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 think the principal problems are tournament structure and point level. In 5th edition, I could finish a 1750 point game in under 2 hours without breaking a sweat. I can finish 2000 point games in 3 hours, but my big problem is time. Married with kids doesn't make 9 hour game days possible that frequently. 6 hours I can do because I can still make it home to put the kids to bed, but not 9. So I'd say they need to bring it down to 1750-ish to make the tournaments more doable.
The other problem is tournament structure. Between picking secondaries, alternating deployment, rolling off for first turn and seize the initiative, it takes 30 minutes just to set the dang game for play. It's ridiculous.
I think the solution is to have one set of rolls for who goes first, that person deploys their whole army, followed by the opponent, then have the seize the initiative roll. Then just have a set of two or three open secondaries and a primary.
Knute wrote: I think the principal problems are tournament structure and point level. In 5th edition, I could finish a 1750 point game in under 2 hours without breaking a sweat. I can finish 2000 point games in 3 hours, but my big problem is time. Married with kids doesn't make 9 hour game days possible that frequently. 6 hours I can do because I can still make it home to put the kids to bed, but not 9. So I'd say they need to bring it down to 1750-ish to make the tournaments more doable.
The other problem is tournament structure. Between picking secondaries, alternating deployment, rolling off for first turn and seize the initiative, it takes 30 minutes just to set the dang game for play. It's ridiculous.
I think the solution is to have one set of rolls for who goes first, that person deploys their whole army, followed by the opponent, then have the seize the initiative roll. Then just have a set of two or three open secondaries and a primary.
If it is taking you 30 minutes to do all the pre-game stuff, including deployment, that's too long. You really should walk up to a table and be able to assess your opponent's army and pick secondaries in a few minutes, especially in the age of BCP where you can see your opponents list quickly and easily on your own.
Knute wrote: The other problem is tournament structure. Between picking secondaries, alternating deployment, rolling off for first turn and seize the initiative, it takes 30 minutes just to set the dang game for play. It's ridiculous.
Too long. It should be 4 to 5 minutes of list exam/questioning* (if you didn't have a BCP app showing it to you before), 2 minutes to chose ITC secondaries**, terrain discuss. Roll for deployment. Additionally, with a general community tightening of WYSIWYG, it shouldn't be necessary to explain models either.
Start using the clock as soon as you drop your first dudes. Place your first unit, tap that clock and you're on your way to starting round one in well under 15 minutes from Round's beginning.
*
"What does Armour of Russ do again?"
"Bobby-Billy gets up on a what?! With HOW many wounds!?!?"
**
With ITC secondaries you really ought to plan before the tourney, rarely needing to have to chose on the hop, so much as knowing ahead, depending on what you face:
a. Head Hunter: Most tau 'net lists' witih 2 battalions are going to yield the ethereal, Cadre, Shadowsun, Coldstars, etc. Eldar/Ynnari, too.
b. With my highly mobile Drukhari, I almost always go with Recon and B.E.L. (elvish rangers & scourges). Generally a default pick for ork players.
c. Then Kingslayer for Morty or a Castellan.
d. Old School or Marked for Death, etc.
e. Facing Drukhari? Butcher's Bill.
I think that 2.5 hours isn't enough time for 2K...it's what we did in 7th, and while the armies by now have either become relatively cheaper or at least stayed the same we now play with 2k instead of 1850. The initial premise of upping to 2k points was (in my opinion) based on the complaints of tournament space marine players who lost free vehicles and Eldar players who got a much needed price hike in the transition that their armies "felt smaller" and they needed "more options". Sure, a 2k gladius list in 8th is probably the same size as a 1850 one in 7th but it ignored the effects of adding at least 150 points to every other mid-to-low tier army in the game. When you also factor in alternating deployment, stratagems, weapons with variable shots and damage, and that a lot of armies are using a 180 point addition that gives you 32 extra models there are a lot of places for the game to add time. On top of all that is the loss of corporate knowledge; for years most unit and army "profiles" stayed roughly the same, now I don't know intuitively what Tau does or how reanimation protocols works.
So yeah, I think the game needs to shrink (to bring back army selection choices instead of the ability to bring everything you want), and we probably need more time per game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/01 05:43:05
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
It went to 2k because prices in general went up in indexes. Then come codexes and everything started to get price drops but players stuck with 2k. And GW is "just as planned" as they got people to buy more models.
tneva82 wrote: It went to 2k because prices in general went up in indexes. Then come codexes and everything started to get price drops but players stuck with 2k. And GW is "just as planned" as they got people to buy more models.
*nods agreement in tin foil hat*
Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato
OverwatchCNC wrote: If it is taking you 30 minutes to do all the pre-game stuff, including deployment, that's too long. You really should walk up to a table and be able to assess your opponent's army and pick secondaries in a few minutes, especially in the age of BCP where you can see your opponents list quickly and easily on your own.
Too long. It should be 4 to 5 minutes of list exam/questioning* (if you didn't have a BCP app showing it to you before), 2 minutes to chose ITC secondaries**, terrain discuss. Roll for deployment. Additionally, with a general community tightening of WYSIWYG, it shouldn't be necessary to explain models either.
Start using the clock as soon as you drop your first dudes. Place your first unit, tap that clock and you're on your way to starting round one in well under 15 minutes from Round's beginning.
With ITC secondaries you really ought to plan before the tourney, rarely needing to have to chose on the hop, so much as knowing ahead, depending on what you face.
The issue with this attitude (and not necessarily just these posts, but the other posts that also list what a player “should” be able to do) is that it asks an awful lot of the majority of a tournaments attendees, who are mostly there to have a fun weekend away and NOT a semi-professional competitive game.
Expecting players to have pre-selected missions against certain opponents, to have pre-organised ‘sets’ of powers, to be able to assess any army in the game straight away, set up in minutes and immediately play efficiently on a chess clock with no time wasteage MIGHT be fine in an invitiational competitive event, where the small number of attendees really want that ridiculous pseudo-sport level of play.
But in any big 40k event, 80% of the players aren’t there seriously expecting to win - there there for a few days away with some friends, a few beers and some games against new opponents. They are the ones funding the event and buying the most tickets. If you try and force them to do all that stuff you’ll just lose players. I buy tickets to weekend events, and I wouldn’t buy a ticket to one where I was expected to play like that.
We have to assume that the average game at a 300-person event is between two people who probably want to chat a bit during the game, might go buy each other a beer during a movement phase, are reasonably familiar with the game but probably don’t know what EVERY unit or weapon does, don’t want to be rushed, and are mostly there for a fun few games with whatever army they currently had ready.
That’s your average attendee. Whatever size game those people can comfortably finish in the allotted time is the size the games should be set to - even if that’s 1500pts or 1250pts.
.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/03/02 13:16:21
OverwatchCNC wrote: If it is taking you 30 minutes to do all the pre-game stuff, including deployment, that's too long. You really should walk up to a table and be able to assess your opponent's army and pick secondaries in a few minutes, especially in the age of BCP where you can see your opponents list quickly and easily on your own.
Too long. It should be 4 to 5 minutes of list exam/questioning* (if you didn't have a BCP app showing it to you before), 2 minutes to chose ITC secondaries**, terrain discuss. Roll for deployment. Additionally, with a general community tightening of WYSIWYG, it shouldn't be necessary to explain models either.
Start using the clock as soon as you drop your first dudes. Place your first unit, tap that clock and you're on your way to starting round one in well under 15 minutes from Round's beginning.
With ITC secondaries you really ought to plan before the tourney, rarely needing to have to chose on the hop, so much as knowing ahead, depending on what you face.
The issue with this attitude (and not necessarily just these posts, but the other posts that also list what a player “should” be able to do) is that it asks an awful lot of the majority of a tournaments attendees, who are mostly there to have a fun weekend away and NOT a semi-professional competitive game.
Expecting players to have pre-selected missions against certain opponents, to have pre-organised ‘sets’ of powers, to be able to assess any army in the game straight away, set up in minutes and immediately play efficiently on a chess clock with no time wasteage MIGHT be fine in an invitiational competitive event, where the small number of attendees really want that ridiculous pseudo-sport level of play.
But in any big 40k event, 80% of the players aren’t there seriously expecting to win - there there for a few days away with some friends, a few beers and some games against new opponents. They are the ones funding the event and buying the most tickets. If you try and force them to do all that stuff you’ll just lose players. I buy tickets to weekend events, and I wouldn’t buy a ticket to one where I was expected to play like that.
We have to assume that the average game at a 300-person event is between two people who probably want to chat a bit during the game, might go buy each other a beer during a movement phase, are reasonably familiar with the game but probably don’t know what EVERY unit or weapon does, don’t want to be rushed, and are mostly there for a fun few games with whatever army they currently had ready.
That’s your average attendee. Whatever size game those people can comfortably finish in the allotted time is the size the games should be set to - even if that’s 1500pts or 1250pts.
.
And that's why a chess clock should be mandatory. It will punish the "casual beer drinking fun-playing" player who's only there to roll some dice and will make them run out of time, while reward the person who has made their homework and is there to try and win.
With that being said, there should also be a point drop, not more time. As many has stated before; I doubt a vast majority has the time (family/work) and/or the mental fortitude to focus 100% for nine hours (almost) straight.
And that's why a chess clock should be mandatory. It will punish the "casual beer drinking fun-playing" player who's only there to roll some dice and will make them run out of time, while reward the person who has made their homework and is there to try and win.
With that being said, there should also be a point drop, not more time. As many has stated before; I doubt a vast majority has the time (family/work) and/or the mental fortitude to focus 100% for nine hours (almost) straight.
Yeah, let’s punish the for-fun players! After all, they’re only the target audience for the game AND the people who fund the whole tournament. Can’t see that being a bad idea....
And that's why a chess clock should be mandatory. It will punish the "casual beer drinking fun-playing" player who's only there to roll some dice and will make them run out of time, while reward the person who has made their homework and is there to try and win.
With that being said, there should also be a point drop, not more time. As many has stated before; I doubt a vast majority has the time (family/work) and/or the mental fortitude to focus 100% for nine hours (almost) straight.
Yeah, let’s punish the for-fun players! After all, they’re only the target audience for the game AND the people who fund the whole tournament. Can’t see that being a bad idea....
If casuals where the target audience, GW wouldn't support tournaments at all.
If you want a tournament just for fun then lets stop the time restriction completely, and no rules about painted models or knowing the rules. No judges. Everybody is only there for fun, and it's not like you usually have a judge when you play at home, and I bet people often play with unpainted and proxied model when they play casual, so no need for WYSIWYG. Not allowing proxies and unpainted models punishes casual players that just plays for fun!
If you want to play at a competitive level then you have to know your gak! Do some studying on the other races/teams in Warhammer.
I am a casual player myself and I would probably get somewhat punished by a chess clock at a tournament. If i were to go to a serious tournament, I would sure as milkshake do some studying beforehand so I know how and what to do.
The same goes for me when I play Magic. I play casual all the time, but once a year I go to a huge tournament, and ofc I read up on weird rule interactions that might occur, new decks, new cards etc.
(edited for grammar)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/03 01:06:05
You are assuming GW game tournaments are or should be some uber competive events when it's the opposite. For competive games GW games is LAST GAME in the world to play.
Serious tournament and GW games don't make sense together except in negative sentences. "Don't try to claim GW games make sense for serious tournaments".
Elric Greywolf wrote: My current competitive list is Daemons/TSons and has roughly 150 bodies, 60 of which deep strike, which makes my Movement, Psychic, and Charge Phases extremely bloated. When I come up against another infantry-heavy list, this only intensifies. (My shooting phase takes anywhere from 30 seconds to 5 minutes, since I have two character pistols and a single unit of Horrors to shoot with).
I only get past T3 in 30% of my games, even though I am proficient in casting powers and choosing targets.
I know that this affects many competitive players. I think it's time to just go to three-hour rounds, especially considering the meta favors body-heavy lists.
tneva82 wrote: You are assuming GW game tournaments are or should be some uber competive events when it's the opposite. For competive games GW games is LAST GAME in the world to play.
Serious tournament and GW games don't make sense together except in negative sentences. "Don't try to claim GW games make sense for serious tournaments".
"You are assuming GW game tournaments are or should be some uber competive events..." No, I don't.
"... competive events when it's the opposite..." No, it's not. Uber casual would mean proxies, unpainted models, no judges etc. The word "opposite" doesn't mean what you think it means. The opposite of "yes" isn't "maybe".
Yeah, I do agree that Warhammer isn't -or will ever be- balanced enough for completely balanced games, but there's tournaments still, and they -and we- try to make them as fair and balanced as possible. GW does this by trying to balancing costs, stratagems and so on.
OverwatchCNC wrote: If it is taking you 30 minutes to do all the pre-game stuff, including deployment, that's too long. You really should walk up to a table and be able to assess your opponent's army and pick secondaries in a few minutes, especially in the age of BCP where you can see your opponents list quickly and easily on your own.
Brothererekose wrote: Too long. It should be 4 to 5 minutes of list exam/questioning* (if you didn't have a BCP app showing it to you before), 2 minutes to chose ITC secondaries**, terrain discuss. Roll for deployment. Additionally, with a general community tightening of WYSIWYG, it shouldn't be necessary to explain models either.
Start using the clock as soon as you drop your first dudes. Place your first unit, tap that clock and you're on your way to starting round one in well under 15 minutes from Round's beginning.
With ITC secondaries you really ought to plan before the tourney, rarely needing to have to chose on the hop, so much as knowing ahead, depending on what you face.
The issue with this attitude (and not necessarily just these posts, but the other posts that also list what a player “should” be able to do) is that it asks an awful lot of the majority of a tournaments attendees, who are mostly there to have a fun weekend away and NOT a semi-professional competitive game.
Arbitorian,
I don't think "semi-professional" is a term to be used. I think there's a handful of guys out there, two: Nic Nanavati for one, maybe Sean Nayden, who are trying to make a go of 'professional' status; meaning, they're getting sponsors (wearing shirts like NASCAR drivers) & trying to make money with consultations. Brandon Grant, who continues to wrack up more GT wins than anyone else I can name, *doesn't* have sponsors on his shirt, and (I believe) still has a regular job. I wouldn't call him professional, Top Notch competitive, but not professional.
"Professional" connotates "paid to do that" and only N.N. does 40k for his paycheck (that Brown Magic consultation service) that I can say for certain.
I think the rest of us fall into either 'casual', which you're making a good case to describe, or 'competitive', those who have a serious intent to win the tourney.
ArbitorIan wrote: Expecting players to have pre-selected missions (you mean secondary missions) against certain opponents, to have pre-organised ‘sets’ of powers, to be able to assess any army in the game straight away,
Not this, i didn't say assess 'straight away'. Top 8 players still take a couple minutes to look things over, remember what stuff does and all that. 5 minutes of asking an opponent, "What does that do?" is normal for the big boys, with few exceptions.
ArbitorIan wrote: ... set up in minutes and immediately play efficiently on a chess clock with no time wasteage MIGHT be fine in an invitiational competitive event, where the small number of attendees really want that ridiculous pseudo-sport level of play.
I'm trying not to be contrary and simply say you're wrong, but this is *exactly* what I experience, at the monthly RTTs I attend, the several 'open' GTs I attend, LVO, BAO, SoCal Open, Braodside Bash, Hammer of Wrath. They're all 'open' events, not invitationals.
For years, I'd say about half the players do (most of) what you've noted in your last paragraph. The newBees don't. But that's okay, we have a fun time and sometimes (like this last GT) we takes breaks to replenish at the bar (I went 0-3 Saturday so Sunday's two games were super casual. Both opponents 4&5 and I made bar trips).
ArbitorIan wrote: But in any big 40k event, 80% of the players aren’t there seriously expecting to win - there there for a few days away with some friends, a few beers and some games against new opponents. They are the ones funding the event and buying the most tickets. If you try and force them to do all that stuff you’ll just lose players. I buy tickets to weekend events, and I wouldn’t buy a ticket to one where I was expected to play like that.
Again, my observations of new players at these events do not support your assertion. The ITC continues to grow, every year, so the empirical data contradicts your assertion, or I should say, Maxed out attendances for most GTs and the biggest LVO ever speaks to refute your assertion.
ArbitorIan wrote: We have to assume that the average game at a 300-person event is between two people who probably want to chat a bit during the game, might go buy each other a beer during a movement phase, are reasonably familiar with the game but probably don’t know what EVERY unit or weapon does, don’t want to be rushed, and are mostly there for a fun few games with whatever army they currently had ready.
That’s your average attendee. Whatever size game those people can comfortably finish in the allotted time is the size the games should be set to - even if that’s 1500pts or 1250pts.
I agree, adding that only Top 8 players types will know every danged unit, weapon, relic, etc. As for finishing games, most players do. I don't have an empirical number, but post game discussion at bars and restaurants indicate that most games finish at 2k and 3 hours, and then half-ish games at 2.5 hours, Tau, Drukhari, IG and orks feeling a pinch.
Keep in mind, I often end up in the kiddie pool, usually losing my first two games. My Win-Loss ratio is pretty much 50% or worse. I'm possibly the definitive 'average' player. And, *I* like to use the clock to keep myself 'trained' and moving along (my turn disembarking 3 units of wyches, all the shooting, charging raiders, charging girls, the combats, FnP rolls, can take up to 45+ minutes!) so my opponent gets fair time, but often, I tell the other guy, who is also 0-3, that *he* need not worry about the clock, he can keep playing over the time.
To speed up things I use movement trays, I have color-coded the bases by painting the edges to separate different units and I have color-coded my dice so that I hav 20 of each color (so if I roll 63 dice I just grab the blue, the red, the black + 3 more)
BUT
The other player does not.
They don't seem prepared to face my army and that takes longer.
They spend time counting up their dice for all saves from my boyz, they spend a good deal of time on moving their units (because I take up much space on the table) and they appear to be in some sort of panic by the sight of all my troops….and so they become careful ….and slow.
….then there is the whole deal with them thinking about how to remove killed models(should I take the leader or the guy with the flamer?).
I do accept that I must play fast, but I also claim that I expect the other player to be ready to face a large force.
Its very simple.
You show up for a Game.
I show up for a Game.
You and me together jointly have a limited amount of time,
You and me both get to choose whichever army to bring to any event.
There is no Argument to be made, that either You or Me should have claim to a larger portion of our alotted time than the other.
Therefore, Chessclocks are always good;
they ensure that both You and Me get to play for half the total Time, and they ensure that our Game gets to be wrapped up within the alotted time.
Many things said in this thread are also true;
I feel very strained after a tournament day,
I think Pointsizes should go down.
I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body!
The core rules are one of the largest problems with how long it takes. 8th edition added all sorts of time wasting BS like re-rolls for literally everything, additional D6 rolls for a huge amount of events (shots, damage, FnP excessively used, shoot twice, etc) and even more true los minutia. Every single dice you roll increases the time a game takes, and this is the most dice heavy edition ever.
Sure, players are slow but let's not discount GW's writing.
Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,
archont wrote: Its very simple. You show up for a Game. I show up for a Game. You and me together jointly have a limited amount of time, You and me both get to choose whichever army to bring to any event.
There is no Argument to be made, that either You or Me should have claim to a larger portion of our alotted time than the other.
Therefore, Chessclocks are always good; they ensure that both You and Me get to play for half the total Time, and they ensure that our Game gets to be wrapped up within the alotted time.
Many things said in this thread are also true; I feel very strained after a tournament day, I think Pointsizes should go down.
Agree with feeling very strained in tournaments and with points going down. Personally, I tend to only take really simple and fast armies to tournaments to have fun so that I get a decent break between games.
However, I think it's worth saying that there has never been any rule, consideration or expectation of 'equal player time' in games of Warhammer. Some armies are larger than others, some armies take longer to play. This is fine. If your army is bigger, or has complex rules that take longer to play, then your turns take longer than mine. The rules of the game are fine with that. If you have more units, you take more time - there is no expectation that our turns should take the same amount of time, and it's absolutely fair for both players to take as long as they need.
I'd go further and say that, in a game of 40k, each player should be able to play all of their units each turn. Forcing a player with 20 units to take the same amount of time as another player with 10 units is ABSOLUTELY NOT part of the rules, or 'fair'.
Of course, tournament play is a weird alternate version of 40k, and has artificial time limits that the real 40k shouldn't have. If that means we need to force people to follow additional meta-changing rules to make the tournament work, then fine. But we should also be aware that 'equal time' isn't and never has been part of 40k, and by introducing the concept, we force the meta in a different direction and further separate 'tournament 40k' from 'real 40k'.
The only way to keep this is to set the points to a level where two average/slowish players with two horde armies can comfortably finish in time. If that means 1250pts or 1000pts, then fine.
..
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/11 17:13:31
oni wrote: Firstly, chess clocks are not the answer. ....
Depends on the question: do you want equal play time? Then yes, chess clocks are the best tool right now. Do you want a full game (5+ turns)? Then no, a chess clock doesn't help... I don't like it when you need to rush turn 4 and call it a game because at that point it's all about the objectives that you scored the first 3 turns and sometimes it didn't matter what you actually did on the battlefield. To many games I evaluated and thought; ' If we both just did nothing or the bare minimum to score objectives, then the result would actually be the same'.
archont wrote: Its very simple.
You show up for a Game.
I show up for a Game.
You and me together jointly have a limited amount of time,
You and me both get to choose whichever army to bring to any event.
There is no Argument to be made, that either You or Me should have claim to a larger portion of our alotted time than the other.
Therefore, Chessclocks are always good;
they ensure that both You and Me get to play for half the total Time, and they ensure that our Game gets to be wrapped up within the alotted time.
Many things said in this thread are also true;
I feel very strained after a tournament day,
I think Pointsizes should go down.
The problem is that the other player will do things in my turn as well.
-Rolling saves
-Fighting in close combat
-Removing killed models
-Heroic interventions
-Overwatch
-Using stratagems
etc
Anyway
With a chessclock I would suggest more time in the start of the game and less towards the end.
Like:
20 min setup
20 min per player at turn 1 & 2
15 min per player at turn 3
10 min per player at turn 4 & 5
5 min per player at turn 6
= 180 min
Every turn you remove models and comand points, so the game gets quicker.
archont wrote: Its very simple.
You show up for a Game.
I show up for a Game.
You and me together jointly have a limited amount of time,
You and me both get to choose whichever army to bring to any event.
There is no Argument to be made, that either You or Me should have claim to a larger portion of our alotted time than the other.
Therefore, Chessclocks are always good;
they ensure that both You and Me get to play for half the total Time, and they ensure that our Game gets to be wrapped up within the alotted time.
Many things said in this thread are also true;
I feel very strained after a tournament day,
I think Pointsizes should go down.
Agree with feeling very strained in tournaments and with points going down. Personally, I tend to only take really simple and fast armies to tournaments to have fun so that I get a decent break between games.
However, I think it's worth saying that there has never been any rule, consideration or expectation of 'equal player time' in games of Warhammer. Some armies are larger than others, some armies take longer to play. This is fine. If your army is bigger, or has complex rules that take longer to play, then your turns take longer than mine. The rules of the game are fine with that. If you have more units, you take more time - there is no expectation that our turns should take the same amount of time, and it's absolutely fair for both players to take as long as they need.
I'd go further and say that, in a game of 40k, each player should be able to play all of their units each turn. Forcing a player with 20 units to take the same amount of time as another player with 10 units is ABSOLUTELY NOT part of the rules, or 'fair'.
Of course, tournament play is a weird alternate version of 40k, and has artificial time limits that the real 40k shouldn't have. If that means we need to force people to follow additional meta-changing rules to make the tournament work, then fine. But we should also be aware that 'equal time' isn't and never has been part of 40k, and by introducing the concept, we force the meta in a different direction and further separate 'tournament 40k' from 'real 40k'.
The only way to keep this is to set the points to a level where two average/slowish players with two horde armies can comfortably finish in time. If that means 1250pts or 1000pts, then fine.
..
I agree that at its core, 40K was not designed to be played in tournaments. That doesn't stop many people, including myself, from trying to do so for a myriad of perfectly valid reasons. For a time, GW had Tournament Rules, but they left that gig and now its up to "the community."
If I am playing somebody at my house then time is not a finite, closely metred resource. If you bring Orks and I bring my Deathwing and we have a 2000 point game we could spend four hours playing with you getting three of those hours to move your giant horde with me not taking much time at all to move my much smaller force.
In a tournament, however, time is a finite resource. Without controls a horde player could eat most of the clock, and perhaps even plan to do so, simply by bringing so many models. The fair way to handle it at a tournament is to give each player an equal amount of time. No requirements for judges to rule as to what is "slow play." At first I was against them, but I think that chess clocks are a great idea for tournaments.
I should say, however, that I know some "horde" players who are able to play very fast and skillfully without using movement trays. The point remains, however, that if time is finite in a competitive environment then it should be divided equally just like points.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
One problem with the chess-clock is what to do if the time expires.
If there is an full stop, then people might abuse it to avoid the fight phase. (if their guardsmen are in close combat e.g.)
...or slow play in the other players phase to prevent them from charging at all.
Jens_Friberg wrote: One problem with the chess-clock is what to do if the time expires.
If there is an full stop, then people might abuse it to avoid the fight phase. (if their guardsmen are in close combat e.g.)
...or slow play in the other players phase to prevent them from charging at all.
The chess clock rules used by the ITC prevent this sort of abuse. The game doesn't end when one person gets to 0 time left, they just can't take any actions other than to react to what their opponent does. Chess clocks were used by a number of players at the recent LVO and seemed to work quite well, with none of the theoretical issues opponents of the system always bring up.
BaconCatBug wrote: Lower the points cost to 1750, one warning for slow play, DQ for second slow play.
... aaand how does one measure slow play? Seriously, BCB, how would you, as a judge, measure how a player is slowing playing versus his opponent? Objectively?
How do we measure time? Accurately?
Answer: Chess Clocks.
I have been using mine for a year now. They eliminate Slow Play. They guarantee equal amounts of play in your 2.5 or 3 hour round. Arguments counter to their use in tourneys ... I assert you simply don't use them and therefore, don't know what you're talking about.
And, they eliminate the task of a Tourney Official from enforcing Slow Play penalties, because Slow Play only hurts the player doing it. And TOs could definitely benefit from One-Less-Task.
Anecdotal:
A guy brought a Warhound Scout Titan (the one with 35 wounds) to a recent GT. He went 1 Win, 4 Losses. Fun was had, even by the guy he defeated. He brought it, so he'd have more time to bring pitchers of beer to tables. And he brought lots of pitchers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jens_Friberg wrote: One problem with the chess-clock is what to do if the time expires.
Um. Have you actually experienced this? When I have ran out of time (about 8 or so times in the last year) I simply makes saves. No FNP, no moves. Nothing else. Same for my opponent. This has not been a problem.
When my time is zero, my opponent gets his Turn 5 or 6, with his 10 or 20 or however many minutes left. He will likely get kill one, kill more, and likely, push my units off objectives and score those.
Example:
Let's say Bob runs of time at the top of turn 5. He moves units, starts to roll dice to shoot, but his time runs out. Fran still has 12 minutes on her clock. Bob doesn't get to roll to wound because he's done. He can score any objectives points & secondaries but then Fran gets her time.
Fran takes her turn 5. Move units, psy phase. Shoot enemies. Bob rolls saves only, no FNP, and if Bob is a douche and tries to lolly gag through her turn by dithering over which models to remove, she can call a judge over. The TO could pause the clock (according to ITC rules, players don't pause the clock, only judges can. That's straight from Mr. Raspy voice himself). Fran goes the fight phase. Again, Bob doesn't roll dice to fight back, only saves.
Fran's turn 5 is over and she still has 4 minutes. Bob has no time for turn 6, so it goes right back to Fran, who again, can use her 4 minutes to Move, Psy-cast, Shoot and Fight.
I see no problem in all that and I have been in both situations, having more time than an opponent and running out of time (and won and loss in both circumstances).
Jens_Friberg wrote: If there is an full stop, then people might abuse it to avoid the fight phase. (if their guardsmen are in close combat e.g.)
...or slow play in the other players phase to prevent them from charging at all.
When it's time for the opponent to make saves or pull models on your turn, simply reach over and tap their time. It now runs on them. When they're done pulling their dead dudes, they'll reach over and tap the clock putting it back an your time, which you'll then use to roll hits & wounds for the next fight. And you retap when he has to make saves, roll FNP and pull the dead.
Jens_Friberg wrote: If there is an full stop, then people might abuse it to avoid the fight phase. (if their guardsmen are in close combat e.g.)
Jens_Friberg wrote: One problem with the chess-clock is what to do if the time expires.
If there is an full stop, then people might abuse it to avoid the fight phase. (if their guardsmen are in close combat e.g.)
...or slow play in the other players phase to prevent them from charging at all.
The chess clock rules used by the ITC prevent this sort of abuse. The game doesn't end when one person gets to 0 time left, they just can't take any actions other than to react to what their opponent does. Chess clocks were used by a number of players at the recent LVO and seemed to work quite well, with none of the theoretical issues opponents of the system always bring up.
Absolutely! This +1.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/13 02:15:47
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
While there are still arguments against chess clocks from a mechanical standpoint, I think the main argument that used to oppose them now exists in parallel: chess clocks are fine, we just need more time per round or smaller armies because the games are rushed.
FWIW, I played in a 1250 pt local RTT about 8 months ago...and it was an extremely fun experience. CA2017 missions, but there were still variants on the common netlists (including Castellans). With 2.5 hour rounds it was refreshing to not feel rushed during the game. But more than that, each decision felt more important because there was less stuff on the table and everyone I played talked about having to make decisions, real decisions in list building. So, I think that reducing points has some additional benefits beyond simply ensuring games finish naturally.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Renegades - 
