to be competitive with. They make all sorts of game aides like movement trays for 40k nowadays since cover doesn't really matter for huge units.

In fact it's pretty wild to even have to explain that one player getting more time is unfair.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Unfortunately GW and the community at large has refused to combat slow playing at all for at least 15 years, so now it's part of how you plan your strategy around at events. If you can't play your army within the alloted time then you should be penalized because you're either not prepared for competitive 40k or are screwing your opponent.

We all pay to play in events, it's absurd that one player gets to use more of the time simply because it would be "mean" to him to actually enforce time limits. Each player should get exactly half the time, if you go over your allotted time then too bad you can't perform any other more actions and should learn to play better and/or faster.

Competition isn't for everyone, after all.

Problem is some armies are simply god damn slow play to begin with. Is it fair tournaments screw entire armies? I don't slowplay. In fact I do rather opposite. I fast play. I spend virtually no time thinking should I do but just do it. By the time it's my turn to do something I already have things generally decised. Whether it's good or did things change I don't think. Of course this shows in results but saves uhming and ahming. No "should I shoot unit A or unit B" for 5 minutes. Then dice rolling I pick up successes results very fast. In fact if opponent is suspicious I would get called by judge on "cheating" by fast dice rolling.

Yet 2.5h is tight one to finish more than 3 turns.

Tournament organizers should admit that GW made 8th ed one of the slowest 40k editions yet and either increase time or not follow like lemmings GW's marketing ploy of pushing army size(both point and model wise) upwards.

That's how I do it too. I feel like that I need to take the harder bitz of depression making out of my army the larger it is.
Have you thought abut picking up your missed hits leaving the hits for the other player to see? Probably take a little longer. Would for me anyway.

While I do think both players should get equal time during a game what happens to the left over time from the player with the much smaller army? Does that just float off to feed the golden throne ?

 Kirasu wrote:
Are you asking if its fair that each player gets the exact same amount of time? Yes, it's fair. What is unfair is one player getting 30 minutes and the slow player getting 2 hours as they are an equal participant in the tournament game. Like I said, if you can't play your army in the allotted time then it should be on you to figure it out or pick a different army to be competitive with. They make all sorts of game aides like movement trays for 40k nowadays since cover doesn't really matter for huge units.

In fact it's pretty wild to even have to explain that one player getting more time is unfair.

Fault lies at the GW for making slowest edition and tournament organizers for not making tournament rules that allow ALL armies to play rather than some armies doomed from the start.

Tournament organizers are still on mindset it's 7th ed. It's not. It's 8th ed. Which takes longer to play. And which GW then sneaked up army size upgrade so that you need more models and units to fill up tournament sizes.

When do tournament organizers realize that? Or at least be honest and just ban orks if you make rule sets that make it impossible to be anything but slow forfeit.

I think the games are typically much faster now. It’s some players that slow it down for whatever reason.

I'm finishing entire games with my orks in the same time some armies took to generate their psychic powers in 7th...

Also, without wanting to attack you tneva82, didn't you just start playing orks a few months ago? You might not be a benchmark for playing orks at a competitive speed.

This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

fe40k wrote:

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG

so... No.

You don't deserve more time then another player.
Just like a GK player doesn't get a bonus 500 points cause his codex is gak.

 Ordana wrote:

fe40k wrote:

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG

so... No.

35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman

It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.

As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.

fe40k wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

fe40k wrote:

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG

so... No.

35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman

It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.

As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.

If you think its not unreasonable to expect someone to play all his turns in 12 minutes while I take over 2 hours then there is no point having this discussion as you are clearly delusional.

Well the London GT is coming this weekend.

I hope the ork player's signed up and got his army ready for that. I want to see how many VPs and KPs he's going to score. This thread has been good for putting slow play out there so it hopefully wont happen again.

Nidzrule! wrote:
Well the London GT is coming this weekend.

I hope the ork player's signed up and got his army ready for that. I want to see how many VPs and KPs he's going to score. This thread has been good for putting slow play out there so it hopefully wont happen again.

And a few months back we had the LVO with slow play to the point where they put a judge with a timer next to the final table.
And in a few months from now we will have the next tournament with slow play.

That argument has no back bone what so ever.
You could even argue that in my turn 1 when I go first I get first blood with my shooting and then decided for 2hours 30 what to charge.... woo hoo. I win. Sorry ref... I'm just a total half wit at the charge phase mate so don't punish me.
Seriously?
2 guys...
1 board... ( sounds wrong that... Sorry... lol)
Everything is split regardless of choice. That way no one can moan. Can't move orks fast enough??? Tough luck. Can move orks fast enough??? Welcome aboard. Seriously. Stop over complicating it with minute details that have no place in the real word of fantasy space toys


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean the argument about breaking no rules.
Sorry for the no quote

 Ordana wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

fe40k wrote:

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

I field 400+ basic guardsman. You have 5 minutes to play your turn, then I take 2 hours.
GG

so... No.

35:400 = 12.1 minutes for the Dark Angels, 137.9 minutes for the Guardsman
200:400 = 50 minutes for the Orks, 100 minutes for the Guardsman

It's not unreasonable, given the model disparities.

As long as neither side slow plays, there's more than enough time for them to get everything done.

If you think its not unreasonable to expect someone to play all his turns in 12 minutes while I take over 2 hours then there is no point having this discussion as you are clearly delusional.

So you're saying that some armies need more time to handle their models than others? That the time allotted may not be enough to allow a player to play all of their turns?

Welcome to the world of hordes.

Don't give people crap about "hordes take too long to play", or "that guy was slow playing the ENTIRE time", if you agree that the "12 minutes to play all their turns" isn't enough; hey, they just need to not slow play their turns, right? [And to be clear, I'm not calling you out specifically - just making points about tournament armies, time allotments, and balance between the two.]

All I did was balance the maximum time of the round (150 minutes) between both players equally; by model count. A player with twice as many models still has the same amount of phases, rules, and rolls that need to be processed per model, thus equating twice as much time required.

 Ordana wrote:

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.

Think of it differently.

Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?

Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.

As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.

I don't view time as a competitive "resource" that each player gets an equal share of. I view time as a parameter of the game like table dimensions, nobody is entitled to it. Contending against a large slow moving horde army should just another factor in building a list.

Chess clocks are happening this year and they're going to make a lot of arguments in this thread moot. Start practicing with one now.

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
It occurs to me that forcing a game to 5 rounds very much favours small, elite shooty armies because achieving that is very easy for them. Why, then should the game be forced to conform to this one style of play?

I've not seen anything in the rules that a game must complete 5 turns, so theoretically why shouldn't a player play the game to advantage his or her army? After all, by forcing a rush and catering to small elite forces, chess clocks are doing just that. By trying to force a game to complete an arbitrary amount of turns, why 5 and not 4, or 6, and why random and not fixed, you're only exchanging the advantage from one style of play for another.

Just a thought.

I was reading through this thread and thinking the same thing. I'm an Ork player and often play in tournaments so I try to be as zippy as possible, usually moving units in handful globs. All these arguments for chess clock style timing starts on the presumption that turns should go at a non-horde army pace. I never read that in any rules. I figure as long as you are moving single models at the same pace as the other player moves his, its just game mechanics that you happen to have 10x more models and thus take 10x more time. Some armies get silly extra shooting attacks or ridiculous saves. Hordes get the slow grind of 120 troops.

Think of it differently.

Does a player deserve more time then another player or should both players have the same amount of time to play the game?
If you think a Horde player deserves more time then a small army player then when 2 horde players meet does the round get extended for 2 hours so they both get more time?

Its not about forcing players to play at a non-horde army pace. its about ensuring a fair distribution of time. Just like we give both sides the same amount of points to play with.
And its not just a problem for Horde players. Many players in general play at a slower pace naturally and have trouble reaching turn 5 in 3 hours even with small armies.

As for the 'intended' lenght of games. The fact that all missions go to atleast turn 5 and possibly more clearly shows the intent of the designers.

I don't view time as a competitive "resource" that each player gets an equal share of. I view time as a parameter of the game like table dimensions, nobody is entitled to it. Contending against a large slow moving horde army should just another factor in building a list.

How do you content against a large slow moving horde army in time management when building your list?
More guns doesn't do it because I apparently don't get the time to use them.

And viewing time as parameters but contending someone else deserves more of it because of their army is weird.
Does a Horde army get a 2 foot board extension to fit their army that I'm not allowed to move into?

I guess we can call this concept "Horde Privilege".

 axisofentropy wrote:
Chess clocks are happening this year and they're going to make a lot of arguments in this thread moot. Start practicing with one now.

to be fair I thought this was only on top 16 tables in ITC only. Not exactly discouraging slow play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fe40k wrote:

gungo wrote:
This was clearly someone gaming the time limit. Making no effort to kill a warlord and obtain slay the warlord, making no effort to kill units or kill points with only 648pts killed per game, and purposefullly Declining extra turns after the judge allowed it, is someone who deliberately was trying to keep his games within 3 turns or less hike flooding objectives with models until time expires. That is clearly his only tactic to win. It worked Gratz to him, he’s still a crummy player and deserved getting zero sportsmen/best game points. He played a miserable game no one enjoyed Gratz!

Tournaments have rules. He abided by those rules.

People are just salty because they lost, and he didn't, using the rules provided. People need to get over it.

It's possible to be a good sportsman in a competitive environment - but it's not a requirement of the rules. If there's something on the line, you better get used to having to deal with the worst case scenarios in terms of people; and that's not against them. Forcing someone to conform to your social norms is just as bad as them forcing you to conform to theirs.

Speaking of chess clocks, model counts, and fairness; why don't they implement a time per round, which is then divided and appropriated between the total models on each side?

Using the Dark Angels list above (35 models) versus our theoretical Ork list (200 models), a 150 minute (2.5 hour) round would be split into - 22.3 minutes for the Dark Angels, and 127.66 minutes for the Orks.

While that doesn't take into account volume of rolls, re-rolls, special rules, etc; it does provide a reasonable split between two armies, respective of model count.

Never forget that BOTH players should be allowed to play the game; and that should also include ALL armies.

As I said Gratz on him for being the worst case scenario and for being the one of the reasons tournaments are changing the rules to discourage his type of abusive play. However the majority here are not salty that we lost since the majority never played on this tournament. Majority here are salty becuase crappy players such him are the reason we all need to start using chess clocks to prevent abusive players such as him and I play orks and guard which are the two main horde armies. So crappy players such as this guy does effect me and everyone else playing horde.

I think the ynnari player is the real winner. Ynnari are well fluffy and not a horde. Lol

Scarecrow20 wrote:
I think the ynnari player is the real winner. Ynnari are well fluffy and not a horde. Lol

I know this is a sarcastic comment but I just want to bring up the LVO semi final again where a Ynnari player slowplayed to prevent his opponent's CC army from having the time it needed to try to win, aswell as force errors as the other player speeds up to compensate.