PDA

View Full Version : Tournament Practice + Time Limits



Escaflowne_Z
05-12-2011, 20:33
Greetings, all.

Got a game in yesterday against a good friend. He found out there is an upcoming tournament, so wanted to get practice in for it with his tournament level Grey Knight list. (Crowe, Purifiers, paladins, psyrifle dreads, ya know). He added a 250 point librarian to his list, and I added 3 sentinels and a hellhound to mine to get to the tournament's 2,250 point level.

To explain, we had kind of been avoiding a game like this, as somehow I actually made a very competitive army for once, and Guard are uniquely suited to take on Grey Knights. I got out of the tournament scene myself a long time ago, it just wasn't what I was looking for in my games. My friend still loves it, but is still a great guy to throw down a garage game with.

So, on we played, his GK versus my 123 model Guard list. As expected, my Vendetta got blown to smithereens as soon as it outflanked, so there went my chance to take his objective, and everything he brought into my Guard's medium range killzone got whittled down so badly that even the paladins and purifiers couldn't trash my battle line and survive. His turn 5 and 6 objective grab failed, so voila, a draw.

The game itself was fun enough, with the normal dogpile close combats, Yarrick chasing after things much bigger than himself, a couple hundred las rounds flying around, both sides getting unlucky with leadership tests, praising and berating our dice and plastic toys with equal measure. :)

We talked after about what could have perhaps been done differently, and the only thing we could come up with was perhaps it would have been better for him to deepstrike the paladins and librarian at one end of my battle line and use summoning to pull things through, then roll up one flank. Still a risky proposition. As for me, it would have been a crap tournament army, because any game involving my Guard just can't be completed in a 2 or 2.5 hour time limit.

The end result was me looking at him and saying that his army was fine, and would trash most things at the local tourney just fine, because to fit the time limit, no one can bring the type of army that I did from any codex, because it would just take too long.

Anyway, tl:dr version: Are the speed games at tournaments excessively limiting to other players too? I think I could live with the inevitable headache, mental fatigue, lack of room, occasional crappy opponent, and cut throat gameplay/list, but I absolutely hate being rushed when I play. I am not talking about stalling, just the fact that it takes a fair bit of time to deploy 100+ infantry models into the correct units, move them, shoot with them, do assaults, etc. I drop enough of my models at a normal pace, I shudder to think what my klutziness might lead to if I was tossing deployments down at tournament speed. It seems to me that the MSU phenomenon exists partially because of the time limits, since such armies are much faster to deploy and play.

Chapters Unwritten
05-12-2011, 20:47
I think it's a good balancing factor, honestly. Horde armies are a bit on the mindless side; just loading up on hundreds of models lets you have basically an excuse to inadvertently slow-play.

I can understand hating being rushed but honestly, the problem of being rushed is more or less the problem of the player. You certainly don't have to have a huge army, and it's at least courteous to attempt to move it quickly if you do. Also, while I know you might be making careful considerations while moving that huge number of models, you should bear in mind that, as guardsmen, you don't need to be quite so meticulous. Where one unit fails two more will be able to take it's place in a list like that; there is no need to be so meticulous, honestly, and taking 45+ minute turns is just a discourtesy to your opponent.

In our events planned for the future we planned on zero-scoring games that don't complete turn 4 minimum, and

lolplates
05-12-2011, 20:55
You could treat it like timed chess. If your mate wants a practice opponent against a hard list, then I would recommend using a stopwatch. Most phones should have the ability for timers. Guard are strong and I would be surprised if he didn't get at least one infantry list. See how you two go with 10 minutes a turn.

Make timing part of the scoring system.

Theocracity
05-12-2011, 20:59
I think it's a bit unfair to say that horde armies require less skill. As an ork player, it takes a lot of thought to position my hordes in such a way as to maximize utility of my powerklaw and special weapons, in addition to all the problems of maneuvering effectively for cover, line of sight, and difficult terrain.

Having numbers helps, but it's a lot easier to be caught in a bad position by already mobile MSU style army.

I think that time limits are a hinderance to seeing hordes at tournament play, but I don't think that's all. Current transport rules make it a very very effective strategy for lots of reasons in game.

Vaktathi
05-12-2011, 21:00
There's a reason you don't see gunline infantry IG armies, green tide orks, and the like at tournaments, it's not that they're bad, and it's not because Horde armies don't require any less skill or capability, often moreso as they quite likely lack many of the specialized weapons and/or mobility options of other armies, so that excuse feels fairly bunk, but rather much is done to make them basically unusable in order to make it so that events can host ever higher numbers of people with very large armies and finish within a timespan that allows them to get in enough rounds to feel good about it.

From restriction on display boards being 2'x2' (try fitting many armies on that), to 2 hour rounds with 2k or even 2500pt games where army sizes have increased 33-50% in the last decade, and more, not even taking into account issues of transport and travel.

It shouldn't take 45 mins for a horde army to take its turns, but even if it takes 15 minutes, if you go 6 turns, that's an hour and a half, meaning either your opponent only takes 5 minutes for each turn, or you don't get through 6 rounds.

althathir
05-12-2011, 21:44
I think it's a good balancing factor, honestly. Horde armies are a bit on the mindless side; just loading up on hundreds of models lets you have basically an excuse to inadvertently slow-play.

I can understand hating being rushed but honestly, the problem of being rushed is more or less the problem of the player. You certainly don't have to have a huge army, and it's at least courteous to attempt to move it quickly if you do. Also, while I know you might be making careful considerations while moving that huge number of models, you should bear in mind that, as guardsmen, you don't need to be quite so meticulous. Where one unit fails two more will be able to take it's place in a list like that; there is no need to be so meticulous, honestly, and taking 45+ minute turns is just a discourtesy to your opponent.

In our events planned for the future we planned on zero-scoring games that don't complete turn 4 minimum, and

Horde armies aren't mindless, they tend to be slower so initial deployment is more important, and they have to screen key units but be able to use them when they need them (which is a hard balance to achieve). Honestly lists like razor spam are a lot more mindless than a horde anyday. His main point that time limits don't let him play the type of army he enjoys in tournaments is valid, its not a question of him not being courteous (he is basically not playing at least in part because of that).

IMO tournies really shouldn't go over 2000 points and 1850 really should be the standard with 2:00 hour limit (set to 5 turns wouldn't hurt either), because the current time limits at 2000 plus points make it so some strong interesting armies have to sit things out, and if were going have the discussions like we do about tiers and which army is the best we should at least try and have a system designed to see which one is the best without making some unplayable.

That said where are you getting 45 min turns from? If thats from personal experience i'm sorry cause that would be a rough game.


There's a reason you don't see gunline infantry IG armies, green tide orks, and the like at tournaments, it's not that they're bad, and it's not because Horde armies don't require any less skill or capability, often moreso as they quite likely lack many of the specialized weapons and/or mobility options of other armies, so that excuse feels fairly bunk, but rather much is done to make them basically unusable in order to make it so that events can host ever higher numbers of people with very large armies and finish within a timespan that allows them to get in enough rounds to feel good about it.

From restriction on display boards being 2'x2' (try fitting many armies on that), to 2 hour rounds with 2k or even 2500pt games where army sizes have increased 33-50% in the last decade, and more, not even taking into account issues of transport and travel.

It shouldn't take 45 mins for a horde army to take its turns, but even if it takes 15 minutes, if you go 6 turns, that's an hour and a half, meaning either your opponent only takes 5 minutes for each turn, or you don't get through 6 rounds.

Yeah transport is key, elite forces always have an advantage because they take up less space, and imperial forces work better with the older army cases.

Its ironic but I actually think the current system has somewhat kept guard in check, between time limits, the limitations you listed (123 infantry models plus support isn't gonna fit on a 2'x2' board, and the effort to build and paint that many models cause they do really well when you consider how small a proportion of most tournies they make up.

Ravenous
05-12-2011, 21:53
Memorize the rules and the order of operations and you play super fast.


I can get a 1850pt game done in 45minutes to an hour with a Ork horde against other well versed opponents.

Bunnahabhain
05-12-2011, 22:05
Practice, decisiveness and discipline can make it possible to play hordes in tight time limits. 2000pts in 2 hrs is certainly possible

If your opponent makes problems for you, then you've got no chance of getting though in time.

carldooley
05-12-2011, 22:18
As a rule I try to keep my numbers on the board to about 30-50 models. I play guard, and if a disembarked squad is still around on my next turn, it is likely going to end up in the same area that it was in when its transport was destroyed.

Ravenous
05-12-2011, 22:32
If your opponent makes problems for you, then you've got no chance of getting though in time.

Saw that at a tournament this weekend, at 2 hours they were just finishing turn 3, I'd almost think its a slow play tactic.

althathir
05-12-2011, 22:49
Memorize the rules and the order of operations and you play super fast.


I can get a 1850pt game done in 45minutes to an hour with a Ork horde against other well versed opponents.

Play speed varies from player to player, and you can't count on the other player being as well versed as you are.


Practice, decisiveness and discipline can make it possible to play hordes in tight time limits. 2000pts in 2 hrs is certainly possible

If your opponent makes problems for you, then you've got no chance of getting though in time.

Its the second part that I think is key, I really haven't had any worse experiences in tournies than pickup games but putting your opponent in a position to control the game is far from desirable. Thats where the time limits in my mind do have an effect cause if you don't have to risk it, why would you risk it?


As a rule I try to keep my numbers on the board to about 30-50 models. I play guard, and if a disembarked squad is still around on my next turn, it is likely going to end up in the same area that it was in when its transport was destroyed.

The thing is Escaflowne_Z has an army style that he likes, and we don't know if thats an option for him.

I tend to sympathize with Escaflowne_Z because....

1) The game isn't fun for me unless I feel like I can use the units that I like. I understand that can put me at a disadvantage and thats fine but if he isn't meched up and doesn't want to he shouldn't have too. That decision shouldn't make him rule out tournies.

2) For all the talk we do about which army is the best, which units are the best, etc. we don't have a tournament system that really reflects that. I'm not saying his list is the best or thats even his concern but he shouldn't feel that a time limit stops him from using that list in tourney. That barrier stops our tournaments from having any sense of legitimacy in my mind because horde guard, orcs, or even nids could be a top army and we don't discuss them cause the tournament scene makes it harder to run them.

edit: 1000th post, proof I have no life :)

Buddha777
05-12-2011, 22:58
Gah this happens to be my biggest beef in tournies is the lack of time limits on players turns. Horde armies, not necessarily the fault of the owning player, are always my least desired opponent to play in tournaments because they take so ******* long to complete a single turn.

Of course, I've played opponents who specifically waste time due to their horde and try to win that way.

My suggestion to the OP is to keep to a 15-20min turn maximum and get yourself in the habit of moving fast, because your opponent may well not.

Escaflowne_Z
05-12-2011, 23:17
Small point of order: at 2,250 points I had 123 total models. 2 chimeras, vendetta, 3 sentinels, hellhound, Leman Russ, Leman Russ Demolisher, and Medusa are my vehicles.

I also have a company(ish) of Blood Angels, so I can easily see the difference in play speed between my BA armies that contains 40-60 models in 2,000 points and my Guard. I defy anyone to have two FRFSRF orders go off in one turn to TWO 30 man blob squads and get that turn done in 15 minutes, heh.

Anyway, I long ago decided that I prefer the game of 40k that is more casual, and not the game of 40k that is more competition driven. Not that I don't take the game seriously, I just don't enjoy the more structured and forceful environment. I have other interests for that part of my personality.

Rated_lexxx
06-12-2011, 01:11
If there was no time limit one round could easily go 4 or 5 hours. You have to find a way to fit at least 3 rounds in a day and a time limit is the way to go.

I don't feel rushed in any tounry I run and I play orks.

Chapters Unwritten
06-12-2011, 06:22
Horde armies aren't mindless, they tend to be slower so initial deployment is more important, and they have to screen key units but be able to use them when they need them (which is a hard balance to achieve). Honestly lists like razor spam are a lot more mindless than a horde anyday. His main point that time limits don't let him play the type of army he enjoys in tournaments is valid, its not a question of him not being courteous (he is basically not playing at least in part because of that).
I consider any army where the crux is repetition of one effective thing to be by and large thoughtless. That isn't to mean any disrespect to the players, but to my mind, 6 Razorbacks is no more mindless than 6 30-man Boyz squads. I consider guard spam the worst of these conceptually because the early shooting phases are stupidly long and usually consist of repeating your initial attempt at a goal until it succeeds. It's not very fun (nor does it take a lot of skill or strategy) to roll for tons of multilasers and autocannons until one eventually succeeds.

Ork players do irritate me a bit in the regard that they have some decent options for mechanization, with great models, and instead keep having this idea that they need to be a mob of fools running across the board. In fact, any of these stories of horde players who must carefully and cleverly utilize each unit are lost on me. I do not ever see this; what I see is guys who scream WAAAGGGGGHHH at the top of their lungs and run straight for the nearest living thing on the board regardless of whether it will pound them into green paste or not. Slowly. In the open.

I don't doubt that it takes talent to play these armies well, mind you; just that the sort of fellow who has that talent, also could more than likely finish a game in less than three hours.

And I'm sorry, but nobody should take twice as long as their opponent in any given phase except maybe the assault phase, depending what's going on.

I really do hope 6th edition speeds things up a bit...it would be nice to play in a tournament without constant slow-play accusations being flung back and forth.

I'm planning a big tournament in the future and we're hoping to find some way to alleviate this problem, among others.

Vaktathi
06-12-2011, 06:49
I consider any army where the crux is repetition of one effective thing to be by and large thoughtless. That isn't to mean any disrespect to the players, but to my mind, 6 Razorbacks is no more mindless than 6 30-man Boyz squads. The boyz have much more to consider in terms of manuever, to ensure their formation is spread out enough to mitigate blast and template weapons, but also coherent enough to take advantage of cover and get enough guys into an assault and/or shooting distance to make their numbers count, and do it all within the movement guidelines. There's actually a lot of movement fiddliness to a horde army. If you're doing movement exactly as you're actually supposed to, measuring full movement for each model and ensuring coherency, it can take an age to properly move and position a big 20-30 strong unit.


I consider guard spam the worst of these conceptually because the early shooting phases are stupidly long and usually consist of repeating your initial attempt at a goal until it succeeds. It's not very fun (nor does it take a lot of skill or strategy) to roll for tons of multilasers and autocannons until one eventually succeeds. If their opponent is gracious enough to give them clear firing lanes, clear concentration targets, no refused flank, etc, in which case it's no different than any other gunline be it GK's throwing down masses of psybolt autocannons/psycannons/etc, razorfang spam throwing out two dozen+ S8/9 shots a turn, etc.



Ork players do irritate me a bit in the regard that they have some decent options for mechanization, with great models, and instead keep having this idea that they need to be a mob of fools running across the board. Because it's a fairly gigantic part of the Ork archetype with clear thematic inspiration and Ork's can't mechanize everything like other armies can? The Green Tide is a big part of what draws many to play Orks.



I don't doubt that it takes talent to play these armies well, mind you; just that the sort of fellow who has that talent, also could more than likely finish a game in less than three hours. When you have to move, shoot, and assault with triple digit numbers of models, it can often take a while. 3 hours is usually good, but most tournaments are 2 hours and have remained 2 hours even with armies getting larger for a given numbers of points and tournament point sizes increasing (how many big events still play 1500? very few). Try playing 'ard boyz 2500pts in 2 hours with many armies, it's not easy.



And I'm sorry, but nobody should take twice as long as their opponent in any given phase except maybe the assault phase, depending what's going on. Hrm, why not? Should not Imperial Guard take noticeably longer in their shooting phases than a jump-heavy Descent of Angels BA list, a Draigowing Paladin army or a Tyranid MC rush list due to having double/triple/quadruple or more the models and far more shooting? Should not an Ork Horde with 190 models take significantly longer to move than a razorspam army or Wraithguard Eldar or Deathwing? There are all valid reasons why some armies take significantly more time than their opponents for many things. I can finish my CSM's shooting phases in 2 minutes quite often, my IG often take 5-10.



I really do hope 6th edition speeds things up a bit...it would be nice to play in a tournament without constant slow-play accusations being flung back and forth. Slow play is really generally done without help from the rules. I can take all day to decide where/when/how to move a unit, or allocate wounds, roll dice, etc. The rules really don't take that into consideration, and likely never will as the rules have never been written with tournament play in mind.

Gorbad Ironclaw
06-12-2011, 07:20
If there was no time limit one round could easily go 4 or 5 hours. You have to find a way to fit at least 3 rounds in a day and a time limit is the way to go.

I don't feel rushed in any tounry I run and I play orks.

Have to agree with this. Time limits are a practical requirement. Possibly my worst tournament experience was a tournament with excessively generous time limits. 2.5 hour for a 1.5k Warhammer game and then a hours break in between. Waiting for two hours for your next game is boring.

And even when I had my Orks run into a "Kroot" army at a tournament we didn't ran over time. But it makes for good fun when both sides in a combat is easily throwing out 50+ attacks.

3 0f 6
06-12-2011, 08:33
I have been rushed in a 1500pt 40k GT in Nottingham before, by an eldar player who took AGES to deploy his force!!!

Took me no time to make my deployment/ moves per turn for the most part.....I had used the army for somewhere around 5 months straight, so I knew how long it took to deploy, what to move/not move etc, how to trap my opponent into a lovely death pit for me to exploit....

Chapters Unwritten
06-12-2011, 14:15
*Good points*
While I acknowledge these points, they do little to sway my feelings on the issue!

It does take some time to position your models but in events with time limits, you simply can't take that much time muddling about. It is the entire point of why the time limit exists. And nothing is as frustrating as being on the other side of the table while Mr. Green Tide tries to obscure that 15th ork in one of his mass of mobs, soaking up precious minutes with every contemplation for what is ultimately something that could be accomplished just as easily with a few squads of gretchin in front of their big brothers.

I'm not really saying that people shouldn't do this - the green tide is of course a major theme of the army. However, in a competitive environment where there is a time limit, it would often behoove most players to make a non-optimal decision quickly, rather than a to-the-millimeter-perfect decision slowly. This 'problem' is no one but the player's fault, in other words, and I would consider something like a green tide a completely terrible idea tactically on all fronts. That doesn't mean it isn't fun or fluffy, but it should expect to garner the same performance as other similar styles.

We'll never agree about guard spam because I find that virtually everything you brought up is a non-issue for that particular army. Chimera and Autocannons reach pretty much the whole board and there are usually enough of them (and Lascannons and Ordnance, with even more range) that there is really no question of being able to shoot, only whether the enemy will get a cover save or not. While the enemy getting that save is obviously worse for the guard player, when you can just repeatedly fire the same things with little regard for target priority, there is no reason to fear.

The enemy will arrive at your lines crippled if you have spammed the "correct" units in the right positions - but it isn't hard to do that at all, unless the board has a lot of LOS-blocking terrain on it. If the board is mostly area you can just shoot to your heart's content and wait for some 1's to roll; no thought required. You don't even have to move, most of the time, and with enough weight of fire the cover is a negligible benefit in many cases. At least other spam/horde armies have positioning to worry about, more or less; a spam-heavy guard army that isn't doing infantry horde almost doesn't even need measuring tape to play this game.

I'm just of the mind that in a competitive environment some effort should be made to level the particular playing field of time consumption. I can understand it takes much longer, but in my experience, it generally takes a meticulous player far longer than even quadruple another phase. At our club we see this a lot vs guard and dark eldar armies with lots of shooting; sometimes one phase is literally much more than quadruple the opponent's length (I see 5 minutes for one player, 40 minutes for his opponent, scarily often at our club, especially in certain combinations of MSU vs. Super Shooty lists).

Games Workshop needs to come up with more things for a player to do in the opponent's phase, or needs to make it so that there are some kind of limitations imposed. It sounds strange to say but we're living in an age where every model gets all of it's shots every turn; if this wasn't always the case, I think the game would go a lot faster.

Vaktathi
06-12-2011, 15:40
While I acknowledge these points, they do little to sway my feelings on the issue!

It does take some time to position your models but in events with time limits, you simply can't take that much time muddling about. It is the entire point of why the time limit exists. And nothing is as frustrating as being on the other side of the table while Mr. Green Tide tries to obscure that 15th ork in one of his mass of mobs, soaking up precious minutes with every contemplation for what is ultimately something that could be accomplished just as easily with a few squads of gretchin in front of their big brothers. Gretchin create more models to have to move and position, and why should a player have to take another unit to accomplish what simple intelligent movement, consistent with the manner the rules were intended to provide, accomplish?

Time limits are understandable, people want to get through their 3 or 4 games, but at the same time it must be understood that the games rules were not, never have been, and likely never will be written with time limits in mind, and thus create an artificial restraint on play that the design studio never intended to exist and puts a constraint on generalship that really doesn't have anything to do with generalship but more simply speed carrying out simple mechanics which isn't really what should determine victory or standings.




I'm not really saying that people shouldn't do this - the green tide is of course a major theme of the army. However, in a competitive environment where there is a time limit, it would often behoove most players to make a non-optimal decision quickly, rather than a to-the-millimeter-perfect decision slowly. In some cases yes, though that then creates the issue where some armies, simply by their inherent nature, are then forced to play in a non-optimal manner that was never intended by the designers and would likely function more effectively outside the artificially enforced constraint. This quite often further reinforces player tendencies towards certain armies for tournament play leading to a less varied representation than you might otherwise see. I know multiple people who have larger sized armies that won't bring them to tournaments because of these issues, and if the tournaments are self-selecting certain armies, then they don't really reflect the game as a whole well, rather simply what fits within their artificial constraints on the game.


This 'problem' is no one but the player's fault, in other words this is a line of thinking I don't particularly agree with. As it is essentially forcing certain categories of armies to have to play at less than their full potential for the sake of an artificial constraint not taken into consideration within the design of the rules or the codex's.


and I would consider something like a green tide a completely terrible idea tactically on all fronts. Why just out of curiosity? they can work fairly decently well, the biggest constraints for tournaments again being time/transport/etc.



We'll never agree about guard spam because I find that virtually everything you brought up is a non-issue for that particular army. Chimera and Autocannons reach pretty much the whole board and there are usually enough of them (and Lascannons and Ordnance, with even more range) that there is really no question of being able to shoot, only whether the enemy will get a cover save or not. Again though, if there's not proper LoS blocking terrain, that goes for any gunline army be it Mech (or infantry gunline) IG, Razorfang spam, Psyriflehenchmen spam, etc. They can all fit more than enough guns to accomplish that if the terrain isn't properly set up (i.e. no LoS blocking terrain) and their opponents play into their hands.


While the enemy getting that save is obviously worse for the guard player, when you can just repeatedly fire the same things with little regard for target priority, there is no reason to fear. Again, this is not unique to the Imperial Guard, it's inherent to the nature of any gunline army by definition. if I'm fielding 9 chimeras and 5 other tanks, or 12 Infantry squads and 9 Heavy Weapons Squads, or 9 razorbacks and 18 Long Fangs or 5 psyrifleman and 6 henchmen razorbacks, they all pretty much operate on the same basic principles which is saturation of firepower with multiple redundant heavy weapons.



The enemy will arrive at your lines crippled if you have spammed the "correct" units in the right positions - but it isn't hard to do that at all, unless the board has a lot of LOS-blocking terrain on it. If the board is mostly area you can just shoot to your heart's content and wait for some 1's to roll; no thought required. You don't even have to move, most of the time, and with enough weight of fire the cover is a negligible benefit in many cases. At least other spam/horde armies have positioning to worry about, more or less; a spam-heavy guard army that isn't doing infantry horde almost doesn't even need measuring tape to play this game. Again, the same could be said of *any* gunline army, but they still need tools to reach/contest objectives, meatshield/counterattack assaults, engage enemies out of LoS/range, etc, they still do most of what other armies do, they just sorta operate on a different timescale. They do all their important work turns 1 and 2, where short range shooty and assault armies do most of their work turns 3/4/5. The gunline must cripple their opponents in the first two turns and are in trouble when the enemy closes range and they start to die and have to maneuver/relocate/etc, whereas their opponents are in trouble for the first couple turns and start the really cripple their opponents once close.

Lets not even get into the additional time requirements of infantry horde IG armies over mech...talk about long games :eek:




I'm just of the mind that in a competitive environment some effort should be made to level the particular playing field of time consumption. In a game where armies can be literally be an entire order of magnitude large than their opponents in terms of number of models within an average sized tournament points level, it's not going to happen. Between armies with huge numbers of models to move, lots of complicated CC attacks, large amounts of shooting, complex deployments, etc. this game takes time, more than what often is or can be allocated for tournaments, as this really just isn't a tournament oriented game. Now, they could make great strides in making it so, but time constraints are really not something they are going to be able to do anything about without drastically reducing army sizes, and that would hurt model sales which is the core of GW's business, so it's unlikely to happen.




I can understand it takes much longer, but in my experience, it generally takes a meticulous player far longer than even quadruple another phase. At our club we see this a lot vs guard and dark eldar armies with lots of shooting; sometimes one phase is literally much more than quadruple the opponent's length (I see 5 minutes for one player, 40 minutes for his opponent, scarily often at our club, especially in certain combinations of MSU vs. Super Shooty lists). Yup, and you get that with many armies. IG shooting phases likely take way more time than many opponents shooting phases (though often may lack an assault phase, and sometimes movement phase) entirely. Assaults involving multiple initiative orders and complex units, especially multiple assaults, can often take more time than anything else.



Games Workshop needs to come up with more things for a player to do in the opponent's phase, or needs to make it so that there are some kind of limitations imposed. It sounds strange to say but we're living in an age where every model gets all of it's shots every turn; if this wasn't always the case, I think the game would go a lot faster.There's two reasons for this. First is that so much more is capable of swiftly closing range or emerging onto the field within the enemies lines than previous editions. Second is that it is all too common that proper terrain is simply not present, I see lots of tournaments with a couple felt mats with a couple tree stands each and they call it area terrain and figure they're done without really anything blocking LoS or movement

ColShaw
06-12-2011, 17:26
I was going to write a big, long response, but realized Vaktathi already made all the points I wanted to.

I'm frankly a little astonished that anyone's hating on hordes in this current, mech-heavy environment. Slow players can exist with any army.

lethlis
06-12-2011, 19:28
I think that most of the disconnect is that the tournament scene is almost an entirely different game. Sure some of the rules are the same but there is an entire section of rules that are added on.

time limits, wonky scenarios, and everything that they entail. Certain types of army builds are no longer possible, there are etiquette rules in place(or lack there of in WAAC players) it is less about the social aspect of the game and more about the competative. you have less than 20 minutes per game turn. I know there is a coherent point I am trying to make but it eludes me right now.

Theocracity
06-12-2011, 19:34
I think the idea is that "competetive" is a concept that adapts to fit the limitations it's presented with. If the restrictions are time limits and transport rules, the "competetive" scene will adapt to that in such a way as to maximize chances of winning - even if it's not how some players view the platonic ideal of the game set.

The only way to change that is to challenge either the Meta (which can be hard to do consistently, as it it's disruptive enough the Meta adapts) or to change the underlying base rules. Tourney rules have logistical restraints that are not likely to change to much.

althathir
06-12-2011, 19:57
If there was no time limit one round could easily go 4 or 5 hours. You have to find a way to fit at least 3 rounds in a day and a time limit is the way to go.

I don't feel rushed in any tounry I run and I play orks.

It really depends on the point limit, I'm not suggesting that they're shouldn't be a time limit either, but when you get over a 2000 points I can see someone with a horde army feeling rushed all game and combine that with them being harder to transport and I think it adds a limitation which unfairly effects people perceptions of whats good or not. Alot of interwebz generals think Orks suck but some of that is one of the major archtypes isn't tourney friendly.


Have to agree with this. Time limits are a practical requirement. Possibly my worst tournament experience was a tournament with excessively generous time limits. 2.5 hour for a 1.5k Warhammer game and then a hours break in between. Waiting for two hours for your next game is boring.

And even when I had my Orks run into a "Kroot" army at a tournament we didn't ran over time. But it makes for good fun when both sides in a combat is easily throwing out 50+ attacks.

An hour break between rounds is unreal, most of my experience has much shorter breaks 10 min and maybe a 30-45min lunch at some point.

The thing is if its 2 hours between matches your still taking 1.5 hours to play a game at 1500 points, now its not uncommon to hear about 2500 pts. in 2 hours thats where I see the issue. Personally I think having an established point limit in tournies like 1850 would be good for everyone. More space, easier to transport armies, and designers would have a point limit that they could focus on in playtesting. I don't think it would affect sales much because I think more people would be likely to start secondary forces when they don't need to as invest as much to feel they have a complete force.


While I acknowledge these points, they do little to sway my feelings on the issue!

It does take some time to position your models but in events with time limits, you simply can't take that much time muddling about. It is the entire point of why the time limit exists. And nothing is as frustrating as being on the other side of the table while Mr. Green Tide tries to obscure that 15th ork in one of his mass of mobs, soaking up precious minutes with every contemplation for what is ultimately something that could be accomplished just as easily with a few squads of gretchin in front of their big brothers.

I'm not really saying that people shouldn't do this - the green tide is of course a major theme of the army. However, in a competitive environment where there is a time limit, it would often behoove most players to make a non-optimal decision quickly, rather than a to-the-millimeter-perfect decision slowly. This 'problem' is no one but the player's fault, in other words, and I would consider something like a green tide a completely terrible idea tactically on all fronts. That doesn't mean it isn't fun or fluffy, but it should expect to garner the same performance as other similar styles.

We'll never agree about guard spam because I find that virtually everything you brought up is a non-issue for that particular army. Chimera and Autocannons reach pretty much the whole board and there are usually enough of them (and Lascannons and Ordnance, with even more range) that there is really no question of being able to shoot, only whether the enemy will get a cover save or not. While the enemy getting that save is obviously worse for the guard player, when you can just repeatedly fire the same things with little regard for target priority, there is no reason to fear.

The enemy will arrive at your lines crippled if you have spammed the "correct" units in the right positions - but it isn't hard to do that at all, unless the board has a lot of LOS-blocking terrain on it. If the board is mostly area you can just shoot to your heart's content and wait for some 1's to roll; no thought required. You don't even have to move, most of the time, and with enough weight of fire the cover is a negligible benefit in many cases. At least other spam/horde armies have positioning to worry about, more or less; a spam-heavy guard army that isn't doing infantry horde almost doesn't even need measuring tape to play this game.

I'm just of the mind that in a competitive environment some effort should be made to level the particular playing field of time consumption. I can understand it takes much longer, but in my experience, it generally takes a meticulous player far longer than even quadruple another phase. At our club we see this a lot vs guard and dark eldar armies with lots of shooting; sometimes one phase is literally much more than quadruple the opponent's length (I see 5 minutes for one player, 40 minutes for his opponent, scarily often at our club, especially in certain combinations of MSU vs. Super Shooty lists).

Games Workshop needs to come up with more things for a player to do in the opponent's phase, or needs to make it so that there are some kind of limitations imposed. It sounds strange to say but we're living in an age where every model gets all of it's shots every turn; if this wasn't always the case, I think the game would go a lot faster.

Any player can slow play any army, I've played mechdar for a long time, in alot of games my first 2 turns last less the 5 mins, I've seen people with similiar lists take over 15 min turns at first which is horrible when you have 8-10 models on the board at first.

In gunline vs. MSU games you are gonna to see some really big turn differences but some of that is because the gunline army needs to win the game in the first few turns and if they shot at the wrong targets its not happening, and once the MSU army starts to disembark the amount of times their turns take goes dramatically up. It wouldn't shock me if my third or fourth turn with my eldar takes 20+ min because thats when I start disembarking, and they are my most important turns if I don't do enough damage I'm probably gonna lose so I'm gonna think thing through. The same is true for a green tide armies and gunlines, their intial deployment is the most important part of the game, and their 1st couple of turns take longer as they react to what your doing, but the game picks up pace quite abit after that.

The main reason that I disagree with you though, is that your response is basically horde armies take to long to play againist instead of accepting that at least part of the problem is the point level of tournies now. Just adding time limitations seem pointless your not really seeing who the best general is because you've told horde armies they aren't welcome and that turns away some really good generals. Your also not seeing what forces are the best overall because they don't have to deal with a common archtype all, so all the sudden there isn't a reason for a balanced all-comers list just more MSU spam armies. It turns into who is the best at playing the game a certain way and to me thats pointless.

Lowering the point levels make alot more sense
1) older codex don't scale well anyway

2) easier to transport more space

3) I think the game is balanced more towards 1500- 1850, forces like GK and IG get really good at point levels above that, and armies like spacewolves get really good below that point level.

4) the time would go down in general regardless of force.

Rant over now that said from your last two responses though I'm starting to think you guys aren't running anywhere near enough terrain or mixing up deployments. There should be at least a few pieces of LoS blocking terrain (and not small pieces either), and a gunline won't be as effective in table quarters or in dawn of war where the opponent can get a couple of movement phases in safely.

Rated_lexxx
06-12-2011, 20:03
Transporting shouldn't be a issue. just put your army on whatever you transport from game to game as those units killed.

I have run hoard in 'ard boyz and other local 2500 pts tourny and have not felt rushed ever.

A lot of "interwbz" do not suck orks suck, there just not one of the top armies in competitive play. There middle of the pack

GodofWarTx
06-12-2011, 20:28
I remember reading here on Warseer about the frustrations of a few assault-army players on their opponents (almost always older horde IG players) taking so long during their turns the game would only get to the end of turn two before time was called for their game.

Depending on the game type, that would mean the IG player would have the luxury of bringing to bear its firepower for two turns and the game ending before any late game heavy assaults to play out.

Chapters Unwritten
06-12-2011, 20:42
There's a lot more logistics to any of these situations that prevents us from finding a catch-all solution. Ultimately, I feel three hours a game is reasonable, namely for 2000pt games. However logistically as someone who has had to organize tournaments, you run into some serious hurdles. The first and foremost one is that pure gametime will be NINE hours -- longer than the average workday. That is not including time for other issues.

I feel like a big hurdle is deployment. In an upcoming event we're planning to actually make deployment styles that force players to be less "choosy" --this seems to be where the hangups are to start.

Horde armies having lots of models to move or shoot doesn't really affect the game much (though it definitely does, I'd say it's marginal...no where near double the time to move, if only because your options for movement are more limited). I don't see turns as much as quintupling in size as a reasonable result of that.

I don't want people to misunderstand and think I want all hordes put to task on this front. I just feel like at least some of the responsibility is on the player. If you have three times as many models as your opponent, you could at least, you know, try to be quick about it.

In 5th edition the only real reliable way for a huge 30ish model unit to get cover is to have another one in it's path. The finicky board placement is a mere result of trying to put 30 orks/guardsmen/gaunts where they really don't fit. Against any army, even a non-optimal one, your models are going to get hit, so to me it seems foolish to be so meticulous about it (particularly when the whole theme of your army is that it's guys are disposable enough to take mass casualties).

As for the Green Tide itself, I've never been impressed. I consider warhammer a game of unit-to-unit interaction and Green Tide lists seldom are able to act more than maybe 5 times in their turn. It's an overwhelming application of force that is nothing but a hindrance to the actual player. That being said, it does work sometimes...but I would never take such a thing to a tournament (or at least, I'd split my boyz up a bit). But I suppose I'm digging my own grave here as that would take even longer.

I don't know that we're necessarily seeing eye to eye here. Haven't any of you guys ever been on the other side of the table from a guy trying to decide which of his several identical units to shoot at you with? I see horde players making these sort of non-critical decisions all the time. In part because there's really no thought process there; it's just "Hit Unit A with Instance of Ideal Opposing Unit B until Success."

Not that all horde players do this, but it is much more common in large armies than in small ones, where the players have become accustomed to making their decisions quickly and efficiently because it's the only way to really make an impact.

Escaflowne_Z
07-12-2011, 05:27
1. Ultimately, I feel three hours a game is reasonable, namely for 2000pt games.

2. Haven't any of you guys ever been on the other side of the table from a guy trying to decide which of his several identical units to shoot at you with? I see horde players making these sort of non-critical decisions all the time. In part because there's really no thought process there; it's just "Hit Unit A with Instance of Ideal Opposing Unit B until Success."

3. Not that all horde players do this, but it is much more common in large armies than in small ones, where the players have become accustomed to making their decisions quickly and efficiently because it's the only way to really make an impact.

I think 2,000 points in 3 hours is about perfect. Leisurely, but still getting things done. (seven turn games excluded from 3 hour game lengths)

As to the second point, I can understand that, getting slowly spammed to death can easily get tiresome. I don't consider my army to be that way, except for I guess the 150-200 las shots that got fired. I dunno, spamming units always seemed boring to me, I can't think of any units in that list that are repeated except two squads that both have rocket launchers and grenade launchers.

To respond to the last point you made, I completely agree that having a larger model count army can leave a person with a glut of choices to make as to target priority, what moves will lead to success later on, etc. When I first started my Guard army under the previous codex, I was bewildered by all of the things I had to do compared to my Blood Angels. I absolutely got lost in my own army trying to figure out what to do. Of course, during higher points games, it only got worse until I figured out how a Guard list works together.

Ravenous
07-12-2011, 15:29
I would hate 3 hours at 2000pts.. I'd be done in a hour and a half tops. One thing that was considered here after a slow play incident was adding a turn clock, but figured that the slow player would just disrupt your turn purposely anyway.

ColShaw
07-12-2011, 15:43
I think a solution might be to institute chess clocks, where each player has a separate amount of time to make his moves. You'd have to make some allowances for the assault phase, since both players are moving models (pile-ins) and rolling lots of dice, but I think it could work.

Lord Inquisitor
07-12-2011, 15:55
I think a solution might be to institute chess clocks, where each player has a separate amount of time to make his moves. You'd have to make some allowances for the assault phase, since both players are moving models (pile-ins) and rolling lots of dice, but I think it could work.

The thing is that the turns are rarely equal in legnth. In both 40k and WFB turn 1 is usually pretty quick, turn 2-3 is where the real tactical decisions are made and the brunt of the game happens with most of the time of the game spent on these turns. By turns 4-6 the number of actual models on the table is decreasing and game turns are speeding up. This is often frustrating when you only get to turn 3 after 2 1/2 hours but you could probably finish turn 6 with another 30 minutes!

Vaktathi
07-12-2011, 16:02
I think a solution might be to institute chess clocks, where each player has a separate amount of time to make his moves. You'd have to make some allowances for the assault phase, since both players are moving models (pile-ins) and rolling lots of dice, but I think it could work.

Super-abuseable. I take all the time in the world allocating and rolling my saves and arguing/checking cover during your turn on your clock, checking rules on your clock, etc.

Bunnahabhain
07-12-2011, 16:16
Any rigid system can be gamed. The more complex or detailed, the easier it is to do so.

The only way to deal with slow play is to have experienced people/judges who can be trusted to call slow play, and have the ability to penalise it.

Personally, I'd say up to 2k in 2hrs, 2 1/2 hrs for 2500 is reasonable.
The T.Os should make it easy for people with side tables for some room, decent rules packs for anything at all unusual, and uncomplicated terrain. I've seen one with a sketch map of the terrain, with types and cover saves for the terrain marked on that. Saved time, effort and conflict all round.

Lord Inquisitor
07-12-2011, 16:25
Slow play is rarely due to malicious intent. In those cases sports scores or calling a judge is probably the best way to deal with it (although it's tough).

Much more generally problematic is people who slow-play because they just play slow or they have a gazillion models. I personally play slowly and it's been something I've been trying to improve on for years but I still rarely play tournament games to the last turn if I'm honest.

If you yourself have a slow-to-play army with a lot of figures or whatever, then you need to learn to play fast, full stop. Don't chit-chat. Play every turn like the game will end in 15 minutes. Don't look anything up, if your opponent is wrong about something just let it go and play on unless game-critical. It's rough though because if you try to rush yourself you can end up making silly mistakes. It's a necessity though.

Slow playing is particularly an issue in WFB where you don't get VPs for wounded characters and units with even a single model remaining - can lead to situations where you've mauled his entire army but unless you can finish units off, it counts for nothing. If you only get through turn 3 and his army is hanging by a thread, that's pretty annoying.

It's a tough issue because inadvertent slow-playing is pretty common and typically not in any way malicious but how do you improve it?

Chapters Unwritten
07-12-2011, 18:09
Any rigid system can be gamed. The more complex or detailed, the easier it is to do so.

The only way to deal with slow play is to have experienced people/judges who can be trusted to call slow play, and have the ability to penalise it.

Personally, I'd say up to 2k in 2hrs, 2 1/2 hrs for 2500 is reasonable.
The T.Os should make it easy for people with side tables for some room, decent rules packs for anything at all unusual, and uncomplicated terrain. I've seen one with a sketch map of the terrain, with types and cover saves for the terrain marked on that. Saved time, effort and conflict all round.At our events, we have a soft score category called "Generalship" that deals with players' rules knowledge, playing speed, and other such things.

The best way to decide is someone slow played someone else, is to let the guy who got slow-played be the judge. This is also a great deterrent - the bad guy who slow plays is less apt to do it on purpose if he knows it will hurt his score.

I'm a firm believer that player scoring is key to stopping things like slow-play.

Vaktathi
07-12-2011, 18:20
Such things can also be abused however in that they can simply tank their opponent simply out of spite or because they're not one of their usual opponents or whatnot even if they didn't slow-play or do anything wrong, and unless the TO sees fit to inquire, nothing is likely to be done about it and even if they do it may not change anything. Soft scores like that are one of the biggest consistent complaints of many events.

Bunnahabhain
07-12-2011, 18:31
There is one way to make those soft scores a whole load more reliable- require two complaints, not one.

If you get one complaint about poor play, be it speed, rules knowledge, whatever, then you don't get penalised, but, if you get two complaints from different people, then you do. Malicious or spiteful complaints are highly unlikely to hit the same person twice if they're innocent of it.

I also thoroughly approve of awarding ' best general' prize on simple results, and an 'Overall winner' prize factoring in generalship, and the softer scores of painting, sportsmanship, etc

althathir
07-12-2011, 18:42
I would hate 3 hours at 2000pts.. I'd be done in a hour and a half tops. One thing that was considered here after a slow play incident was adding a turn clock, but figured that the slow player would just disrupt your turn purposely anyway.

3 hours would be too long for 2000 points, my point is for some people 2 hours for 2500 isn't enough. In all honestly like I've said before I'd rather see something like 2 hours at 1850 being the standard. I think the game plays better at that level, and I think its a lot more managable for different army types.


Any rigid system can be gamed. The more complex or detailed, the easier it is to do so.

The only way to deal with slow play is to have experienced people/judges who can be trusted to call slow play, and have the ability to penalise it.

Personally, I'd say up to 2k in 2hrs, 2 1/2 hrs for 2500 is reasonable.
The T.Os should make it easy for people with side tables for some room, decent rules packs for anything at all unusual, and uncomplicated terrain. I've seen one with a sketch map of the terrain, with types and cover saves for the terrain marked on that. Saved time, effort and conflict all round.

Good T.Os do make a big difference, and your right any system can be gamed.


At our events, we have a soft score category called "Generalship" that deals with players' rules knowledge, playing speed, and other such things.

The best way to decide is someone slow played someone else, is to let the guy who got slow-played be the judge. This is also a great deterrent - the bad guy who slow plays is less apt to do it on purpose if he knows it will hurt his score.

I'm a firm believer that player scoring is key to stopping things like slow-play.

I'm not really a fan of soft scores, I haven't had a bad experience with them, but I've heard of players playing at new venues getting tanked by locals (more common in tournies with prize support). They're also really subjective, and I think people's bias can really show up. I'd much rather have a judge that can warn players and punish them accordingly rather than a soft score.

Ravenous
08-12-2011, 02:36
I agree on 2500pts, tournaments like 'ard boyz should scale it back because some armies get obscene at 2500pts (necrons with imotekh) while others waffle (orks).

Chapters Unwritten
08-12-2011, 13:44
There is one way to make those soft scores a whole load more reliable- require two complaints, not one.

If you get one complaint about poor play, be it speed, rules knowledge, whatever, then you don't get penalised, but, if you get two complaints from different people, then you do. Malicious or spiteful complaints are highly unlikely to hit the same person twice if they're innocent of it.

I also thoroughly approve of awarding ' best general' prize on simple results, and an 'Overall winner' prize factoring in generalship, and the softer scores of painting, sportsmanship, etcYou can always drop scores that are out of scope. A simple mechanic of dropping the lowest score solves that.

More importantly, just because a system CAN be gamed, does not mean it will be. In my experience, putting things in the players' hands is still the best way. You might have one or two guys who act out of scope, but it's pretty obvious when/if that happens, and so far in my experience it simply hasn't happened. Saying that the scores will be published is also a way to get people to be more honest (though that poses the new problem of everyone maxing out across the board). So to me, it's all a question of how things are worded, ie.

"Did your opponent slow play?"

vs.

"Did you game get past turn 4?"

Just as an example. Those two questions don't work for our system because you rate 1-5, but I feel like it's important to have. Just the fact that someone can downscore you for playing slow, is a decent deterrent to slow play. And our events have staggered battle points as well, so even if someone does jerk you around on soft scores, odds are you can make up the difference and still place about where you normally would have. But we have a policy of dropping obviously bad scores (if a guy maxes out in two instances, but is given a 1 on the third, we know something is up, and in one case we had a guy ragequit and replaced the scores he gave with an average of what his opponent got the rest of the day as a compromise).


They're also really subjective, and I think people's bias can really show up. I'd much rather have a judge that can warn players and punish them accordingly rather than a soft score.The problem here is that 40k'ers in general are very passive and the only time I've ever seen someone involve a judge is when they are the very jerk such things are meant to defend against.

Bunnahabhain
08-12-2011, 13:51
Well, copy Olympic scoring then: Drop the highest and lowest score.

In this case, that would mean out of the 4 or 5 scores you get, only counting the centre two or three.

Chapters Unwritten
08-12-2011, 14:19
Our current system would benefit from that a bit. Currently, we have 4 categories, each of which has 3 questions going 1-5. This means that after each rounds, each section is worth potentially 3-15 points, and their total at the close of the event is between 9 and 45 points for each category.

Now, I know that sounds complicated, but I set up a spreadsheet that just displays the math result as a meter and a percentage of 0-100%. This helps with publishing the scores as it doesn't highlight who gave who what (though I've considered changing that). Still, I'd like to simplify it, and dropping the highest and lowest scores might be a way to cut back on the math.

tu33y
12-12-2011, 11:39
Memorize the rules and the order of operations and you play super fast.


I can get a 1850pt game done in 45minutes to an hour with a Ork horde against other well versed opponents.

i would pay to watch that....

Chapters Unwritten
12-12-2011, 14:42
That is possible but it involves things like Dawn of War deployment, and one or both players opting to move very little during the early turns.