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.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am not someone who plays a horde army on a regular basis in 40k, but after playing AoS and played around with Tyranids and Orks I can easily see problems as well as potential ways of fixing this(which in turn could create other issues).

First, there is obviously a need for movement trays for horde armies. This should speed up play and make the clock a less terrifying change for Horde players.

Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them. Games with movement trays for large numbers of troops generally expect such units to be advancing over mostly open terrain and there are mechanics for ranks and flanking and whatnot, none of which applies to a mob of Orks overrunning a ruined 3 story structure for instance.

If a game isnt getting passed turn 2 or 3, the TO needs to deal with that, especially at the top tables, that's their responsibility,
Adding in extra mechanics and materials that dont fit the game is going to cause more issues.

I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am not someone who plays a horde army on a regular basis in 40k, but after playing AoS and played around with Tyranids and Orks I can easily see problems as well as potential ways of fixing this(which in turn could create other issues).

First, there is obviously a need for movement trays for horde armies. This should speed up play and make the clock a less terrifying change for Horde players.

Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them. Games with movement trays for large numbers of troops generally expect such units to be advancing over mostly open terrain and there are mechanics for ranks and flanking and whatnot, none of which applies to a mob of Orks overrunning a ruined 3 story structure for instance.

If a game isnt getting passed turn 2 or 3, the TO needs to deal with that, especially at the top tables, that's their responsibility,
Adding in extra mechanics and materials that dont fit the game is going to cause more issues.

When I was mentioning movement trays I was mostly thinking of the ones already being sold and allow for quick movement, but the effective footprint would be the same(ie. it's just for the ease of movement). It has its own problems to be fair(at least when it comes to not being first to melee), but I have enjoyed using them in both Warhammer systems. Does speed up gameplay considerably in my experience(at least it does for my Daughters of Khaine army).

In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Wow, I was wondering how we had such a strong disconnect and now I get it.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Wow, I was wondering how we had such a strong disconnect and now I get it.

Naw dude, our disconnect isn't game or time, its that your okay with someone getting an unequal chance at victory on the field.

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Unconscionable! Without three games a day, how would we... ... .... play three games in a day?!

absolutely absurd.

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

 Vaktathi wrote:
Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them.

Other games are built around players having equal time, 40K is not one of them. If you try to change one thing against the DNA of the game, you're guaranteed to have to make some knock-on changes against the DNA of the game on top to have at least a shot at making it work.

You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Because when you have 4 undefeated players at the end of a small, 16 man tournament the entire thing becomes a weird, warped game of trying to abuse tie breakers.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Because when you have 4 undefeated players at the end of a small, 16 man tournament the entire thing becomes a weird, warped game of trying to abuse tie breakers.

Then play more games on the next day. The whole bloody problem is caused by trying to force the game being played faster than it is designed to be played.

How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Stop being rational. clearly, the best option is to play one 12 hour game a day and make most tournaments 2 days 2 games (unless someone needs more time then they do two 1 day games). It's almost like your suggesting that people might want to go to a tournament to play the most games possible in a reasonable amount of time. Its almost like you're saying that you don't enjoy sitting there while your opponent takes a 2 hour turn.

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Then play smaller games. Have 1000 point tournaments if you want them to be done faster.

I think one day 2000 point tournaments are just a flawed format. For such point level a league played over a longer period of time is a way superior format.

Player fewer games in the tournament.

 Crimson wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Then play smaller games. Have 1000 point tournaments if you want them to be done faster.

I think one day 2000 point tournaments are just a flawed format. For such point level a league played over a longer period of time is a way superior format.

Except muti day format tournaments are never well attended unless as a multiday convention. Logistical necessity for many is to have a single day event.

Martel732 wrote:
Player fewer games in the tournament.

Or get the most bang for your buck and simply have a clock to manage slow players

I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Your going to have a hard time finding people willing to show up for 2 days to play only 3 games

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Many of the larger GTs have narrative events with longer slots... simply play in one of those then. Or tell tournaments what you prefer and if there are enough people with similar thoughts they will change. When they conduct surveys and polling most people don't want to go to an event to play 1 or 2 games a day

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

 Marmatag wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Hey now, if you're going to say something like that, you should at least include the Billy Madison "I award you no points" speech.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it as fact. If it's obvious you shouldn't have any trouble proving it.

They weren't going to clocks before Tony, and they had all of this data on hand then.

Wow "competitive" 40k is even more garbage than I thought. Happy to not be part of this buffoonery.

I laugh at the people trying to play three or four games a day when each game is almost three hours, and then complain about their inability to finish even one game.Wether you and your opponent are very skilled and you fast-play and manage to get a 2h game, I think it is doable, or you are not, like me and most of the people here, and you do two games.
And suddenly the need to house rules and bend the game disappear...

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it as fact. If it's obvious you shouldn't have any trouble proving it.

Because your so lazy i did a google search. In .1 seconds a found this Dakka post https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/749806.page were someone was nice enough to go through the publicly posted games and calculate the average game length (like i said ITC did this officially but thats literally the first link). The average game length at the LVO came out to be 3.9 turns meaning that a considerable amount of people felt the pain of having games go to turn 3 or 4. Enough that, like they say on there podcast every week, slow play was the number 1 complaint they have had at all their events. Now that I've given you the data and all you still have is "but but but me and my friends haven't seen this happen and we are clearly just like the rest of the community" whats your response? Slow play has been an issue in the ITC and GW official events and acting like it doesnt exsist is laughable at this point.

 godardc wrote:
Wow "competitive" 40k is even more garbage than I thought. Happy to not be part of this buffoonery.

I laugh at the people trying to play three or four games a day when each game is almost three hours, and then complain about their inability to finish even one game.Wether you and your opponent are very skilled and you fast-play and manage to get a 2h game, I think it is doable, or you are not, like me and most of the people here, and you do two games.
And suddenly the need to house rules and bend the game disappear...

No, they prefer to introduce a system that requires players to switch a clock 300 times per game (real numbers, do the math), while putting it on a 48x72 surface full of big LOS blocking elements and hundreds of models, without ever forgetting about it and without collateral damage.

I'm truly blessed by the absence of ITC in my area.

Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?