New Grant Tournament Format - 1750pts

[TheHarpDaddy]

Hey guys,

 

The newest tabletop tactics video (harlequins vs thousand sons) reveals that games workshop has just released new 1750pt format for their grand tournament events, and that this will be the new norm for GW run tournament games.

 

What do you guys think of this? Is this a benefit for Custodes, or a disadvantage? Do you prefer 2000pts? Has anyone played much 1750?

 

Keen to hear if this would be the communities preference or not!

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

In general I’m in favour. I’ve always preferred 1500 since 3rd edition and haven’t been a fan of the slowly growing “standard game size” for various reasons (cost mostly, but also I enjoy a point level where I have to make tough choices). So going to 1750 is a step in the right direction in my view especially given all the extra rules these days.

 

Now, since this sub forum is not a strictly Custodes one, but Agents (so Inquisition, Assassins, Sisters of Silence,

Adeptus Ministorum) I’m not going to answer your question directly about how this effects Custodes ... I actually don’t know because I don’t play them. As for inquisition which I do play, I’m not sure that it makes a huge difference especially since we usually ally with others. But I think it could be better given our lower options as it reduces the need for spamming to fill out points.

[MeatGrinder]

GW tends to make poor decisions when it comes to fixing a problem. Theyre doing this as a reaction to all the accusations of slow play and 2k games taking too long. However, dropping 250pts will not increase the speed games are played, its been tested and doesnt work.

 

Personally I find 2k the ideal size for both 40k and AoS.

[Ahkris]

I would much much rather play at 2000 points. We run a lot of events here in the Netherlands and get 150+ players regularly. With three hour rounds pretty much all games come to a natural end or get at least to turn five. If slow play is a real issue i would rather fix it with chess clocks than have everyone remove a unit and still take the same amount of time.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

I'm not a fan of chess clocks myself. I feel that this would disproportionately penalize players of armies like Imperial Guard, Orks, and Tyrannids while unduly "rewarding" plays of elite armies, especially the most elite army -- Custodes. It may even cause the variety of armies to diminish as a result and it still doesn't deal with the underlying problem of poor sportsmanship that causes purposely slow playing. I'm rather chary of what chess clocks might do to make the sportsmanship atmosphere even worse.

 

That said, I don't really have a dog in the fight since I never have and probably never will attend the sort of intense, "high level" tournaments where these things are issues. I only attend Astronomi-con because I've tried small local tournaments in a more cut-throat environment and it simply was not by thing at all. 

[Ahkris]

If you can not play your selected army within the alotted time frame simply dont bring it to a tournament. Why is it fair for a guard or ork player to use over 2 hours out of our 3 while i have to rush hrough my turns to compensate for them being slow and taking forever with their five billion models?
 

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

So effectively you’re saying only elite armies are a valid playstyle at tournaments? Well that’s just not a tournament I’d want to attend but if that’s what you prefer then more power to you.

 

I guess that’s why I don’t like (very competitive) tournament play*. That sort of mindset is just foreign to me.

 

 

 

* the event I attend annually is technically a tournament but it’s not ultra competitive. Soft scores like painting and sportsmanship account for half the points. Its competitive in that people want to win but it’s definiteky not WAAC.

[Helycon]

If you can not play your selected army within the alotted time frame simply dont bring it to a tournament. Why is it fair for a guard or ork player to use over 2 hours out of our 3 while i have to rush hrough my turns to compensate for them being slow and taking forever with their five billion models?

 

Yeah, because it's not like they are allowed to enjoy a tournament they're attending. Just because you seem to enjoy elite armies, doesn't mean that everyone should. Someone playing orks had a such right to play as you do. The truth is in the middle, and they are trying to reach that by slightly lowering the amount of points. Sky is not falling. All will be well.

[MeatGrinder]

 

If you can not play your selected army within the alotted time frame simply dont bring it to a tournament. Why is it fair for a guard or ork player to use over 2 hours out of our 3 while i have to rush hrough my turns to compensate for them being slow and taking forever with their five billion models?

Yeah, because it's not like they are allowed to enjoy a tournament they're attending. Just because you seem to enjoy elite armies, doesn't mean that everyone should. Someone playing orks had a such right to play as you do. The truth is in the middle, and they are trying to reach that by slightly lowering the amount of points. Sky is not falling. All will be well.

 

 

Unfortunately if you take a disproportionate amount of time to resolve one of your turns, and it ends up affecting the result of the game, then your enjoyment of an event directly takes away from another persons enjoyment, and you do it in a way you are not entitled to. It is the most frustrating experiance knowing that you are going to lose a game not because of your strategic decisions, your dice rolls or your army, and instead are going to lose because your opponent is so slow you'll never have a chance to actually play the game.

 

You have to be able to play your army swiftly at an event, and in my opinion there needs to be sanctions placed on someone whos first turn takes longer that it should. If someone takes an hour to move their models you should call a judge.

 

If you have 300 models on the board and cant move them fast enough to play 5 turns you need to get movement trays, a different army or not attend a tournament until you can.

[Helycon]

 

 

 

If you can not play your selected army within the alotted time frame simply dont bring it to a tournament. Why is it fair for a guard or ork player to use over 2 hours out of our 3 while i have to rush hrough my turns to compensate for them being slow and taking forever with their five billion models?

Yeah, because it's not like they are allowed to enjoy a tournament they're attending. Just because you seem to enjoy elite armies, doesn't mean that everyone should. Someone playing orks had a such right to play as you do. The truth is in the middle, and they are trying to reach that by slightly lowering the amount of points. Sky is not falling. All will be well.

Unfortunately if you take a disproportionate amount of time to resolve one of your turns, and it ends up affecting the result of the game, then your enjoyment of an event directly takes away from another persons enjoyment, and you do it in a way you are not entitled to. It is the most frustrating experiance knowing that you are going to lose a game not because of your strategic decisions, your dice rolls or your army, and instead are going to lose because your opponent is so slow you'll never have a chance to actually play the game.

 

You have to be able to play your army swiftly at an event, and in my opinion there needs to be sanctions placed on someone whos first turn takes longer that it should. If someone takes an hour to move their models you should call a judge.

 

If you have 300 models on the board and cant move them fast enough to play 5 turns you need to get movement trays, a different army or not attend a tournament until you can.

My last statement was the most important part. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

GW realised that horde armies are prevalent because they now WORK. Sadly, there is no simple way with round bases to just use trays and horse armies will take time due to amount of models moved and dice thrown. Sure, if they take an inordinate amount of time, it's fair to make sure the time limit on the game is not going to constrain the actual outcome. But people that do try and play as fast as they can should not be punished, and completely banning horde armies is not a solution.

 

Again, the truth in this case is in the middle.

[MARK0SIAN]

So effectively you’re saying only elite armies are a valid playstyle at tournaments? Well that’s just not a tournament I’d want to attend but if that’s what you prefer then more power to you.

 

I guess that’s why I don’t like (very competitive) tournament play*. That sort of mindset is just foreign to me.

 

 

 

* the event I attend annually is technically a tournament but it’s not ultra competitive. Soft scores like painting and sportsmanship account for half the points. Its competitive in that people want to win but it’s definiteky not WAAC.

I don’t think he is saying only elite armies should be allowed. He’s just saying that if you take a horde army it is your responsibility to be able to play them in a timely fashion.

 

You say yourself that sportsmanship is a big part of the events you attend but it’s hardly good sportsmanship if you take up 2/3 of the allotted time for a match on your turn and only leave your opponent the remaining 1/3.

 

It is reasonable to expect certain standards of competency from people entering a tournament. You wouldn’t think it acceptable for someone to enter who didn’t understand the rules around movement, shooting or CC. You would expect them to learn those before they entered a tournament. Moving and playing your army in a timely fashion is one of those competencies that it is reasonable to expect.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

I think that Helycon is right and the truth is somewhere in the middle here, and we may be arguing past each other to an extent.

 

I agree 100% that players have the responsibility to know the rules and their own armies well enough to play in a reasonably timely fashion. I agree that it's poor sportsmanship to show up to a tournament either unprepared/lacking in competency, or to purposely drag one's feet for advantage. I agree that both of these are unacceptable.

 

My point about chess clocks unfairly advantaging elite armies (and the most elite of the elite armies like Custodes the most), is that it gives them an unfair advantage to be clocked because even a well-prepared/competent/well-intentioned horde player will take longer to play his turn simply by virtue to the fact he has more models to more, more shots to take, and more decisions to make. So on timed turns, the elite armies can take their time and almost leisurely complete their turns whereas the horde player is under the gun. 

 

I never said I wasn't in favour of players being competent and courteous to their opponent. I'm just not in favour of something like chess clocks. I think things like making sportsmanship scores a bigger part of overall score can help and it allows for a more contextual/organic way of dealing with things than a timed clock. That way, you could play and awesome game against a diligent opponent whose turns took longer than yours and still score him well on sportsmanship whereas he'd have been penalized by something impersonal like the clock.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree, I would prefer it if people could be encouraged to play appropriately in some other fashion but the sad fact is, for every decent, honourable player like yourself, there will be some who will only act correctly if they are forced to. Being able to give a sportsmanship score to someone who essentially slow played their way to victory is ok but it’s small consolation for the person who actually lost the match because of it. That victory won’t be taken away from someone just because of a poor sportsmanship score and the player who lost will still be eliminated.

 

As for horde versus elite, you are correct, the elite player would have more time to consider his moves etc but I think, given all the strengths and advantages of horde armies compared to elite ones in this edition, that having that as a downside of bringing a horde is reasonable. Aside from the cost of collection and the time to paint them, this is pretty much the only downside horde armies have at the moment.

[Ahkris]

Lets take one of the more extreme examples then. Back in 7th edition i ued to play with an Imperial Knight army at events. Four knights two flyers and a single landspeeder. And this was one of the more extreme cases but it honestly happened more than once. We have 3 hours to play our game, and my opponent brought a huge necron horde. Out of the alotted 3 hours play time i used half an hour and my opponent used 2.5 hours. We did not have enough time to finish turn 4. Hell you can look at the LVO semi finals where tony took 90 minutes for his first turn and then told hs opponent to hurry up because the clock was running out.

You can come and spout a lot of BS in here but there is no way that is fair. If you cant play it within your timeslot do not play it. And yes if someone goes over a bit and 50/50 ends up being 60/40, that is completely fine. But there are a lot of people out there where it will end up 80/20 and thats where it becomes an issue to me. Yes a horde army has to move more models (theres movement trays for round models too...) but the elite army player probably has to think through ll his moves a lot more and things like exact positioning and stacking the correct buffs will matter a lot more to him. 

There are plenty of ways to run an army and you can also take some less boyz/conscripts/cultists/whatever and take a couple of vehicles or walkers or monstrous creatures instead if its too large for you to handle without stopping the game from reaching a natural conclusion.

That being said its not horde vs elite. Ive played plenty of people who can run their horde armies like a well oiled machine and it is a joy to play them. And ive played people where even if they only had two models it would take two hours. I think the important thing is that you should realise what works for you as a player and run something that you personally are comfortable running without burdening the other party to rush through their time to make up for yours. This means being at least vaguely familiar with what your army does and being adept at quickly moving a lot of models and dice if need be.

[Prot]

So far I’m not a fan of the point reduction at all. In my experience the reduction takes the big fun stuff off the table.

 

Right now, overall in competitive 40k (which is what we’re discussing here) GW certainly rewards a lot of cheap obsec units that are way too easy to protect or produce, or replenish. When the points reduce, I don’t think you’ll see guardian spam, Ork boy lists, Cultists spam, etc reduce those types of units.

 

My DG are a good example. I’m playing an ITC event shortly at 1750. Mortarion is nearly unplayable. He’s removed from the list, and I’ve added many more models that are cheap for board control, etc.

 

While the game is so destructive, a lot of high point units don’t rate in competitive play there are some crazy outliers that are an exception, but it would take something big to change that.... perhaps it will be Knights?

 

So while I personally don’t think 1750 will change that( and Frontline gaming’s own feedback supports that) I do think highly competitive tournaments probably benefit from chess clocks, but only on top tables.

 

I’ve seen stall tactics, we know slow play to get a timed win unfortunately does exist. If you put 4 grand USD on the table, unfortunately it is enough motivation for some people to add 8-10 minutes per turn.

 

Think about it this way; right now in these paying championship games there’s is no time limit on a player turn at all....that’s pretty crazy when you think about it.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

Good points, Prot, and at an event where thousands of dollars are on the line, I think timed turns in some fashion makes a lot more sense than in lower more local tournaments where a box of tactical marines is all that's on the line.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

 

Hell you can look at the LVO semi finals where tony took 90 minutes for his first turn and then told hs opponent to hurry up because the clock was running out.

 

 

That just sounds like douche-baggery of the highest order. I'll admit I was ignorant of the fact that people did nonsense like that. I retract my blanket disapproval of chess clocks ... I still wouldn't want to see them at more local tournaments but at stuff like the LVO garbage like that needs to be penalized in some fashion.

[Prot]

I don’t like that it’s become a strategy to shoot for a timed win, but it is happening. I’d just reiterate that even at competitive events a lot of people go for the fun of it, so I’d personally restrict a timed turn game to the top 5 tables probably.

 

And I’d never do this in the narrative tournies.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Another bad knee jerk reaction. I hope this does not become the norm and it won’t stop play. GW has penalized armies that inherently don’t slow play.

[Ahkris]

Yeap 250 points reduction does not hurt Guard or Eldar or Orks. It does howver hurt armies like Custodes, Grey Knights and Imperial Knight quite badly. And often it means you take out a larger thing such as a daemon primarch or superheavy tank and just take more small things. For me at least my 1500pt armies tend to have the same if not higher model counts than my 2000pt armies.

[MeatGrinder]

I don’t like that it’s become a strategy to shoot for a timed win, but it is happening. I’d just reiterate that even at competitive events a lot of people go for the fun of it, so I’d personally restrict a timed turn game to the top 5 tables probably.

 

And I’d never do this in the narrative tournies.

 

A lot of people do go for fun, but nobody goes without expecting competitive play. I'd put timed turns in every game. I was against it until it happened to me, where I had to stand there for an hour while someone else played a single player game.

[AstraWlad]

Yeah, because it's not like they are allowed to enjoy a tournament they're attending.

 

Tournaments are not to be "enjoyed", they are to be won. And some players win by playing the clock rather than the opponent. 

[Helycon]

 

 

Yeah, because it's not like they are allowed to enjoy a tournament they're attending.

 

Tournaments are not to be "enjoyed", they are to be won. And some players win by playing the clock rather than the opponent.

That sounds more like having a terrible job. You're doing your life wrong at that point.

[AstraWlad]

 

That sounds more like having a terrible job. You're doing your life wrong at that point.

 

If you do not want to win there is no need in going to the tournament. You can always have a fun game with your friends. It is like Olympics: people tend to talk about "Olympic spirit" and so on, but in reality it is all about modern technologies, drugs and competition between national teams. Victory is the goal, in victory is the joy. That is what big sport is about.

[Nicodemus Doloroso]

 

 

That sounds more like having a terrible job. You're doing your life wrong at that point.

 

If you do not want to win there is no need in going to the tournament. You can always have a fun game with your friends. It is like Olympics: people tend to talk about "Olympic spirit" and so on, but in reality it is all about modern technologies, drugs and competition between national teams. Victory is the goal, in victory is the joy. That is what big sport is about.

People are taking toy soldiers on the tabletop way too seriously if it’s being considered “big sport” and it’s attitudes like this that will destroy the hobby if it leaks into the lower levels.

 

There are plenty of reasons to attend tournaments other than winning at all costs like meeting new people, playing on new and different tables, playing against people outside your normal circle, travel, end of the day beers, etc.

 

Making not being a douchebag part of the calculus of winning (making sportsmanship points significant) might mitigate it. The events I’ve attended had that and I was able to have fun too.