GW drops GT army size to 1750 points

[Race Bannon]

Feedback comes in many ways though: from emails and FB posts to direct participation.  "Voting with your wallet" sort of thing.

 

Although I would like to think that direct communication is more effective.

[antique_nova]

I for one cannot see how 250 points is going to make much of a difference. if they lowered it to 1500 points, then that'd make more sense, but 250 points seems too small and what they should have done instead was limit the amount of time a player can spend on their turn. So if they want each game finished in 2 hours and 30 mins (150 mins) and each player to have played 5 turns, so 10 turns in total, then they should limit each player turn to 15 minutes max.

 

Why 15 mins max? Well to prevent time wasting to ensure that if every turn is hard, that they don't over stay it and that everyone gets to play their full 5 turns at least.

 

Also, fluff and realism wise, if any commander takes too long to react to a situation, he often loses the chance to react. So you can argue with that, because most commanders rarely get 15 minutes to react to some deathstar unit or whatnot blasting a vital unit of theirs apart or ripping them apart and then get 15 minutes to sit and think.

 

This would also force certain players to not mess around with big armies too much. Horde armies would be penalised, but think of it this way, most horde armies aren't going to be as careful with movements and deployment as a tabletop player. So it makes it more fluffy and realistic.

 

Personally, I think GWS should stop asking the masses, because the masses don't know what the hell they're talking about, just like in real life. They should stick to asking the top players at GTs and focus on that, because that they know best. Say ask the top 10-20 of every tournament for proper feedback.

 

Why?

 

Because then you don't get dumbass rules such as:

 

A dark reaper squad perched on a terrain and taking up the entirety of that level and get a +1 save AND THEN nothing can assault that unit. No MCs or flyers, because they can't fit on the same level. My vertus preators couldn't do anything to a 10 man dark reaper unit sitting there and bolters did bugger all, because that unit had +2 save in the ruins with a 5+ FNP from the Eldar spell. Hell, not even magnus the red could have assaulted that unit. Nothing could.

 

I mean, who just came up with that rule? Seriously?

[Khornestar]

I suppose I don't understand the greater context of this decision. Is this not only one tourney among many? Are there not more non-GW tourneys out there who need not care what rules limit GW is using?

[antique_nova]

I suppose I don't understand the greater context of this decision. Is this not only one tourney among many? Are there not more non-GW tourneys out there who need not care what rules limit GW is using?

 

If I understand correctly, all of the biggest and most popular/competitive GTs follow all of the GWS tourney rules, because they're sponsored/working with them in some way. It's also the ones that the best players are concerned about.

[Prot]

 

I agree with the Frontline Data on this one.

 

Here's the thing... I'm attending an ITC event, and my biggest challenge is to drop my most expensive unit, and get some cheap junk in there, and own more real estate.

 

So this is my personal issue with 40K 8th edition: Stop rewarding cheap, recyclable, or easy to produce, ObSec junk in the game. This will speed things up considerably, and they've already made some of my favourite models in the game too expensive to take in 1750 with the recent round of nerfs.

 

And if this wasn't true, then a non-codex army wouldn't have won the GT last week.

 

Just find a happy medium there, and games will naturally speed up.

 

But just to give an example, my 2K deathguard usually tries to incorporate Mort. He's a liability in most of my lists, and too expensive. When I go down to 1750 my model count actually goes up! (and it's probably stronger as a result.)

 

That's just my two cents. I like my bigger toys, and the ones I use aren't particularly good, so they're nearly invalid competitively speaking under 2K, but my lists will get bigger.

 

 

This isn't going to affect your ITC event this weekend unless they just announced they're adopting 1750 as the army size, in which case the organizers need to be smacked around for making that change a day or two before the event; this change is for 2018-2019.

It’s 1750 points. It makes me think they knew for a while in advance perhaps.

[Withershadow]

Or, you know, keep sending feedback in a constructive way to GW

I'm pretty sure 40kfaq have me blocked at this point, I send them about 2 emails per week with various issues and suggestions (and repeating some that I really hope to get addressed ).

 

Tournament play does reward bringing disposable garbage over single high-potency units, which is why even with their Codex we will never see a Knights army on the top tables.

 

The new CP rule for detachments is a bit backwards, I think.  They should lower the amount of CPs you get from detachments, and instead give you more points for having a battleforged army.  Maybe even more points if all the detachment share the same keywords (i.e. it's a mono-codex army).  So a battleforged army gets 5  CPs, a mono-codex battleforged army gets 8CPs. Then the old 1/3/9 for specialist/battalion/brigade. 

 

This would actually bring parity where small elite armies can still have a lot of CPs. 

 

Their current solution instead just gave Guard and other horde armies effectively infinite CPs... now I don't bother taking the CP farm traits and relics, and instead focus on making my killy stuff even more killy.

[Kisada]

I for one cannot see how 250 points is going to make much of a difference. if they lowered it to 1500 points, then that'd make more sense, but 250 points seems too small and what they should have done instead was limit the amount of time a player can spend on their turn. So if they want each game finished in 2 hours and 30 mins (150 mins) and each player to have played 5 turns, so 10 turns in total, then they should limit each player turn to 15 minutes max.

 

 

 

The problem with 15min turn limit is that obviously some turns will take more time than other turns ... thats why a chess clock makes more sense so that you get 1 hour and 15mins to spend how you see fit for your army.

[Withershadow]

Chess clock makes more sense because you won't need as much time in later turns as you do in the opening ones (stuff dies, so there is less to activate, or you've reached the objective you are trying to hold so no more movement is necessary, etc.)

[Beaky Brigade]

I would say this is almost certainly a reaction to the 'Slow Play' accusations that surfaced after the GT finals and most of the people I know that attended think the same thing...

 

...He was offered more time by GW for the final to complete the game and refused to take it. His kill point total was 3k which was one of the lowest in the event, most top ten players were 7-9k. He got zero best game points, he got zero slay the warlord. He has previous complaints about slow play at other events.

 

Sounds like his behaviour was pretty obvious. It should be simple then, introduce some sort of sportsmanship metric instead of best game, and the player with the worst sportsmanship rating is banned from future events. Sure the best players will most likely rate each other low like they are on 'Come Dine With Me' or something but there should be enough normal humans at an event to average it out.

[antique_nova]

 

I for one cannot see how 250 points is going to make much of a difference. if they lowered it to 1500 points, then that'd make more sense, but 250 points seems too small and what they should have done instead was limit the amount of time a player can spend on their turn. So if they want each game finished in 2 hours and 30 mins (150 mins) and each player to have played 5 turns, so 10 turns in total, then they should limit each player turn to 15 minutes max.

 

 

 

The problem with 15min turn limit is that obviously some turns will take more time than other turns ... thats why a chess clock makes more sense so that you get 1 hour and 15mins to spend how you see fit for your army.

 

 

There is that, but you completely missed my pre counter argument to that.

 

 

Also, fluff and realism wise, if any commander takes too long to react to a situation, he often loses the chance to react. So you can argue with that, because most commanders rarely get 15 minutes to react to some deathstar unit or whatnot blasting a vital unit of theirs apart or ripping them apart and then get 15 minutes to sit and think.

 

This would also force certain players to not mess around with big armies too much. Horde armies would be penalised, but think of it this way, most horde armies aren't going to be as careful with movements and deployment as a tabletop player. So it makes it more fluffy and realistic.

 

 

It's unrealistic and unthinkable to spent more than 15 minutes on any situation in a fight or battle and expect your opponent to do nothing whether it be a PvP in an MMO, RNG like Skyrim or real life. I understand this is a tabletop game, but still, this 15 minute timed realism makes more sense to me at least.

 

I also wouldn't consider it speed cheese, because then I would give each player only 10 minutes and only 1250 points max.

[Race Bannon]

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

[Dracos]

The new CP rule for detachments is a bit backwards, I think. They should lower the amount of CPs you get from detachments, and instead give you more points for having a battleforged army. Maybe even more points if all the detachment share the same keywords (i.e. it's a mono-codex army). So a battleforged army gets 5 CPs, a mono-codex battleforged army gets 8CPs. Then the old 1/3/9 for specialist/battalion/brigade.

 

This would actually bring parity where small elite armies can still have a lot of CPs.

 

Their current solution instead just gave Guard and other horde armies effectively infinite CPs... now I don't bother taking the CP farm traits and relics, and instead focus on making my killy stuff even more killy.

I cannot “Like” this idea enough. The exact numbers might need fiddle (or they might be perfect :)) but this concept ... Genius ;)

[Sonoftherubric21]

 

Or, you know, keep sending feedback in a constructive way to GW

I'm pretty sure 40kfaq have me blocked at this point, I send them about 2 emails per week with various issues and suggestions (and repeating some that I really hope to get addressed ).

 

Tournament play does reward bringing disposable garbage over single high-potency units, which is why even with their Codex we will never see a Knights army on the top tables.

 

The new CP rule for detachments is a bit backwards, I think.  They should lower the amount of CPs you get from detachments, and instead give you more points for having a battleforged army.  Maybe even more points if all the detachment share the same keywords (i.e. it's a mono-codex army).  So a battleforged army gets 5  CPs, a mono-codex battleforged army gets 8CPs. Then the old 1/3/9 for specialist/battalion/brigade. 

 

This would actually bring parity where small elite armies can still have a lot of CPs. 

 

Their current solution instead just gave Guard and other horde armies effectively infinite CPs... now I don't bother taking the CP farm traits and relics, and instead focus on making my killy stuff even more killy.

 

 

My opinion regarding the CP increase is somewhat reversed.  Playing Thousand Sons regularly, with a fair number of our troop slot "elite" unit Rubrics, and having a (relatively) elite army in general means that I was already at a massive CP disadvantage. usually maxing out with 6, sometimes 7 in 2k depending on list build.  

 

Now? I'm usually toting 9-10.  The local "horde army" players already had easy access to lists of 12+ CP. The gradient of "gain" was far higher for elite lists then it was for the subsequent horde armies. The difference for a guard list having 15 and 20 CP is quite negligible in a game of 5 turns, usually by turn 3-4 the games swung massively one way or the other. In my case? those extra 2-4 CP help DRASTICALLY in a way that is quite noticeable on the table.  The extra CP for a guard player going from 15 to (lets say) 18?  proportionally it really doesn't change much for those players. 

 

Just my thoughts on it after some regular play using my 1k sons after the FAQ change. 

 

[CommodusXIII]

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

Well that doesn't sound very sporting.

[OutlawSixActual]

I like the 15 minutes per turn idea. One of the points between hordes and elite armies is that elites are supposed to be very flexible, communicate and adapt well, etc. they should have no problem with 15 minutes.

 

Hordes are supposed to be massive walls pushing forward - they dont have the time or inclination to be super tactical. 15 minutes forces the horde to spend less time on indovidual decisions and more time on “getting moving.” If a huge horde tries to be micromanaged, they just get bogged down by their own weight - symbolized by them hitting the time limit.

 

I really like this - elite armies take time with positioning, tactics, and micro considerations (as they should), hordes rely on overpowering enemies with numbers and so dont care / have time to worry about things on the micro scale - everything is macro with them (as it should be)

 

Its worth playtesting at the very least!

Of course the question becomes time limit shenanigans like rules debates to run out the opponents clock, etc. probably meed to have “stoppage time” or stop the clock during admin discussion, etc. still an honor system, but maybe less of one?

[Race Bannon]

 

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

Well that doesn't sound very sporting.

 

 

Totally.  Yet, sportsmanship should be expected and "normal", not needing to be judged.

[Withershadow]

 

 

 

 

Or, you know, keep sending feedback in a constructive way to GW

I'm pretty sure 40kfaq have me blocked at this point, I send them about 2 emails per week with various issues and suggestions (and repeating some that I really hope to get addressed ).

 

Tournament play does reward bringing disposable garbage over single high-potency units, which is why even with their Codex we will never see a Knights army on the top tables.

 

The new CP rule for detachments is a bit backwards, I think. They should lower the amount of CPs you get from detachments, and instead give you more points for having a battleforged army. Maybe even more points if all the detachment share the same keywords (i.e. it's a mono-codex army). So a battleforged army gets 5 CPs, a mono-codex battleforged army gets 8CPs. Then the old 1/3/9 for specialist/battalion/brigade.

 

This would actually bring parity where small elite armies can still have a lot of CPs.

 

Their current solution instead just gave Guard and other horde armies effectively infinite CPs... now I don't bother taking the CP farm traits and relics, and instead focus on making my killy stuff even more killy.

My opinion regarding the CP increase is somewhat reversed. Playing Thousand Sons regularly, with a fair number of our troop slot "elite" unit Rubrics, and having a (relatively) elite army in general means that I was already at a massive CP disadvantage. usually maxing out with 6, sometimes 7 in 2k depending on list build.

 

Now? I'm usually toting 9-10. The local "horde army" players already had easy access to lists of 12+ CP. The gradient of "gain" was far higher for elite lists then it was for the subsequent horde armies. The difference for a guard list having 15 and 20 CP is quite negligible in a game of 5 turns, usually by turn 3-4 the games swung massively one way or the other. In my case? those extra 2-4 CP help DRASTICALLY in a way that is quite noticeable on the table. The extra CP for a guard player going from 15 to (lets say) 18? proportionally it really doesn't change much for those players.

 

Just my thoughts on it after some regular play using my 1k sons after the FAQ change.

As mentioned, the advantage to Guard was a shift in relic and trait priorities. Now Guard can relatively easily get away with no CP farming abilities (no grand strategist or Kurov’S Aquila) and instead focus on maxing out damage output. So it was more indirect, but still was a significant buff.

[Panzer]

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

I unfortunately have to agree. It's one of those concepts that work if everybody is decent but then it's not needed ... and totally crashes when there's someone abusive that sees it as means to give his opponent less points than he might get which in return when found out makes people hesistant to give others a good sportsmanship rating next time.

[taikishi]

 

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

I unfortunately have to agree. It's one of those concepts that work if everybody is decent but then it's not needed ... and totally crashes when there's someone abusive that sees it as means to give his opponent less points than he might get which in return when found out makes people hesistant to give others a good sportsmanship rating next time.

 

 

It's also one of those things that all it takes is for you to have a moment of frustration (for any reason, even at yourself) to be considered a bad sport. Lord knows I'm my own worst critic and will verbally berate myself in old L5R when I make a critical mistake that I catch after-the-fact or get upset when my deck decides, for the third game in a row, to give me no gold or no bodies one.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective.  It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

I have to agree with this, in my experience with scoring the worse you lost the better your sports score. 

 

As far as game clocks go I don't see it as a great solution. We are playing a table top game with a lot of rules and interactions that aren't clearly defined. If some ones strategy is to stall and try make a game only last 3 turns, they'll be able to.

 

I think we need to move away from all the emphasis on best general style awards, and start to promote other aspects of the hobby. Have awards for best theme, for display boards, and shift the prize support towards participation awards. 

[Kisada]

 

 

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective. It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

I have to agree with this, in my experience with scoring the worse you lost the better your sports score.

 

As far as game clocks go I don't see it as a great solution. We are playing a table top game with a lot of rules and interactions that aren't clearly defined. If some ones strategy is to stall and try make a game only last 3 turns, they'll be able to.

 

I think we need to move away from all the emphasis on best general style awards, and start to promote other aspects of the hobby. Have awards for best theme, for display boards, and shift the prize support towards participation awards.

I don’t think you understand game clocks. The time is split evenly among both players. If you stall and waste your time ... and I have time left over ... I get to keep playing once your time is up.

[abraxus]

I like the 15 minute limit, but maybe 20, 20, 15, 10, 10 to account for more units alive in the first turns than the last?

[Castigator]

I'm not convinced that GW have dropped the points limit because of slow play, maybe they just want to mix it up a bit?

Most tournaments are now 2000pts ETC/ITC style events. Maybe the GW just want a tournament that is a different points size?.....I know I do 

 

As for slow play, I think awarding two Tournament Points for every round played in a game (capping at round 5) would work. It gives players an incentive to play quickly and should be achievable for everyone to get an additional 50TP's.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective. It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

I have to agree with this, in my experience with scoring the worse you lost the better your sports score.

 

As far as game clocks go I don't see it as a great solution. We are playing a table top game with a lot of rules and interactions that aren't clearly defined. If some ones strategy is to stall and try make a game only last 3 turns, they'll be able to.

 

I think we need to move away from all the emphasis on best general style awards, and start to promote other aspects of the hobby. Have awards for best theme, for display boards, and shift the prize support towards participation awards.

I don’t think you understand game clocks. The time is split evenly among both players. If you stall and waste your time ... and I have time left over ... I get to keep playing once your time is up.

 

 

15 minute turns, plus deployment, plus setting up terrain, discussing what terrain is, plus calling over judges (which if you get a penalty for that creates a whole lot of other issues). So yeah I think people can still stall with game clocks. 

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Sportsmanship metrics are terrible because they are highly, and abusively, subjective. It demands a level of honor that has no place in a tournament where the ends justify the means.

 

I have to agree with this, in my experience with scoring the worse you lost the better your sports score.

As far as game clocks go I don't see it as a great solution. We are playing a table top game with a lot of rules and interactions that aren't clearly defined. If some ones strategy is to stall and try make a game only last 3 turns, they'll be able to.

I think we need to move away from all the emphasis on best general style awards, and start to promote other aspects of the hobby. Have awards for best theme, for display boards, and shift the prize support towards participation awards.

I don’t think you understand game clocks. The time is split evenly among both players. If you stall and waste your time ... and I have time left over ... I get to keep playing once your time is up.

 

15 minute turns, plus deployment, plus setting up terrain, discussing what terrain is, plus calling over judges (which if you get a penalty for that creates a whole lot of other issues). So yeah I think people can still stall with game clocks.

Uhm you don't set up and define terrain yourself on tournaments normally ...