View Full Version : Preferred Time Limit for Tournament Games

09-07-2009, 15:05
Avian's poll regarding games played in a day inspired me to make this thread. I am curious as to how long people feel they need or prefer to have in a game. Assume that the points limit is 2,250.

I like to have 2.5 hours for games, because I feel that I can be much more relaxed and friendly with that little extra time.

What do y'all think?

09-07-2009, 15:10
I said 2 hours. If you have two vet players (what you'd expect in a tournament) there should be no reason to not be able to finish a game in 2 hours). In fact most of mine are done in about an hour and a half or less.

09-07-2009, 15:20
2.5 hours allows space for late starts due to X not happening quite right, and also lets people with heavy infantry armies and hordes the ability to set up properly, not feeling like they just have to dump everything down just to get started.

Sillyhammer armies like deathstars need shorter games, but they shouldn't be the standard.

09-07-2009, 15:45
I usually end a game in a couple of hours, but due to my armies' extensive movement phase (the only real phase they get, usually), 2 hours tend to make the game too hectic for my liking.
I, too, prefer 2,5 hours that include setting up, getting to know your opponent and his army, discussing terrain, playing the full 6 turns and then having a small break before the next game.
I find that it's the first two turns that take up most of a game's time, things tend to run smoothly from then on. (battleplans are laid and people stick to their plan and only stop to adapt it if something goes wrong)

09-07-2009, 15:48
2h. While a game can be finished in less than 2h, it can get a bit hectic, and the stress factor really lowers the enjoyment you get out of a game.

09-07-2009, 15:49
2 hours is not enough. i lost first place in the last tournament cause my last opponent was slower than hell and he got his third turn but because of time i didnt get my third turn and we ended in a draw after my first two games were massacre victories for me. end result i lost first place by less then 100 total VP's. each of my first two games went much quick and my opponent and I got 5 turns in each of them.

i completely agree with afnord

09-07-2009, 16:23
Two hours should be plenty, even with a bit of time for conversation and an after-game analysis. In truth though, sometimes you come up against someone who just plays really slowly - I've had games where I've made really stupid moves because I was rushing so much to compensate for their slow play. More annoying yet is the defensive players whose games mysteriously don't get to turn 5 or 6, where their shooters are going to finally get caught...

Hence I voted 2.5 hours - just cram them a little closer together and if you finish early there's no harm done whatsoever

Count Zero
09-07-2009, 17:52
for 2k two hours is enough, i don't really have any experience at 2.25k so would add an extra half an hour. Slow opponents can ruin a game though.

09-07-2009, 20:52
Two and a half hours sounds about right, most players know their armies and what they want to do with them.

09-07-2009, 21:14
The last tournament I went to, my longest game was 1 hour, and most of that was setting up...

Erie Ed
09-07-2009, 21:16
2 1/2 hours not rushed but not too slow either

09-07-2009, 21:18
2 hours is more than enough for up to 2 500. If your opponent is playing slowly, call them out on it. It's part of a sportsmanship score normally and if they are deliberately playing slowly call them out to the T.O. - it is a type of cheating.

2 hours gives enough time for placing your army (as many tables are pre-set up) and clean up after the game. First game for most tournaments, players are required to be there at least 30 minutes early and this gives you extra set up time for the first game. Armies tend to take the same amount of time to set up regardless of size anyway - You do use army movement trays don't you?

09-07-2009, 22:55
normally, two and a hald hours are all right, but sometimes, even in tournaments, the games happen to be very tactics-oriented, and then both players need to slow down a bit to avoid making any mistakes. in these cases two and a half hours are not enough. worse yet, there are some players that are slow (not deliberately slow, they just have this tempo) - in thsuch cases a game can take as much as four hours to play or even longer (we do have one guy like that; in the last tournament, we used the whole three-hour limit, and then played during the whole one-hour lunch break, as well - the organizers allowed that)

but in general, the norm here is three hours for a game in a tournament (which includes setting up etc, but doesn't include the 15-minutes break between games; that one is in addition to the three hours). so I voted for 3+

09-07-2009, 23:01
I said 2 hours. If you have two vet players (what you'd expect in a tournament) there should be no reason to not be able to finish a game in 2 hours). In fact most of mine are done in about an hour and a half or less.

I agree with malorian. most games among peoples that have a decent knowledge of the rules are done somewhere between 1.5-2 hours.

10-07-2009, 14:32
There have definitely been some pretty interesting points raised. I very rarely don't finish my games on time and the times it has occurred (maybe 3-4 in ~130 tourney games) have usually been because of a new opponent or a late start. I feel that 2 hours is good enough for me basically all of the time, but I recognize that there are many people there who like to play a bit more slowly or may be newer to the game, and their happiness is just as important as mine.

That's why I enjoy 2.5 hour rounds. The extra time allows for: new players, relaxed players, and even drunk players! :P