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.

 Ordana wrote:
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?

That's for the list builder to figure out. I have to figure out how to get my Orks past the turn 4 downfall that seems to plague them. Also, that comment again presupposes that horde armies should lose and the more elite armies should have their god given right to crump you in later turns. Sometimes in real wars, they become slogged down wars of attrition, e.g. WWI. It's part the war and war gaming.

As to your second comment, I would agree with you if all armies in the game were equal. They are not. Some simply require more time than others. That is part of the game. Also, horde armies can utilize more of the board. Nobody calls surrounding transports, strategically chaining units, or blocking deep strike to be unfair.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

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.

So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.

40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.

THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Groo_The_Wanderer wrote:

That's for the list builder to figure out. I have to figure out how to get my Orks past the turn 4 downfall that seems to plague them. Also, that comment again presupposes that horde armies should lose and the more elite armies should have their god given right to crump you in later turns. Sometimes in real wars, they become slogged down wars of attrition, e.g. WWI. It's part the war and war gaming.

As to your second comment, I would agree with you if all armies in the game were equal. They are not. Some simply require more time than others. That is part of the game. Also, horde armies can utilize more of the board. Nobody calls surrounding transports, strategically chaining units, or blocking deep strike to be unfair.

No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.

Some of what is being said sounds like saying logging out of an online-match to deprive your opponent of a win and maintain your ranking should be regarded as fair-play.
Ideally both players should be able to complete their turns, alternatively the onus needs to be on both players to bring a list that can compete within a set time-limit.
Orks likely are not a good tournament winning army, but that needs to resolved by better balancing, not by removing the opponent's ability to respond outside of the game with what is essentially unaccommodated lag.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.

What exactly is taking you longer than previous editions? My games are almost taking half the time they used to, even if I run the tide. I really can't understand how you need more time to play a game of 8th, everything that you have to do now you also had to do in 7th, plus much more (like the huge timekiller mob rule).

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.

So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.

40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.

THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.

No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.

I think you're being a bit alarmist, hordes can absolutely finish games under the current rules (both book missions and ITC). IMO it's the players, not the armies, that slow down the game. And in this GT case, it has clearly been the player causing a problem, his army size is just an excuse. For a different example, I believe the LVO had an average of 3 to 4 turns completed across all tables or something, it was abysmal, and this included all variety of army size. Everyone is playing slow, I reckon most people don't even realise how long they are taking to deploy.

I played a 186 model Ork army, with movement trays, competitively for 6 months in 8th. I finish most of my games in 2.5 hours, I'd say 80-90%. I've even played horde mirror, 400 models on the table, and finished just fine. When I don't finish a game thanks to time, it's always thanks to a rules lawyer, and has nothing to do with my opponents army size.

I would personally recommend you focus on your own play speed if you're having trouble ending games with Orks. I attend tournaments with full intention to complete my games with a horde, and while I am more mindful of time than your average player, finishing games is a very realistic goal for me.

Movement became faster but there are a lot of auras you got to keep in mind. The amount of dice rolled has increased significantly. Previously, a marine shooting a bolter at an ork would roll a die to hit and to wound. Now he rolls a die to hit, re-rolls it, rolls a die to wound, re-rolls it, ork rolls 6+ armor. Pretty time consuming.

In 7th edition 1500 pt games took my ork horde around 4 hours to complete. In 8th they take the same or slightly more.

I think 40k is a game designed to go for at least five turns, with a mix of armies up to and including horde armies. Absolutely no time limit is included in 40k, and at no point is it ‘unfair’ if an army with ten units takes longer to move and shoot than an army with five units. Of course it will. By the rules of 40k that’s absolutely fine (and common sense).

I’d also suggest that a normal game of 40k should include a bit of time for looking at rulebooks, explaining armies, going to the toilet, etc etc. While I think tournaments should encourage people to play efficiently, realistically the majority of people at tournaments are not hardcore tournament players and often have new units or armies they’d completed just for this event. So saying that everyone should just play hard and fast won’t work.

The reason we have all this arguing about people taking up ‘my time’ and suggestions of chess clocks is because THERE ISNT ENOUGH TIME TO PLAY THIS GAME SIZE IN A TOURNAMENT TO START WITH.

Take a load of players with reasonable sized armies they’re vaguely familiar with, including hordes. Let them play at their own pace. If those games tend to take longer than 2.5 hours decrease points size until they all finish in time. If that means 1000pt tournaments, great.

 hollow one wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah. Started few months and like 4 years ago with current army. BEfore that I had like 10 years ago another army. And that was my 2nd ork army. Yep. Total rookie. Nevermind in 7th ed I ran 200+ model orks in tournaments without issues. Then 8th ed came and slowed game down to crawl.

So. Seems you aren't interested in playing tournament of WARHAMMER 40k! but your own custom build game since you are wanting to change how 40k is supposed to play.

40k is supposed to have various playstyles. Hordes are supposed to be one. That's what GW intends. Tournament organizers should accept that and not make tournament rules that ban valid playstyles like horde armies.

THIS IS NOT 7TH ED ANY MORE! Armies have gone up in size. Game takes longer to play. Either you increase tournaament point size(There was no real reason to even increase it in the first place) or times should be extended.

No game is supposed to go for 5-7 turns. If that doesn't happen you have bad tournament rules. But you need to ensure that happens in a way that allows both playstyles to do it. GW slowed game and increases army sizes to sell models. Tournament organizers should fight that. There's 2 ways. Increase time alloted or if that's not feasible not follow GW's marketing ploy like a lemming and scale down point size. This keeps up we will end up with 3k tournaments where 3k is previous editions 4k.

I think you're being a bit alarmist, hordes can absolutely finish games under the current rules (both book missions and ITC). IMO it's the players, not the armies, that slow down the game. And in this GT case, it has clearly been the player causing a problem, his army size is just an excuse. For a different example, I believe the LVO had an average of 3 to 4 turns completed across all tables or something, it was abysmal, and this included all variety of army size. Everyone is playing slow, I reckon most people don't even realise how long they are taking to deploy.

I played a 186 model Ork army, with movement trays, competitively for 6 months in 8th. I finish most of my games in 2.5 hours, I'd say 80-90%. I've even played horde mirror, 400 models on the table, and finished just fine. When I don't finish a game thanks to time, it's always thanks to a rules lawyer, and has nothing to do with my opponents army size.

I would personally recommend you focus on your own play speed if you're having trouble ending games with Orks. I attend tournaments with full intention to complete my games with a horde, and while I am more mindful of time than your average player, finishing games is a very realistic goal for me.

This guy has it right. Horde armies can play complete games in tournaments but you've got to put the effort in. The players that routinely don't finish with hordes are inexperienced, lazy, or slowing game down on purpose. I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game. If one of us didn't want to go beyond T3 it would have been very easy to slow the game down ...

Just a small observation but is 8th edition really faster?
One of the biggest time sinks I used to find with newer players (pre no deepstrike T1 beta rule) was deployment, followed by turn 1.
At the moment I don't think tournament rules actually reward being durable enough to make it to turn 4+ to make people play that way.

While I get the idea of chess clocks, I'm sure somepeople will find ways to game it.

I know that 2K can be finished in time but really would making games 1.5k really be that bad, as it would ease some of the time pressure.
I get that it can make games a bit more rock paper scissors. But 3 LOW is already very much there anyway.

 ruminator wrote:
I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.

4 turns is not a full game though.

I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.

Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.

 Mushkilla wrote:

 ruminator wrote:
I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.

4 turns is not a full game though.

I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.

Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.

With the reductions in the codex, maybe its even worth looking at 1850 again?

1250 - 1500 at max is a reasonable size for 3 hour games (including deployment).

There is nothing stopping two players who know their armies playing out a 2k game in around 2.5 hours.

Maybe being pushed for time to finish of turn 5 or 6 is one thing but "Oh its taking me 45 minutes to play out my 1st and 2nd turns, and mysteriously we have run out of time mid way through turn 3" is down to the player.

 Mushkilla wrote:

 ruminator wrote:
I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.

4 turns is not a full game though.

I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.

Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.

Ah, but I was seriously running out of models by then so conceded at beginning of T5 - we had time to play as my turn would not have taken very long at all and I was not catching up!

If I wanted to slow play I can do that as easily at 1750 as I can at 2000 ...

Did I hear correctly that GW is or is thinking about shrinking their tournaments to 1750?

 axisofentropy wrote:
Did I hear correctly that GW is or is thinking about shrinking their tournaments to 1750?

I sure hope not. 8th edition seems to take like half the time of 7th for the vast majority of people I see at tournaments like NOVA so I'm not sure that fixes anything. Lowering it to 1750 just unfairly hurts elite armies in a system that already unfairly favors horde armies.

GW: To speed up the game we are going to streamline the game, we are going to take away blast weapons and Twin LInked weapons!

Reality: Instead we're going to add in a bunch of effects and auras as well as weapons you have to measure effective distance for and we are going to give entire armies easy access to rerolling every hit and wound in the game. We are also going to increase tournament size to 2,000 to compensate for price hikes

How exactly did 8th get faster?? I mean combining run with movement was nice, but what else really became faster?

 ruminator wrote:

Ah, but I was seriously running out of models by then so conceded at beginning of T5 - we had time to play as my turn would not have taken very long at all and I was not catching up!

If I wanted to slow play I can do that as easily at 1750 as I can at 2000 ...

Oh I agree don't think dropping points will stop slow play. You need chess clocks for that.

But dropping points will add more slack, to ensure that a very high percentage of games finish the full game length regardless of match up, army style, and pressure (like top table final game with prizes on the line). Currently, even without slow play their isn't enough slack in the system. So we either need to increase time or reduce points. So what If that means 50% of games finish in 2 hours if it means 99% of games go the full 5-7 turns.

moonsmite wrote:

 Mushkilla wrote:

 ruminator wrote:
I play horde Nids and when I played an infantry IG list in a tournament we played 4 full turns easily because both players knew what they were doing and wanted to play a full game.

4 turns is not a full game though.

I think it's just unrealistic to get a 2000 point game in the time that tournaments want. Some match ups are also more cerebral. Especially if you have two solid lists with two solid players. Both players are going to be thinking a lot more as any mistakes made will be punished.

Personally, I don't see why dropping points to 1500 or 1750 is unreasonable. The tournament scene seems convinced that the game is faster and units are more expensive so points should go up to 2000, but the game is slower with each codex release, and point costs are also getting slashed. Leading to unrealistic expectations of how quickly the game plays.

With the reductions in the codex, maybe its even worth looking at 1850 again?

Even with the reduction that the codex's brought over the index, points are still significantly higher then they were in 7th edition. My 1850 7th ed tournament army still comes out to around 2100 points now.

2000 is a fair shake, and all in all still represents smaller forces then we used to play with. Other folks have summed it up. The more "streamlined" system is mired in the myriad of gray area's the "simpler" rules have resulted in, as well as the massive amount of rerolls that everyone understandably injects into their army, plus the myriad of strategems, and the like.

That being said, when folks are not playing like donkey caves, customarily getting to turn 5 or 6 is not difficult, no matter the army. We just need to make it not socially acceptable to slow play. I think we're on the way towards it, but we as the players need to work harder. Force tournament organizers to address the issue, and the like.

My sparring partner and I love using a chess clock, but we still get just 4 turns in. So yeah there are two issues with different solutions:

Chess clocks make sure both players use the game time equally.

Lowering points could then help players reach turn 6 more often.

I'm really surprised noone has seen the news. The UK grand tournament will move to 1750 points from now on.
https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/the-official-2018-2019-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Chikout wrote:
I'm really surprised noone has seen the news. The UK grand tournament will move to 1750 points from now on.
https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/the-official-2018-2019-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Hopefully that's the start of other tournaments following suit, but I doubt it.

I think we can all agree 8th isn't really any faster than 7th. The removal of blast templates or debates about facings on vehicles have simply been replaced by more time spent thinking about stratagems and rerolling every single dice due to a variety of aura effects. I think dropping points or chess clocks are the only real answers at this point, possibly both. I'd personally go for chess clocks at 1750 and see how that turns out. We'd also need TOs to actually enforce rules around slow play too though, and that's another element that needs looking at but I think you need something like chess clocks to make that task easier.

Yeah. It will be interesting to see whether other tournaments follow suit.

I don't think it will stop slow play, but it might make it even more obvious? If games not finishing becomes an uncommon occurance then it's much easier to single out slow play.

Adding slack by reducing points also makes hordes and other armies, that just by their very nature/number of models play more slowly, still viable to bring to a tournament.

SemperMortis wrote:
How exactly did 8th get faster?? I mean combining run with movement was nice, but what else really became faster?

- Rolling warlord traits
- Rolling psychic powers
- Psychic phase
- Resolving rules that do random amounts of damage (MW instead of d6 S4 AP- hits that get allocated randomly)
- Movement no longer requires you to measure every single model to be 2" from each other model
- Movement of vehicles is faster since facings don't matter
- Moral done once, no pinning or fallback movement
- No more rolling for reserves, no more scattering deep strikers and setting them up in rings
- No more tank shocks, just charge and roll some attacks
- No more damage tables
- No more rolling for stomps or strength D weapons
- No more initiative in combat, you roll the entire unit at once just like when shooting
- No more issuing, refusing or fighting challenges
- No more measuring to remove casualties
- No more ICs joining or leaving units

To be fair, things that are slower now:
- Stratagems and rolling to get CP back
- Screening against deep strikes and consolidate moves
- Deny the witch: you need to position your psykers, you can deny more things.
- More auras to measure to. There have always been auras in the game though (KFF, Azrael, Pedro Kantor, SM Warlord traits, etc), but I think they have become more relevant to the game. No one cared about those ld bubbles.
- Alternating deployment, people are reacting to each of the enemy's units instead of a completed deployment
- Alternating combat, against people thinking an reacting to the results of previous combats, used stratagems, etc
- No more sweeping advances. Not saying that's a bad thing, but in previous edition few units survived more than one or two turns of losing combat, while now a blob of conscripts can weather a knight stomping on them for multiple turns.
- More armor saves and FNP rolls. S8 AP 3 would have outright killed an apothecarius in 7th, S8 AP-2 D3 still allows for 5+ armor and three 5+ FNP rolls.

I don't think there are that much more re-rolls than before. In 7th it felt like everyone and their dog somehow got twin-linked or master crafted weapons. There were plenty of sources or re-rolls: auras, doctrines, warlord traits, formations, etc.

Still, I think we lost much more baggage than we gained. I can easily finish a 1500 points game of orks or death guard within 3 hours, including deployment. That was not possible in any previous edition.

While writing this, it came to me that there is something that really needs to go away to speed up games: Pile-in moves. Just add them onto the charge range or something. Moving your models 2d6 to then move them another 3" a few minutes later is one of the biggest time sink for me when charging with a unit of boyz or pox walkers.

Excellent call out Chikout.

We can only hope that this prevents the same issues from re-occurring.

 Jidmah wrote:

- Rolling warlord traits

No, instead we get to pick, so that is 1 dice roll saved

 Jidmah wrote:
- Rolling psychic powers

Same as before, so we save 0-3 rolls on average

 Jidmah wrote:
- Psychic phase

How did it get faster? you still manifest, you still roll, but now there are more denials.

 Jidmah wrote:
- Resolving rules that do random amounts of damage (MW instead of d6 S4 AP- hits that get allocated randomly)

How often did this really happen though? And a lot of those rules still exist in a different format. The only benefit I see is we have player choice allocation instead of random.

 Jidmah wrote:
- Movement no longer requires you to measure every single model to be 2" from each other model

No instead we have to measure to make sure we are in range of auras or bubbles and we have to ensure that units are spread apart far enough to stop deep striking (9' rule) and other things like piling into multiple combats.

 Jidmah wrote:
- Movement of vehicles is faster since facings don't matter

Again, this is minor and maybe took 5-10 seconds off a game in general. But then you also get the added bonus of everything being able to hurt those vehicles so now they have to position them differently. Still I'll give you this.

 Jidmah wrote:
- Moral done once, no pinning or fallback movement

Completely agree with this.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more rolling for reserves, no more scattering deep strikers and setting them up in rings

Again, now you are spacing units to deny these.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more tank shocks, just charge and roll some attacks

This became slower actually because its just another CC engagement with overwatch, charge dice, rolls to hit, to wound, saves and then counter attacks.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more damage tables

Nope, now everything can wound everything, and you better believe I have had to sit there and watch opponents blasting 20-30 S4 shots at a T8 vehicle in the hopes of denting it. So, and then we still have to roll to explode so again I would argue this got slower or stayed the same

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more rolling for stomps or strength D weapons

Ironically this is true but wrong in a different way, now we have to make 15 6+++ FNP saves against multi wound dmg weapons that used to be destroyer. A wonderful example would be a warlord taking a Plasma shot and having to roll invulns and then several FNP for each shot.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more initiative in combat, you roll the entire unit at once just like when shooting

Still the same amount of dice, still have to roll different weapons at different times so almost no effect. How often did you have models with the same weapon and different initiatives?

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more issuing, refusing or fighting challenges

Very true I'll give you this one completely.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more measuring to remove casualties

True, but more important in placing models then actually measuring, still a good point.

 Jidmah wrote:
- No more ICs joining or leaving units

This I won't give you, because now you don't get to hide a warlord in a unit of infantry or whatever and have to place all your models accordingly to provide him with cover and to ensure that those units are within range of his aura to benefit from it to the maximum.

To add to that,

Last edition 1500pts was the average, now its 2,000. This isn't as big of a deal since prices went up but I would argue that the average prices didn't go up 33% so games are slower because there are more units. Those units are no more durable then before on average but require a lot more rolls to be made for saves. Shooting requires more random D6s and D3s then ever before Ala Blast weapons going away and this has caused the game to be slower on average. More units get to make armor saves now because of the change to AP, this is a good benefit in a lot of cases but not so in others. Me rolling 20 6+ armor saves against bolters and then a 6+++ FNP doesn't make the game faster. TL was not as prevalent as you make it seem and now its everywhere. I have yet to go against a SM player where multiple entire units were rerolling hits, wounds or some combination there of. We also added new mechanics for healing units, now Docs can resurrect models and give them benefits and they can heal characters and all sorts of wonderful things, while a benefit, this does in fact slow the game more.

I could keep going but I have to get my kids to school, my point is that for every mechanic they streamlined or removed they added at least 1 new mechanic that slows the game down. Army size and all the rerolls are by far the easiest example. My SM opponent with 40 models in the shooting phase should never take longer then my 180+ Model movement phase.

The game is faster. even tournaments who record how long games last show this. Late 7th was bad and we almost never saw a game go to 5/6th turns. Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.

gungo wrote:
Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.

Firstly 4 turns isn't a game of 40k even if it is better than last edition. But what percentage of games does "regularly" mean? Even if 70% of games are making turn 4, that's still a failure in my eyes. Shouldn't 99% of tournament games be going the full 5-7 turns outside of tabling/conceding? That way slow play becomes really obvious. If all games go 5-7 turns, then when a game goes 3 turns you know someone was slow playing. Right now it's not obvious as most games don't even make turn 5, let alone turns 6-7.

I tend to avoid tournament 40k because I simply don't enjoy the events, but I do tend to play a lot of organized play/competitive events for other games. In all of the other games I routinely play, it's rare for a game to go to time. I can't actually remember the last game of Star Wars Armada that went to time. For context, I've played in tournaments all the way up to FFG's North American Championship, so it's not like my local meta just happens to be fast.

Is it just not a 40k tournament community priority that the overwhelming majority of games should go to time? I'm genuinely trying to understand. From a relative outsider's perspective, it sounds like the tournament scene either need to cut points or increase round limits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mushkilla wrote:

gungo wrote:
Now 4/5 turns are regularly met in tournaments with the issue being a select few players and games only making it to turn 2/3. If you consistently are only playing 2/3 turns in 2.5+ hours in a fast paced tournament setting. You are slow playing.

Firstly 4 turns isn't a game of 40k even if it is better than last edition. But what percentage of games does "regularly" mean? Even if 70% of games are making turn 4, that's still a failure in my eyes. Shouldn't 99% of tournament games be going the full 5-7 turns outside of tabling/conceding? That way slow play becomes really obvious. If all games go 5-7 turns, then when a game goes 3 turns you know someone was slow playing. Right now it's not obvious as most games don't even make turn 5, let alone turns 6-7.

Agree wholeheartedly. Do we have any actual metrics on how many games aren't fully completing?

Partial solutions to slow play.

Both players get 1pt is they begin turn 5, win or lose.

If a game ends on the first players turn of turn 3 the game gets fifteen minutes of extra time with the opponent getting immediate turn start. Judges can be on hand to help the player speed up as needed and get through to crucial turn portions..

If second half of turn three isnt given enough time to play, the player can ask or a guaranteed fifteen minutes.