GW drops GT army size to 1750 points

[D3L]

Absolutely great news!

awful lot of negativity floating around, this helps to cut a lot of the abuse of not only special characters, but over powered units!

 

[rendingon1+]

 

 

Frontline noted in a recent podcast that they're testing out the chess clocks (chess clocks have a precedent with Warmachine).

If Warhammer 40,000 EVER becomes akin to Privateer Press' Warmachine/Hordes, I'll hang up my bolter.

In a what way?

[Deathwalker]

 

While this is certainly true, the problem arises when "fun players" don't move at a fast enough rate and cost the more competitive player slots that they will be weeded out of in the first or second round -because of it-

You're missing the point - the worst slow play is deliberate and not made by "fun players", as you say, but by tragically competitive tournament players.

 

Tragically on this sense as they try and kill games on their terms than win them outright.

 

Chess clocks put both the A-hole and the ignorant on the same level, which was entirely my point, and probably the point of everyone requesting their use. It's not to harm anyone, but be a ref free standard. Ref's chew up time as well, and having lost tournaments because the person I was playing against was the TO/ref in small tournaments and they spent half the game time adjudicating other peoples games, was frustrating.

 

I hear your point, and it's entirely valid, but as I said, a chess clock don't give a toss WHY you do it, just that you CAN'T do it.

I trust the thing who has no vested interest in the result because it has no interest.

 

 

 

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

 

I wish, but 1001 - 2000 is the area for 3 detachments (and also 'rule of 3' now). It's only 0 - 1000 where it drops down to 2 detachments (and 'rule of 2' ... we should find different name for that one lol).

 

rule of 3 and 3 detachments share little correlation. If I take a marine soup army, I can still only have 3 of any non troops across all three of those detachments, same with any soup army really, unless they have different names.

If you are talking about access to CP's, I can fit 2 detachments of marines in that (1000 pnts), but I can fit about 4 in a AM list, and 1 marine detachment is only giving me one CP, but possibly 3 of those AM ones are giving me 5.

 

 

Uhm what?

I was talking about this:

 

It has every correlation.

 

 

 We are talking about different things. SF.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

Everybody is talking about slowplay. I can't be the only one whos first tought was "hm... that's only 2 detachments"

 

I wish, but 1001 - 2000 is the area for 3 detachments (and also 'rule of 3' now). It's only 0 - 1000 where it drops down to 2 detachments (and 'rule of 2' ... we should find different name for that one lol).

 

rule of 3 and 3 detachments share little correlation. If I take a marine soup army, I can still only have 3 of any non troops across all three of those detachments, same with any soup army really, unless they have different names.

If you are talking about access to CP's, I can fit 2 detachments of marines in that (1000 pnts), but I can fit about 4 in a AM list, and 1 marine detachment is only giving me one CP, but possibly 3 of those AM ones are giving me 5.

 

 

Uhm what?

I was talking about this:

 

It has every correlation.

 

 

 We are talking about different things. SF.

 

 

Obviously. Not sure why you started to talk about something I wasn't tho. ^^

[jeremy1391]

One of the biggest problems I’ve seen in games is when you have horse armies vs horde armies.... those games will likely not finish quickly. Whereas when I used to play deathwing I faced off against another deathwing player. Our game was over with an hour to spare my opponent and I had time to go grab a beer and food before the round ended lol.

 

I’m in favor of a chess clock, or add a mechanic kinda like PUBG (the video game) with the game map growing 1D6 smaller each round and if you are caught out of the ever smaller map you take mortal wounds. It would stop incentivizing gun lines

[Race Bannon]

Although not against the rules per se, could we please refrain from quote 5+ posts?

 

Get stranded on an island, save the internet kinda thing.

[Vel'Cona]

 

In a what way?

 

Any beyond the basic wargaming elements.  But that's a discussion for another thread . . .

[Bat33.1]

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.

 

The winner finished 1 game out of 5 before the time limit, which was a Kill Point game so it was an advantage to finish that one, but he was able to complete the game comfortably. All his other games finished either T2 or T3 after 2.5 hours and an Ork horde list will pick up more points in the early game. 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. He played the system to get his points and win but IMO the hobby lost.

 

As for chess clocks FLG are convinced they are the answer and Reece said so on the last stream on Wednesday and also took aim at the GT winner for slow play when answering a question about the points reduction and how it would influence tournaments in the future. The question did not even mention the GT Finals but Reece gave the winner both barrels based on what he had been told by players who were playing the event.

 

Chess clocks are not for everyone and have the ability to be abused by a gamey opponent interrupting your turn to challenge rules, argue distances etc, your clock is running and they are still messing with your ability to play your turn. Personally I would like to see points awarded for each game turn completed and added to the points for a win or draw. You could also claim a full set for tabling an opponent early but I am sure people will come up with a system that works. Chess clocks will probably be fine for top tables at big comps but are a bit off putting for players taking their first steps into the tournament scene.

 

With the current meta 2k points is too many for a 2.5 hour tournament game to be able to guarantee finishing at least 5 turns or even 6, GW should probably consider increasing time limits on rounds to 3 hours or removing deployment phase from the time limit. The GT finals had one game Friday evening, 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday which seems a bit relaxed to say the least but whatever...

[Race Bannon]

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.

 

The winner finished 1 game out of 5 before the time limit, which was a Kill Point game so it was an advantage to finish that one, but he was able to complete the game comfortably. All his other games finished either T2 or T3 after 2.5 hours and an Ork horde list will pick up more points in the early game. 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. He played the system to get his points and win but IMO the hobby lost.

 

In a tournament, winning is what matters. How that happens is another story.

 

GW is not at fault here.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

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.

 

The winner finished 1 game out of 5 before the time limit, which was a Kill Point game so it was an advantage to finish that one, but he was able to complete the game comfortably. All his other games finished either T2 or T3 after 2.5 hours and an Ork horde list will pick up more points in the early game. 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. He played the system to get his points and win but IMO the hobby lost.

In a tournament, winning is what matters. How that happens is another story.

 

GW is not at fault here.

 

 

Well, yes and no.

 

GW have clearly looked at this and decided there is a problem with the format - part of the reason being the way that the format could be gamed for advantage in a negative way which was not what they intended at all.

 

Realistically if this became widespread only people who think this is what constitutes fun would turn up to tournaments, so that would be like a handful of sad people all claiming to be the BEST PLAYER EVER  while nobody else cared at all. That is bad for the competitive side of the game so GW probably do want to find ways to address it for their competitive events. Similarly the ITC want to tackle it for their events because anyone watching the streams from LVO knows that it was a massive issue there too. Both GW and the ITC want 40K to become a worthwhile event on Twitch etc - that is never going to happen if they permit this style of gaming the system to dominate the top tables - everyone will get bored and go watch something less dull instead. Right now it looks like the ITC and GW are trying out different approaches to fixing the issue, I am curious to see which works.

[Race Bannon]

Well, yes and no.

:lol:

 

I get that point of view.

 

To clarify mine: GW likely did not anticipate a troll running the clock. So, without literally using clocks, the other way was through the points. Lower points = less game time.

 

In other words, GW built a system that works when the participants silently agree to behave expectedly. You know ... play the game in a timely fashion.

 

This abberant didn't cheat and his army wasn't likely beardy. But offering extra time and he doesn't take it?!

 

Yeah man, GW didn't build a faulty tournament system.

[Withershadow]

Pretty bad change, won't make the games any faster, will help skew lists, will further marginalize elite armies to be even less competitive.

[Dracos]

 

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.

 

The winner finished 1 game out of 5 before the time limit, which was a Kill Point game so it was an advantage to finish that one, but he was able to complete the game comfortably. All his other games finished either T2 or T3 after 2.5 hours and an Ork horde list will pick up more points in the early game. 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. He played the system to get his points and win but IMO the hobby lost.

I wouldn't mind time clocks and point reductions as potential tools to address time issues, but it feels like the TOs needed to address this specimen early in the tournament ... which would require a more proactive and disciplinarian handling of these kinds of situations. I've been a participant in competitive events since I was a kid. As an adult, I've also spent many years as a referee and event organizer. If you're going to have a competitive event, especially one with monetary prizes, them you (TOs) need to approach it at a professional level and be ready to address every cheating sneak out there because the rule is if you don't get caught its not cheating. Harsh maybe but that's the attitude competitive events foster. As a TO it's your responsibility to create a fair and equal playing field as possible (not talking just terrain here ;)) Judges have to have there eyes on the games and the authority and willpower to discipline those trying to circumvent the rules.

 

First Offense: Time penalty on the players clock

Second Offense: Forfeit current game

Third Offense: Expulsion from the tournament and put on a watch list

 

Rant over, sorry d-bags like that really get my goat.

 

Terry Sloane "Fair play"

[Ishagu]

I guess I'll just spam hordes instead if GW don't want to have people take expensive units in the game.

[helterskelter]

I guess I'll just spam hordes instead if GW don't want to have people take expensive units in the game.

I thought you said you were an experienced player? Surely if you're up against those who've clearly less experience than yourself,which you have seemed to imply earlier, you'd be able to take advantage of your superior skill set? Or would I be incorrect in my assumption of your abilities?

[Ishagu]

I'm experienced enough to know when a mathematical advantage swings too far in one direction :-D

[Helycon]

I'm experienced enough to know when a mathematical advantage swings too far in one direction :-D

Since when does 2000-250 not equal 2000-250?

[Dracos]

Because armies that cost more points per model play more effectively at higher points. There are going to be certain point bands that the higher model count outweighs the higher abilities of the army with less models.

 

The Horde army can keep a high model count and still have it’s Baneblade and be relatively uneffected compared to the Elite army has to lose more from an already low model count.

 

 

... and could we keep the non-conducive comments out of the conversation. Just because someone had problems dealing with change isn’t license to dogpile. If you disagree please do it civil and in a manner that furthers the conversation

[Helycon]

Because armies that cost more points per model play more effectively at higher points. There are going to be certain point bands that the higher model count outweighs the higher abilities of the army with less models.

 

The Horde army can keep a high model count and still have it’s Baneblade and be relatively uneffected compared to the Elite army has to lose more from an already low model count.

 

 

... and could we keep the non-conducive comments out of the conversation. Just because someone had problems dealing with change isn’t license to dogpile. If you disagree please do it civil and in a manner that furthers the conversation

You could also argue there is less wrap for the baneblade and less weight of small arms fire to force more saves. It goes both ways.

 

I'm well aware of the fact that the game isn't completely balanced, but 250 points is this a 12.5% cut for all armies flat. Some horde based armies will now need to drop another Batallion in favour of having their bigger units, whereas more elite armies will generally drop another detachment that would give them only one CP in stead of 5.

 

I'm still pretty sure that most armies will cope the exact same. Less models and an overall relatively comperable loss of power.

[Honda]

MOD VOICE: Ok, stop with the attitude and the baiting. Now.

[Withershadow]

Right, I am not getting why folks are getting an attitude about it.  Armies where the individual units are more expensive certainly do have to adjust differently to a lower point level.  My guard or Dark Eldar are a lot more flexible when it comes to adjusting down in points, because everything can be broken down into blocks of 50 or 100 points.  Elite armies struggle a lot more with this.  I am shocked people can't recognize the difference between getting your base HQ and troops for a battalion with, say, guard (who only need 210 points) or, say, Death Guard (who need at least twice that if not more).

[Ishagu]

Exactly. This simply swings the game even more in favour of cheap, disposable units that already outperform the more expensive, elite alternatives.

 

It's bad for the game. Not only will the time be largely unaffected but variety will suffer, especially on the top tables.

[Withershadow]

Although to be fair, the GT circuit is already questionable with the issues of slow playing, or the terrain travesty that is the London GT.  Shooty hoards will dominate anyway if that is the standard GW expects from their tournaments.

 

Reducing points to 1750 is a bit of old GW thinking, where the solution to a stubbed toe was to stab yourself in the kneecap.

[Ishagu]

It just means, ultimately, that I have 0 interest in GW events for the foreseeable future.

[OutlawSixActual]

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