Reducing armies to 1500/1750 in tournaments [proposal]

[A.T.]

One other change with 1500pts is that it cuts down the amount of firepower on the board for first turn, and less models on the board mean it's easier to block lines of sight for the initial artillery barrage from some factions.

[Ishagu]

One other change with 1500pts is that it cuts down the amount of firepower on the board for first turn, and less models on the board mean it's easier to block lines of sight for the initial artillery barrage from some factions.

Not rally true. Guard can still field 3 HQs, 6 Leman Russes that shoot twice and 80 bodies at 1500, just as an example.

 

What we need is a big drive in the community for player respect. Both players should have the same time in their turns regardless of their model count. Don't force people to sit and wait for over an hour on your movement phase. Respect your opponent, respect their time.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Ishagu

[A.T.]

Not rally true. Guard can still field 3 HQs, 6 Leman Russes that shoot twice and 80 bodies at 1500, just as an example.

 

Still less that they'd have at 2000, and you've got 500 less points of units to hide from them behind the same amount of scenery.

 

Without the old FoC restrictions on heavy guns (and with potent deepstrike and long movements) anything that softens the first turn for the initiative losing player helps, even if just a little.

[SaradominWrecksYou]

I haven't yet played a single game over 1500 in this edition. Unless both players take transports for their entire armies(and the crappier transports at that), 2000 has way too many models for a 6x4 board. I play SM and and IG.

[Mileposter]

I have a lot of scattered thoughts on this one.

 

The game edits and changes are being made around tourney event lists and the most commonly encountered issues. Most commonly played standard and broadcasted games are ~2k points. Most of the visible feedback is about ~2k games. The balancing being done is in response to that data and feedback, which then supports having that most commonly encountered scenario.

 

In short: The game is balanced around 2k per player 1v1 games.

 

Moving from that standard is certainly possible, but would take a lot of work and require enduring a period of adjustment as the edits and changes caught up with what the cool kids are doing. I'm not so sure all that effort is really worth it just to say that some games get completed faster? 8th is already a lot faster than editions before it.

 

A pair of friends and I have super-competitive matches every other week. The table is set up and terrain is placed before we get to the playing time. Our games are done - all 5-6 turns of them - within 3 hours. That's with us rules lawyering each other and stopping every once in a here-to to pull the book out for a fact check. We're totally trying to each other over in a friendly way, and still the games get pretty short.

 

Every other week is also beer-and-pretzel games. These last a heck of a lot longer. They should be expected to, though - you're doing more than just the game. You're chatting, you're taking your time, you're having fun with hanging out in general. You're getting what you paid for, in a manner of speaking.

 

I would think that if games are ending at turn 3 in a tourney, that's a fault of the players rather than the game/event. A 20/30 minute time limit on turns seems reasonable to me. If these are supposed to be better players, they should be able to make these computational decisions and tactical movements faster rather than requiring more time than others. I would expect a 'pro' player to be able to put his first turn done within 20-25 minutes easily. The hour-long first turns of LVO baffle me. Besides using the 'running-out-the-clock' tactic, of course - which I still consider a move.

 

Learning to read the lay of the land and the flow of the battle and the habits of your opponent is just as important and valuable as learning the stats of your army in a competitive game, I would think.

 

EDIT: Oops.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Mileposter

[Ishagu]

 

Not rally true. Guard can still field 3 HQs, 6 Leman Russes that shoot twice and 80 bodies at 1500, just as an example.

Still less that they'd have at 2000, and you've got 500 less points of units to hide from them behind the same amount of scenery.

 

Without the old FoC restrictions on heavy guns (and with potent deepstrike and long movements) anything that softens the first turn for the initiative losing player helps, even if just a little.

That 500 points less removes the only ranged unit my Custodes have. So as I stated earlier, some armies are being punished whist others remain optimised and effective.

The issue with time is with players, not point limits.

[Zodd1888]

Elite armies, or elite focused forces, already have issue with points efficiency as is.

 

500 points reduced, unfortunately, doesn't equal a 25% increase in time efficiency. You may see some improvement but not by the top tier players, and generally not the mid to lower either. People don't play conscience of the clock and removing 2 Heavy Supports, or an HQ and Elite, won't change the landscape.

 

I think you'd unintentionally skew the environment further to point efficient combos, ie. Hordes, Bombs, etc. The system already shows wounds to bodies ratio as most important, then it's shots to bodies.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Zodd1888

[Tyriks]

I don't enjoy 1500 point games. In my group they don't go much faster but everyone tends to feel like they left something out.

 

Also, with fewer points you have fewer options of combinations so we'll see much more homogenized lists at competitive events.

[ERJAK]

Just have everyone play SoB. Everything's in transports, so most turns take about 15 minutes and they have such a ridiculous damage to survivability ratio that games would naturally conclude on turn 3 with both players having sub 3 models.

 

40k would be a much better place if Sisters were the only army.

[tychobi]

I think the point reduction needed to really affect game length would sacrifice too much of the epic scope to feel like a real 40k game. In a recent 1250 point series of campaign games the average was over 2 hours. We were mucking about a bit but I don't fell the time pressure is associated directly with model count.

 

Slow play is why games take a long time. Usually unintentional but sometimes not slow play is why games are left unfinished. In my opinion chess clocks are a going to be a introduced at high level competitive play and will be standard at tournaments soon. Games workshop would do well to get ahead of this and produce an official document to support tournament organizers in the introduction.

 

My bitterest moments in tournaments have been when opponents deliberately slow play to cost me a win. Clocks will avoid this issue completely. Slower players will be forced to speed up and horde players will have to practice strong time management. There will be a learning curve and some problems to iron out, but this change will lend legitimacy to a system that relies too much on sportmanship and honor to police an increasingly competitive environment.

[Ishagu]

Yeah the best thing about the chess clock idea is the introduction of real time management as a skill. Suddenly the easy to use horde armies will actually be really hard to manage in a strictly competitive environment.

 

Also, games will be a lot more exciting. I might grab a clock to introduce to some of my slower local players lol

[chapter master 454]

I think since this is being talked about heavily, this is something we need to be concerned about.

Point limit making some armies less viable or effective. Granted, some armies should possibly have this slight difference but the apparent huge divide between elites and horde armies in this grouping with just a 500 point difference is incredibly silly to think about. 4th was played with 1500, 5th only went to 1750 because of apoc (1500 game + land raider XD) but then  from there points have just been creeping on up edition after edition with no end in sight.

 

I think there needs to be a serious points look over at this matter if some armies need 2k points to be effective.

 

However in terms of tournaments, there is a lot of theory here and not much practice. I am sad to tell most players but there is a direct relation between points and time. Points go up, time goes up. You think a 500pt game goes the same as a 1000pt game and then a 1000pt game goes to the same as 1500? Ok, you can argue for horde but horde will always be at the upper end of the scale at every points limit and you can easily note that a 1500pt horde army vs. a 2000pt horde army will see the latter take longer to play just naturally. This is true of all armies. The theory you would take longer on decisions isn't "tactical" thinking, we call that sandbagging. There is only so many options you can make so make one. As others have noted, if you play at that level you should know what you will do fairly quickly and understand how to move around. I will grant some players may take 5 minutes more over a similar decision but that's about it.

You are at a tournament, not your local club. Be professional and get on with the game.

I am only talking about how people think changing points doesn't change time, it does. Not Advocating it as a solution.

 

I believe there needs to be ample amounts of pressure on players to get a move on. Games need to conclude. Tournaments I would assume would allow turn 6 at most and thus I believe in the idea of set start, set end times. You get 30 minutes to play and if you are playing horde and think it is too short? Tough, your decision making can't be that hard since most of your units are just going to be thrown into the grinder. This means a single game will go for 3 hours. If you can't complete a game in 3 hours then there is some serious issues there. And that is on top of needing to account for actual army set-up and take-down to move to the next game along with filing results and processing next rounds which would easily add 30 minutes ether side for set-up and take-down, which now means a single round is 4 hours. At that rate you would only have 2 games a day, possibly 3 if it is a brutal tournament (but 12 hours is pretty steep, including an hour for lunch somewhere would be needed and possibly dinner). No mean feat.

 

At this point, if you can only reach 50% of the game regularly then something needs to be done. Turn 4-6 are just as important as now it tests a players ability to use what is left. Ofcourse if there is no hope because of steamrolling then fine, but I have had many good games where it came down to the last few units.

[Ishagu]

Reducing points doesn't address an issue that's as just as big.

 

Players not taking the same amount of time during their turns, not having an equally divided time during their turns.

Is it fair for one player to spend 2 hours on their turns when the game only lasts 2 hours and 30 mins?

 

Stop Clocks or timed announcements will fix this disparity and restore Fairness between the players.

A 1250 point Guard list could play slower than my 2000 point Ultramarines, if models are moved and dice are rolled at the same speed.

 

Let's put the focus on player time keeping rather than nerfing elite or low model armies even more. Yes, 500 points REALLY affects some Forces. I literally can't fit my Ultramarine Battalion effectively at anything below 2k.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ishagu

[Kinstryfe]

Yeah, the issue that's constantly brought up is people playing slow deliberately to gain an advantage. That's the big issue (and why I'd never go to a tournament personally, I'd be walking away out of frustration). Lowering points, I would bet real money on it, would just lead to the same players abusing the time system now taking even longer.

[Karhedron]

Our club runs from 7-10pm so we have 3 hours including setup and packup. To be honest, I tend to struggle to finish 2000 point games in that time. Fortunately the club is not massively competitive for regular evening games.

 

Players are free to arrange their games between themselves so I am trying to decide whether to start aiming for 1500 point games instead. Yes I struggle to fit in what I want into those points but if it means a game gets played to its natural conclusion, it might be more fun.

 

I am not interested in trying to play smaller games to balance hordes vs elites or anything like that, just the satisfaction of finishing a game properly.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Karhedronuk

[Ishagu]

At the ETC tournaments players have 4.5 hours per 2k game and they still don't finish.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I play in several leagues so the games are competitive. What I have found is that the more competitive my opponent the longer the game (e.g., they argue a lot of rules and spend time complaining whenever something does not go their way). A 2000 point league game can take typically anywhere from 4 to 6 hours... so a 1500 point game could easily take close to 5 hours to naturally complete if we assume the time can be scaled linearly - but that is false. Reducing the point level will also give an unfair advantage to horde armies. I recently played a game versus a Tyranid army with over FOUR squads with 20 models each... including two Gargoyle broods. I would not have the necessary volume of fire power to deal with them at the suggested lower point value. There will always be some people who slow play on purpose at tournaments. You must watch the clock and admonish the opponent if they are taking too long.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Black Orange

[tychobi]

I would love a 3 day 6 games 4hrs a game relaxed tourney. I bet the tix would be mucho $$$$$. The one where clocks really won't matter is Cruisehammer. At 2k Canadian for a shared room it's an investment but a week of drunken warhammer on the high seas while the wife soaks up some Caribbean sun sounds soooooo good.

[Claws and Effect]

Have to agree that lowering points would punish low model count elite armies while not hurting hordes much at all, if at all.

 

If you want to run bare minimum, you can fit 2 freaking Brigades of Guard into 1500 points. The only real effect lowering the points in tournaments will have on horde armies is that they'll leave the stuff they didn't need in the first place at home.

 

Meanwhile a Space Marine or Grey Knights army just lost a quarter of its ability to deal with all those bodies.

 

My best horde killing unit is so expensive it stays on the shelf under 2000 points. That 500 points is my Fire Raptor and a Vanguard squad removed from my list.

 

Guard? A couple tanks they didn't really need because they have 5 more.

 

It's also unfair to punish elite armies by reducing points over a problem created by horde armies in the first place.

 

A Guard army with 120 models on the table is going to take longer turns than a Space Marine army with 45. Longer movement phase and longer shooting phase.

 

It is absolutely unfair to punish the elite army for the horde army's turns taking too long.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Zodd1888]

At the ETC tournaments players have 4.5 hours per 2k game and they still don't finish.

Time doesn't seem to be the real factor at lack of completion. It is the sole result of the individuals involved being unable to play in a timely manner with their chosen armies. Two players who play the exact same army, and the exact same opponent, will play at different speeds regardless of circumstance.

 

This is why the chess clock conundrum has existed for so long. Simplest solution is usually the best, and player allotted times seems to be the least objectional solution. I generally always have to play watching a clock because of wife/kid so I'm used to it, and having conversations with my opposition, but it's just as much a skill as gaming.

 

People are resentful to lose a game to time management as they view it as timea fault and not skill. Time management in matched play setting is as much of a skill as knowing the abilities of your army in the assault phase. We need the greater community to understand this and reduce the apprehension towards player clocks so the skill is measurable, and accountability can occur as necessary.

 

Keep in mind, most players will never be directly impacted by this in a meaningful (ie. Monetary loss due to placing). That said, a lack of a set time is always a pain when it comes to 40k.

 

Don't worry hun, I'll be home by 11... Sorry babe, I started my last match 3 hours before I had to pack up but the game went long. Divorced!