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.

I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.

And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.

And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.

I would still like to see 1500 become the standard for major events, forcing players to pick and choose rather than bringing all of the toys is good in my opinion. This is where a player's skill shines rather than the player who can buy the most cans of vanilla spam.

But, ITC missions are quite dynamic and entertaining. So you are 100% correct on that.

 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.

I would say 90% of tournament games do make it to turn 4-5.. not making it past turn 3 is literally a handful of people getting called out for slow playing. Turn 6+ happens but not often and you are correct it’s a point/time limit issue. Turn 6+ rarely matters as the game is usually decided by that point. I’m not saying the game can’t be streamlined further or point limits decreased to 1500 but none of this prevents intentional slow playing.
Personally I think pairing and table assignments should be quicker and be posted with 15min before the next round begins. So players can start setting up before the first turn begins. I realize this is basically immediately after the last round ends. I also think setup time can be made quicker by having preset objectives locations, assigned table sides, and making the set up app randomly determine who sets up first. That way as soon as that player gets there he sets up his models. You alternate deployment then roll for first turn and play. That basically cuts out all the wasted time in pregame. Part of the problem is a 2:45 game has about 30min set up time before first turn begins for some armies!

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
- Rolling psychic powers

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

You never played 7th against tzeench daemons, did you? I remember games where people were rolling powers for more than 15 minutes because every unit was generating 1-4 powers from multiple disciplines.

 Jidmah wrote:
- Psychic phase

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

Same as above. Each power is only cast once, most armies are limited to 6 powers plus smite, with half of those being junk anyways. In 7th multiple units cast multiple powers from multiple disciplines.
Of course, all that didn't bring masses of psykers didn't bring any at all. Still, you can fit ten psychic phases from 8th edition into one 7th edition phase of an eldar/daemon/gk/ts player. A TS army is faster at casting all their powers than they were at counting their power-levels in previous editions.

 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.

Every single time an ork unit failed a moral or pinning check, for example. Also every other witchfire, exploding objectives, terrain rules, vehicle explosions and more.
A single trukk explosion could result in dozens of dice being rolles just to resolve it. Assuming you roll average for every roll, a melta destroying a trukk full of boyz would result in 20+ dice to be rolled until the explosion was resolved.

 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.

One model needs to within range of an aura, there is no need to measure to every model. Blocking deep strikers is done by only a few units of your army, in 7th every single one of your orks needed to be 2" from every single other ork.

 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.

The only reason I own gretchin is because their job in 5th, 6th and 7th was to create 12" bubble around the rear armor of my battlewagons so no melta could hit them after deep striking/drop podding, little has changed.
In any case, the point was that deep striking a unit takes a lot less time, you just plonk down the unit like you would deploy it normally, instead of putting down a model, scattering it, and then creating rings around until you realize in your second layer that you actually mishapped, removed all the models from the table, roll on the mishap table and then have your opponent set them up in rings somewhere else.

 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.

No amound of dice rolls are going to be slower than repositioning an entire unit because a wave serpent decided to do a belly-flow into the middle of it and the moral checks for all the units hit by the tank shock.

 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

You rolled the damage table for every single pen. Now you roll explodes once per vehicle.

 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.

You might want to read the FAQ, GW fixed that.

 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?

In 7th, if you had a unit of boyz with a warboss inside and a nob with BC, you had to roll at I3, I2 and I1. It got worse when units with initiative-reducing abilities were involved, especially when only single models were affected. You can now just pick different colored dice for each type of weapon and roll them all at once.

 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.

You had to do that for every single character in every unit in 7th. If you put your warboss in front of your boyz mob, your enemy could just shoot him dead, just like in 8th. Except you don't have to do it for squad leaders any more and you can remove casualties from the back. Any character that can be shot in 8th could have been shot in 7th as well.
Meanwhile, you no longer need to worry whether you are leaving or joining units nearby.

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.

This is 100% unrelated to 8th edition. Here 2000 was average and there were some people who wanted to move to 2500 with 8th but people stayed with 2k in the end.

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.

Every blast weapon required you to roll 2d6+scatter dice and then count models. Templates required you to find a way to hit as many models as possible/cover as much of a vehicle as possible. And then there was the whole mess of barrage weapons. Under no condition any of them were faster than rolling a d6 for shots or even hits.

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.

I literally flipped open the 7th edition SM codex and found three sources or re-rolling hits or wounds affecting multiple units before even getting to the first unit entry or looking at formations. Note that a lot of re-rolls were hidden behind USR, like preferred enemy, armorbane or monster hunter.

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.

That's what - one additional dice roll and adjusting a wound counter or setting down a model? You're basically complaining about GW adding a new unit to the game. Docs can't resurrect models, by the way.

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.

Yeah, but data disagrees with you. Neither re-rolls nor army sizes have increased massively. It just appears that way because most cheap bodies are good and elite units have become junk. Almost every army from 7th is more points in 8th.

My SM opponent with 40 models in the shooting phase should never take longer then my 180+ Model movement phase.

I'm not sure what he is doing, but I assure you that not a single shooting army I have faced in 8th has taken longer to shoot than for me to move green tide orks.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't know if this was eternal war, I generally don't follow non ITC events. But missions solve much of these problems. GW should write better missions. In ITC you can't just plop 120 bodies on 4 objectives and wait out the win, because scoring is progressive and you won't auto-win this way.

And seriously, people saying we need clocks, or we need to lower points, a better solution is to just up the cost of chaff models, or set a model count limit of 100 (for example) at 2000 points.

Progressive scoring doesn't help because those 120 boys will get to objectives first or at the same time but in greater number, so still outscore their opponent who can't clear them off of the objectives to outscore them in time.

Maelstrom games tho, as random as they are, probably hurt Hordes more. Since there are more objectives to claim, so the horde player can't swarm them all, and more ways to score points outside of just objectives.
ITC does this aswell with their, flawed tho I find their influence on army lists, secondary objectives. Where a killy list simply outscores on secondaries what the Horde gains on objective camping.

im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.

 lolman1c wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.

Thats an excuse..

And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.

Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..

There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.

I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.

I agree with zedsdead. That is the key word. Embarrassing.
No kills.
No turns
No warlords

Man... he must have been bored sat there for 5 days of his life (2 day heat and 3 day final) just waiting for games to end.

While he still did nothing "ilegal" it sure is a terrible way to waste your opponents time and game the system.

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

I agree with you, but don't blame it on the army.

I'm pretty sure that I could have taken exactly the same list to at least turn 4 every game, probably turn 5 depending on how much combat is happening.

Also note that orks are pretty mono-build currently. You can't really field a vastly different list from the index without throwing the game.

I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.

The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".

Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.

The issue is the kill count. Sure assaulting with big mobs, moving, rolling 100~ dice a time and then consolidating takes time.
But given he killed so little, no warlord etc its not obvious this ever happened. It shouldn't take you 40~ minutes a turn to just blob up on objectives.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.

The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".

Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.

The "cheating" is that they guy intentionally ended the game early. In casual game this basically amounts to moving all your orks up to the objectives, telling your opponent "good game, I win" at the end of turn 3 and packing up.

He played an army where he knew it would not go into turns 4 and 5 and swarmed objectives, giving opponents no time to clear them off said objectives.

That's the problem we have.

I hereby dub thee MC Slow Play. Also can someone tell me what the horn was that MC was carrying on his side. Did he use it for gaming?

 zedsdead wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.

Thats an excuse..

And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.

Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..

There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.

I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.

'

I have a tournament coming up soon, I am playing orkz and I will be playing the same list as I did last time which has almost TWICE as many orkz as this guy used. I generally get to turn 4 without a problem, my only time crunch happens when my opponents are playing a slow army, are rule bickering, or demanding I measure EVERY SINGLE MODEL.

My last tournament I won in the last game against the top ranked guy in our area and he was pissed. He wasn't mad at me for slow playing (game finished in 4 turns) he was mad because I brought a horde army against his Lascannon Spam army and go figure, he wasn't able to remove enough of my models before I crashed into his lines and liquidated a solid 40-50% of his army in 2 turns.


Now, my point is that slow playing is a gakky move, and this guy slow played. But to blame Ork players in general is just silly. "STOP BRINGING HORDES!" I will gladly stop, as soon as GW gives me a unit worth taking besides boyz. I have 35 warbikes, 12 koptas a bunch of trukkz and wagonz, 15 different Walkers all waiting to be played but I can't because GW couldn't be bothered to make decent rules for 8th edition for Orkz. Our options are Boyz spam, Stormboyz spam and we used to have Kommando spam but that is dead now as well.

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.

The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".

Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.

I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.

 lolman1c wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.

The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".

Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.

I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.

Half the people complaining like myself are ork or horde players no one is sad that an ork player won. Way to dismiss our point.
What you apologists seem to dismiss is this guy not only deliberately slow played and kill nothing to win. He intentionally declined 4th turns when the judge allowed it becuase he didn’t want to lose. So even in games where he had time for another turn he intentionally and deliberately showed his only tactic was to slow play and end by turn 3. The guy is a piece of crap. This is why no one enjoyed a game with him and he recieved not a single sportsman/best game vote. There is no presumption by anyone the data speaks for itself.. no warlord, low kills, no game last turn 3 (many 2), refusing 4 turns and arguing not enough time for it even after the judge says you have plenty of time, and not a single sportsman point compared to everyone else in the top 25 who had multiple.. the data overwhelming shows no one liked this guys play and showed he deliberately slow play tactic.

 Jidmah wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

I agree with you, but don't blame it on the army.

I'm pretty sure that I could have taken exactly the same list to at least turn 4 every game, probably turn 5 depending on how much combat is happening.

Also note that orks are pretty mono-build currently. You can't really field a vastly different list from the index without throwing the game.

I am not blaming the Army... i blame the Player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
im sorry but this Chap "gamed" the system no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

The player took an Time "Inefficient" Army to a Tournament running 2.5 hour rounds.

Ill accept that he was even going so far as playing his army "efficiently". However that doesnt excuse the fact that regardless as to how well he played. He was never going to finish a single match in a timely manner.

He built a list that could only get to round 2 or 3 in a 2.5 hour Match.
IMHO thats cheating.

No.. that's GW writes giving us only 1 single good unit in our entire index that we're forced to use if we want to be the slightest but competitive. I've seen people take more boyz to tournaments and lose badly so time can't be the only factor here. Also he clearly has passion for his orks because from what i heard and little I saw they were some cool looking well converted Orks. You're basically saying Orks should not be allowed to enter the competitive scene... but this is not his fault it's GW's.

Thats an excuse..

And yea if the "only" Ork build requires 5 hours of play time to get to 6 turns.. then yea. Maybe they dont belong in Tournaments.

Sounds like he knows what his list is capable of doing..

There are plenty of "builds" i could run that would take me 4-5 hrs of game time to complete a 5-6 round game and it would "look" like i wasnt "slow playing". However i wouldnt run them because they have no place in a Tournament with a 2.5- 3 hour time limit.

I would be embarassed if i won a Tournament where none of my games went past 3 rounds.

'

I have a tournament coming up soon, I am playing orkz and I will be playing the same list as I did last time which has almost TWICE as many orkz as this guy used. I generally get to turn 4 without a problem, my only time crunch happens when my opponents are playing a slow army, are rule bickering, or demanding I measure EVERY SINGLE MODEL.

My last tournament I won in the last game against the top ranked guy in our area and he was pissed. He wasn't mad at me for slow playing (game finished in 4 turns) he was mad because I brought a horde army against his Lascannon Spam army and go figure, he wasn't able to remove enough of my models before I crashed into his lines and liquidated a solid 40-50% of his army in 2 turns.


Now, my point is that slow playing is a gakky move, and this guy slow played. But to blame Ork players in general is just silly. "STOP BRINGING HORDES!" I will gladly stop, as soon as GW gives me a unit worth taking besides boyz. I have 35 warbikes, 12 koptas a bunch of trukkz and wagonz, 15 different Walkers all waiting to be played but I can't because GW couldn't be bothered to make decent rules for 8th edition for Orkz. Our options are Boyz spam, Stormboyz spam and we used to have Kommando spam but that is dead now as well.

I think your opponent get pissed because his LC army wasnt effective is lame. You won fair and square.. i have no issue with you, your Army or your win..congrats.
I have no issue with Horde armies as well.. I play Horde AM. If im in the mood or the Tournament allows 3 or more hrs of time or depending on the Mission pack ... maybe ill take them.
However .. if i know im not capable of getting in games that go past the midway point of turns in my games. Im not only cheating myself..but im cheating my opponents.

Why would anyone be upset that an Ork army won the tournament?

I realise there are a few forum warriors who tend to be "I decided to collect Space Marines back in 2000, and I hate Chaos, I hate their models, their players, everything about them, hate hate hate" (and vice versa) but they are pretty few and far between.

No one is upset that an ork army won the tournament.

 lolman1c wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I'm sorry but at the moment all I can see are people complaining that a different style of army and tactic won and are looking for ways to make their own play style and tactics top drawer again.

The guy won without breaking any rules, but because it's orks and they're supposedly a trash index army "just for fun" all the power gamers are throwing a strop and want new rules and changes to stop this outrageous "cheating".

Orks always have to play to the objectives of the game to even stand a chance of winning, that's what this guy did. So what if he didn't slay the warlord or only killed a third of the opponents army? If that's what you think should win the game then have pure kill points and nothing else.

I'm with you. They all sound like daddies special girl who lost the beauty contest to a commoner. The guys army looked cool, everyone is just presuming he played scummy from rumours and people who lost... it would be like asking the losing football team what they thought of the guys who won.

Wow... so you dont agree with people. You call them snowflakes. Jerk Move on your part.

The facts speak for themselves. I dont see much rumour mongering .. other than calling out a guy winning a Tournament and never going past turn 3.

I dont agree with that.. and others dont as well... doesnt make us a special girl.. shame on you in all honesty for name calling.
You dont.. ill leave it at that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
No one is upset that an ork army won the tournament.

-amen

Tyel wrote:
Why would anyone be upset that an Ork army won the tournament?

I realise there are a few forum warriors who tend to be "I decided to collect Space Marines back in 2000, and I hate Chaos, I hate their models, their players, everything about them, hate hate hate" (and vice versa) but they are pretty few and far between.

People are upset that someone won a tournament by deliberate slow play and not completing more than 3 turns once in the whole event. One of their opponents confirmed they had a chance to play a 4th turn in one round but were quite adamant they weren't going to do that.

All the stuff about time limits stop people playing Orks is just smokescreen. Plenty of tourney players can get 4-5 turns in with ork lists no problem, but if they didn't want to it's easy to slowplay them to 2-3 turns and win by no contest as we saw here.

One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.

Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.

Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)

 warhead01 wrote:
One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.

Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.

Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)

Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.

 Ordana wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.

Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.

Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)

Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.

That's what I don't get about this though. If I am packing my units onto objectives and just sitting there my turns after the first one or two should be very quick because I am not really moving anything just rolling a few shots, saves and picking up the read. Any close combat is where the majority of my time will be spent. But if my plan is to pack objectives, I can't think I would want to charge very much. haha.

I would love to read a bunch of reports on this Ork players games to get a better picture of what happened.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
One other thing about this topic has bothered me a little.
I totally get it we should play as many turns as we can for a fair game. I'm on board with that having been slow payed before by a much smaller force than my own and by forces much larger than my won.

Locally the TO asks players to play no less than 4 turns, we have a lot of competitive people coming in from out of town and casual players as well. We are normally given 2.5 hours and the trend in for 1500 point armies.

Here's the thing, regarding number of turns. How many turns do we really need. I'm not saying that are allowed but needed to decide a game. MY usual opponent tries to have the game in the bag by the end of turn 2 or going into turn 3. This is fairly normal for us. If it's iffy we definitely play on but in either of out next turns it may be obviously over so if that's 3 or 4 turns then it is what it is. Based on that I am less concerned about the time those turns take. How many turns do we really need? How many turns do your games usually go? (Both in and out of tournament play?)

Sometimes you can see who is going to win by the end of turn 2/3. Usually because one side is mostly dead and won't be able to contest what his opponent has left.
That is not the case here where he only kills ~600 points per game.
When you spend 2/3 turns sitting on objectives but your army has been almost all shoot to pieces and turn 4-5 and maybe on will see the other player grab all the points finishing the game to its natural conclusion is important.

That's what I don't get about this though. If I am packing my units onto objectives and just sitting there my turns after the first one or two should be very quick because I am not really moving anything just rolling a few shots, saves and picking up the read. Any close combat is where the majority of my time will be spent. But if my plan is to pack objectives, I can't think I would want to charge very much. haha.

I would love to read a bunch of reports on this Ork players games to get a better picture of what happened.

He played his army to their strengths, and the rules weaknesses. As a result, he won - people are salty at that.

I think all Ork players would rather have a fighting chance with their army and have real rules and points costs for their army, and not have to fall back to playing the game in this manner; in a general sense - but Orkz 'iz kunnin, and can manage to win even when the entire system is against them [Ork Index, Fall Back rules, BS5+, etc, etc].

And to all the people complaining "but he didn't play the next round when the judge offered it to him!" - that's on the judge for that one; he was given a legal opportunity to not play the next round, and he took it. Most likely because taking the extra round might cost him the game - don't get mad that he played the rules legally, get mad that the judge didn't enforce +1 turn, since there was extra time.

This is a tournament. There will be gak plays, players, and rulings you don't agree with. If you came to a tournament to prove you're the best, stop fething complaining and play the game by its rules. If you came for "fun" and to play against new people, then why the feth do you care so much about the win? Just concede the game and move on. It's not like you're there to win, right?

Oh wait - you are. Everyone's there to win. Stop getting salty when your opponent plays the rules in a legal manner, and comes out on top as a result of it.

fe40k wrote:
He played his army to their strengths, and the rules weaknesses. As a result, he won - people are salty at that.

I think all Ork players would rather have a fighting chance with their army and have real rules and points costs for their army, and not have to fall back to playing the game in this manner; in a general sense - but Orkz 'iz kunnin, and can manage to win even when the entire system is against them [Ork Index, Fall Back rules, BS5+, etc, etc].

And to all the people complaining "but he didn't play the next round when the judge offered it to him!" - that's on the judge for that one; he was given a legal opportunity to not play the next round, and he took it. Most likely because taking the extra round might cost him the game - don't get mad that he played the rules legally, get mad that the judge didn't enforce +1 turn, since there was extra time.

This is a tournament. There will be gak plays, players, and rulings you don't agree with. If you came to a tournament to prove you're the best, stop fething complaining and play the game by its rules. If you came for "fun" and to play against new people, then why the feth do you care so much about the win? Just concede the game and move on. It's not like you're there to win, right?

Oh wait - you are. Everyone's there to win. Stop getting salty when your opponent plays the rules in a legal manner, and comes out on top as a result of it.

If you're arguing that he deliberately played slowly to merely exploit the legal rules of the game, then if the tournament has any rules at all about slow-playing, he broke the rules. This was not a legal and fair way to win.

On the other hand, if you're arguing that he deliberately CHOSE a slow army, and then played at normal speed, then you could argue that it's legal and the rules writers' fault, but you can't argue that it wasn't bad sportsmanship. Even if this was a legal way to win the game, the majority of the player base would say that it isn't in the spirit of the game, breaks the social contract between players, and is exploiting a rules loophole to win unfairly, even if it's technically within the rules.

By this definition, old RAW tricks like refusing to let Wraithlords shoot as they have no eyes would be 'playing to the rules' weaknesses' and totally fair.

If we accept that, because he won by bad sportsmanship, then it's completely fair for players to be salty about it and try and figure out how to change things in the future.

I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.

That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.

So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Guessed the result? No. But it's pretty normal now to see "unusual" lists win regular ol' 40K, (e.g. pure Primaris doing 2nd in the first Heat) if you're coming from the insanely heavily houseruled variants like ITC & co.


The latter just don't have all that much in common with "40K" these days.

Disagree.

 r_squared wrote:
I also happen to think that if his opponents didn't bring enough firepower to delete a unit of orks a turn, then that's on them. My usual opponents can quite easily wipe out 30 orks in one round of shooting.

That means at least 90 of these boys could have been deleted by turn 3.

So if they couldn't counter his army, how's that his fault? I'm fairly sure that in competitive tournaments the point is to win. Want to complain that someone won but didn't conform to your play style or what you thinks fair? Well, sorry but that happens.
Maybe bring a few more heavy bolter and assault cannons and a little less elite killing gubbins.

So the answer is that you must bring an army capable of tabling a horde army by turn 3??

Tournaments need rounded/balanced lists to combat a multitude of armies. Saying they should have accounted for specifically "deleting" a full squad of boyz per turn would just leave them susceptible to the next table that is running more tanks and high toughness models -- when really, the game should just be played longer than 3 turns, you know, because 5-6 turns is what is expected and factored into the gameplay mechanics....