So,
A couple of things to bandy about through the intarwebs ....
1) Timing in a Tournament Setting for 40k
2) Daemonhunters vs. Grey Knights
First ...
You can't do timed turns flat out in 40k. As soon as you do, people will game the combat phase ... what's that, you say? I can keep my guardsmen stuck in combat with Mephiston if I but drag my feet until my turn's buzzer goes off?! HORRAY!
But what about the Movement and Shooting phases? Can someone "game" that to his favor, or would he only be hurt if he took too long? I'm inclined to say the latter. That said, is there any kind of a way to time these without it being a stress and burden to the players at a tournament, and in a way that is ACTUALLY FEASIBLE?
Good question, and right now it's just academic - I'm not planning on instituting timed phases at the NOVA just now ... but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.
Second ...
Right now we have a Codex Daemonhunters. They are releasing a Codex Grey Knights. So, does that invalidate Codex Daemonhunters? Can Imperial players everywhere of all colors continue to take Mystic Tarot combos, and Hooded Brother Captain combos, and the like?
This is all irrelevant if GW releases ANY kind of statement saying that Codex: DH is now superceded by Codex: GK ... but (gasp) what if they don't? If you were a TO, how would you rule?
The fact you can't time the assault phase presents a major problem. You could time the other phases but now you have an imbalance here among the phases. Shooty armies that don't care about the assault phase might be punished by that type of ruleset.
ReplyDeleteYes I'm gonna go ahead and say that Codex: Grey Knights invalidates Codex Daemon-hunters. At least for my tournaments it will.
If GW doesn't release some kind of statement or errata that says Codex: Gray Knights (C:GK) replaces Codex: Daemon-hunters (C:DH) I would say that you for all intents and purposes can reasonably argue the case of using C:DH.
ReplyDeletePlayers are not required to (though should) follow all codexes released, and a player using C:DH with his head in the ground could reasonably assume that C:GK is to his army as C:SM is to the Dark Angels.
On the other hand - if he's a Gray Knights player when C:GK comes out, if you're using GK characters, exclusive stuff, etc it is not unreasonable to assume that you must convert to the new codex. That argument doesn't really hold well for other armies that can be built from the codex, but hey, that's why we have point 3:
That all said - a TO always has the option of listing allowable codexes and books. It's the same logic that prevents more people from using neat stuff from the IA books. So a TO could always so "No C:DH. Use C:GK". It's his game, it's his call.
Suppose a game last two hours. Each player has one hour to complete the game. It is not that hard and would stop slow playing which is a real problem .
ReplyDeleteG
The second question does not even have to be asked. One army = One codex . Seriously bro get a clue.
ReplyDeleteG
Seriously bro get a clue? Dost mine ears deceive me, or are you simply trying to troll?
ReplyDeleteThere are people aplenty around the web asking the question, desperately attached to their allies. It's worth asking if only for the mental exercise.
BBF: One hour per player doesn't work when the assault phase is essentially shared. Please explain how you facilitate that.
ReplyDeleteTime issue is very easy to solve. Chess clocks set to half the match time. When a player runs out of time, they are no longer allowed to act. *hustle!!*
ReplyDeleteIf I were a TO, I'd allow the Grey Knights until GW says otherwise.
And as a Chaos player, I'd like to thank GW for yet another nut-punch. Because last/this edition's Chaos is already playing from behind.
Sure... You can try to use Codex Deamon Hunters... Just Row-sham-bo for it with all or opponents. They get to kick first.
ReplyDeleteYou are opening a big can of worms if you allow players to use both an older and newer codex for the same army. Now if GW was to say you can still use allies from the old daemon hunters codex following the release of the new Grey Knights codex then that's the way it will be - however I doubt they would make such a statement as we all know that GW wants to get rid of allies.
ReplyDeleteG
Black Blow Fly,
ReplyDeleteThere's no can of worms, especially without GW's statement. So we can tone that down immediately.
Also, get over the fear of change. This wouldn't be the end of 40k.
Seriously, bro.
Chess-clock and some sort of time penalties may be helpful.
ReplyDeleteTiming: a chess clock would be an interesting way to play the game. However, what do you do when horde player A runs out of time and had three units in assualt? Elite army player B does the assaults on his turns...are they then skipped on the player A assault phase? Or do you ignore the assault phase for both players and instead give them say 45 per player for moving and shooting?
ReplyDeleteGrey Knights: People claiming that due to a title change, C:GK != CDH should be beaten in the head with both codexes. It's the same thing. Hopefully GW will make some sort of comment about the new codex replacing the old.
For what it's worth, I tend to think - without bile/anger - that DH should be put into the ground as a dead codex when GK releases. That said, the quick conclusion jumping by BBF (and as far as I can tell, just BBF) that I was suggesting they should both remain active is a bit disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the timer ... this is tricky. You could simply assume assault phases take however long they take, and time peoples' shooting/movement phases ... after all, you can't really game the duration of the assault phase much ... as it's primarily just rolling dice and tabulating results.
shrinedawg FTW.
ReplyDeleteI mean seriously why even ask in the first place ??
:P
G
Heh, because even in this comments section there are people who think they should be permitted unless GW says otherwise :p
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTiming: You can't time gaming turns, but you can time the entire game:)
ReplyDeletewhy a chess clock?
Idea is to encourage players to play a bit faster. You give 60 minutes per player. If player spend more than 60 minutes he takes a penalty.
2 hours for 1 game session. After 2 hours passed, judge intervents and stops the game. If the game haven’t finished yet, judge allow players to finish the turn and counts the results. While counting he takes into account, who spent more than 60 minutes according to the clock. For example, swarm army player spent 80 minutes, while elite army player spent 40 minutes. The resultind score is something like 12-14 in favor of swarm player, but every 5 minutes above 60 are penalized by 1 point, so the resulting score is 12-10 in favor of elite army player. Or something like that…
you can only really time the portion of the player's turn that he has control over, meaning the movement and shooting. But that can really hinder horde and shooty armies. and the other player can still burn time by taking forever to allocate wounds. you could stop the clock while he does this, but then managing the clock could become an issue and most 40k players probably haven't had to worry about a clock while they play their games in addition to commanding their army. I think a decent idea is to have a clock on each table, or clocks around the room, and just have each person shoot for 10 mins a turn or whatever number you set. so if someone takes 20 minutes for their turn, you can be like, "dude, taht turn took 20 mins. can you speed it up a bit next turn please? thanks." Although not all turns take the same amount of time so it's hard to set a single turn length for each turn. The first couple turns are sometimes the longest and sometimes the last few turns are, depending on what the armies are. But anyway, I vote for a clock at each table and a time limit to try to stay under for each turn by each player.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can put a clock on any phase that requires both players to do _anything_. That rules out the shooting phase due to wound allocation, placing disembarked troops, etc, as well as the assault phase. If there is a serious penalty for running out of time there will be a serious incentive for slow-playing on the opponent's turn; if there isn't a serious penalty it won't speed up the game. So that really just leaves the movement phase, and timing the movement phase only is just another way of saying don't bring hordes to tournaments.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely clear if a chess clock would fix things, but something needs to be in place to prevent slow-play. Your concerns about foot-dragging in the Assault phase are just as applicable to the wider game... they're just a little harder to spot, you know?
ReplyDeleteIt would be worth a try.
As to Grey Knights vs. Daemonhunters: I think the intent is quite clear. The suggestion that Grey Knights should use the new book and the stuff that doesn't specifically come in power armor should use the old one is... silly (to be polite).
I have a very, very hard time believing that anyone arguing that the DH book should still be "active," is doing so honestly.
I think if you are going to time things a chess clock is best. For all phases, the clock is switched to the player who is taking action. (i.e. you make your saves, make attack, assemble dice, etc. on your own time.)
ReplyDeleteFor example, I shoot roll to hit and to wound, then hit the clock and then you roll saves. If a rules issue comes up the clock is stopped.
That is the only way I could see it working. that said that is probably too difficult to manage.
For the most part, I run elite armies (Deathwing) that require very little time for all phases of the game, so believe me I'm all in favor of keeping people from slow playing. That being said, I do NOT think you can put a set time limit on turns or even phases of the game. From a TO perspective, it would be very difficult, plus, are there rollover minutes? If I finish turn 1 movement in half the alotted time, do I get that extra time in turn 2 or later? The only phase I would be in favor of a time limit is deployment. I've seen people take 20-30 minutes to deploy things. "If it isn't on the table in X minutes, it's stuck in reserve."
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion comes from my golf experience. They have a simple clock on the golf cart that says you should be on the green of of hole 9, based on average rate of play. If you are on hole 8, you need to speed it up.
That same concept can be used at NOVA. Have periodic announcements (and maybe under the tournament clock) that you should be on the bottom of turn 3. Of course, this is an approximation, but if you are still on the bottom of turn 1, you know something is wrong. At this point, it is on the players to speak up and politely ask the slow-player to speed things up. If that does not work, call a judge over to "babysit".
Look, NOVA is a non-comp score event for all intents and purposes. Some people will attempt to slow-play because there are no consequences and others are just naturally slow. Well, if someone is slow-playing than don't be afraid to call them out on it. If you slow-play me, I'll first politely ask that we speed things up. If that doesn't work, I'm calling over a judge. I didn't spend $$ just to be cheated in a tournament.
The biggest problem with slow-playing is that the other players are too afraid/shy/whatever to call their opponent out on it.
Back to the main point, deployment is the only place you can put a time limit on.
@ Gramps - And even with deployment you will need to have it be a reasonably generous allotment of time. Putting down 20 vehicles can be done quickly if you know what you want to do, putting down 150 orks is going to take a while no matter what. Otherwise you are again saying in effect 'tournaments are for mech and msu; don't bring a horde.'
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't like it and I can see potential for abuse, if I were a TO I would allow all GW valid codexes which includes Daemonhunters. Really though this is a judgement call, especially since GW drops the ball on issues like this so often, so I can see a case for taking out allies.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else think Sisters are undercosted at 11 pts.?
Timed turns which included the movement phase and shooting phase but not the assualt phase do make sense, but only if:
1. The time limit is reasonable (like 10-15 min max)
2. There are not enough judges to enforce a less strict method
I hope that helps...
@Ben, I agree. I was thinking 10 minutes max per side, but I left the time blank on purpose. Even with a horde army, if your stuff is on a tray or display board, it shouldn't take long to deploy. If you are pulling your stuff out of a carrying case each game, well than you are setting yourself up for failure. I run hybrid/gun-line Tau which can take a bit to deploy, but never 10 minutes.
ReplyDeleteObviously timed games are a disadvantage to horde armies in general. I also don't think there should ever be timed phases or turns, but rather overall game time (In a 2 hour game, each player has 1 hour to make their moves, after your hour runs out then maybe you get a very small amount of time to make your moves, <5 min per phase). This is better overall because different phases take more time at different points in the game, movement takes a long time early and assault might not happen at all. SO haveing say 10 min for each phase, is silly if you are not going to even do anything in some phases (it also would hurt armies like Daemons who have little shooting). You also need to do overall time, so you can play as I mentioned above, with all your rolls/moves, made on your time.
ReplyDeletehaving overall time also takes care of deployment problems, in that if you want you can use a lot of time to deploy but it will be subtracted from your overall game time.
ReplyDelete@ chaosgerbil
ReplyDeleteWow it is horrid to see you would do that. I would never attend any event you are running.
About using a chess clock - Get one and try it out a few times. I have used a stopwatch on my iPhone to time my opponents - show that to a judge and it will get their attention real quick !!!
G
BBF, tone down the hyperbole and ad hominem, I don't think it's going to get you anywhere. Apply a lil reason - I don't think you're on the wrong side of this one, you're just taking a quick dismissive negative approach.
ReplyDeleteLots of good ideas on the timing ... I wonder if it's simply not best to simply give everyone a NOVA Open logo'ed stopwatch in each swag bag, and have them use it during the game to track things as a requirement (so, judges would go by tables anyway, make sure at least one stopwatch is running), and provide suggested round times and average times to help people keep pace and know if their opponents are playing a little slow (or if they are).
ReplyDeleteHmmm ...
Okay I want to use my old Sanguinary High Priest model from my 3ed BA army... all friendly BA units within 12" reroll hits on the charge. I would love to blow the dust off this model and see him back in action.
ReplyDeleteAbout timing games - at BB II players have to record how many turns they completed each game. I think in the future we might have them record the time taken per each player turn.
ReplyDeleteG
Therein lies the Rub, BBF - the reason people are making an argument (not to mean I'm making it) .... Codex: BA 3rd Ed = same name / codex replaced by Codex: BA 5th Ed ... whereas Codex: DH is not the same name as Codex: GK
ReplyDeleteSame might argue ... Codex: SW replaces Codex: SM, using repetition of some same units, similar fluff, blah blah.
Regardless, that's the point ... it's similar to people who for years wanted to use Codex: Catachans after the 3/4e Codex: Imperial Guard was released.
Or Codex: Angels of Death and Codex: Ultramarines from 2nd edition. 2D6 armor saves on Terminators? Yes, please!
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, it's pretty much RAI vs. RAW again. The obvious common-sense answer is C:GK replaces C:DH. We're also making a couple assumptions here. 1: That C:GK is pure GK and doesn't include any Inq. units or the like. 2: That GW will not explicitly say it replaces C:DH (honestly, I could see it go either way). But, like you said, mental exercise. :P
As for timing, I see plenty of arguments for it going either way. It's like kill points versus victory points. Either way, it's going to benefit some armies and hurt others. Though, as has been mentioned, depending on how it's done, there could be room for 'sploiting. I do like the stopwatch and "recommended" time limits, rather than making them hard-and-fast "Each round will be 15 minutes long" or whatever. It would be nice to have some form of encouragement for people to move it along. Most games I play in tournaments seem to never make it past or even to turn 5, because my opponents are so slow.
So then i can field units from Codex Tau with the newer Codex Tau Empire? I'd love to be able to use the Ethereal special character that has rending and can't be picked out in close combat.
ReplyDeleteOr as pointed out by Allerka - I can use units from Codex Angels of Death with my new Blood Angels army?
What about lists such as feral Orks, Lost and the Damned, Ulthwe Strike Force or the 13th Company? I'd love to run a big squad of Wulfen with the new Space Wolf codex!
I think it's common knowledge that once a new codex is released the old one is retired. I've never seen it otherwise.
G
Technically those combinations wouldn't work because they're separate army books. That's the whole point of the exercise here. :P
ReplyDeleteBut if GW doesnt say no then why cant I do it ?
ReplyDelete/sarcasm
Heeee !!
G
When it comes to timing games, I think you also have to take into consideration model count or as someone said before you are going to discourage any horde army from generally being in attendance due to having penalties for longer times.
ReplyDeleteThere are some people that can move things fast for horde armies and can get the turns going quickly. I think that is a smaller portion of the horde players... but you guys would know better then I would.
I think if you are going to tally up the number of rounds in a game, and the time for each player turn, then you should also tally up the model count of each army and put that into consideration.
-If player A has a model count of 35, and player B has a model count of 115 then you should allow and expect him to move atleast 3x as long and find that acceptable.
-However if player A is taking 1/2 as long as player B to move and has 1/3 of the models something is wrong, and it shouldn't take player B an entire hour per turn to move all of his models and get through shooting.
-However if you are saying 10 minutes to move 100+ models, and shoot, and have the wounds allocated and resolved. That can almost be a bit much.
~Lackeylsk
On the Codex debate... when the base troops in the Deamon Hunter Codex are not Named Grey Knights then and only then will GK=/=Daemon Hunters.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise they need to find a new troop choice because if the Daemon Hunter codex is still valid.... and the GK dex comes out saying there are no more allies... then you can't field the Gk troops for a Daemon Hunter army... because GW didn't say you could.
Allerka is right it is very much RAI not RAW. When 3/4 of the Dex is going to be in the GK and it is Intended by GW to be an Update to the Deamonhunter dex. Then it is their new codex. Not a separate Codex.
~Lackeylsk
For the Daemonhunters/Grey Knight thing: As as far as I know, though I am not a Games Workshop employee, so this may or may not be true, the Grey Knights will still have the option for a Daemonhunter Inquisitor, so they're pretty much the same codex like Angels of Death and DA and BA were/are.
ReplyDeleteBBF you sound a bit trollish, but I will respond anyways.
ReplyDeleteIf someone shows up with a SOB army to an event I would be a pretty shocked if they were told they couldn't play.
The allies question presents problems either way it is decided which is why MVB wanted to talk about it, this is not so black and white.
You can say "no allies" which is a reasonable compromise but saying "no Deamonhunters" is quite extreme. Should we tell Necron players they can't come since their book is old too?
Going by the rules of GW officially allowed codexes is not bizarre or horrid. Like it or not, variant army lists and obsolete books are not kosher except in home games. Every other printed book is considered fair game by GW. That doesn't settle every question, but it does provide a consistent and well used structure for tournament formats.
Moving on, I would actually much prefer a squad of "activist judges" that walked around enforcing reasonable turn times than I would with either timed turns or for tables to be left alone. Many players feel reluctant to call over a judge or confront an opponent, and ideally judges should take some of the pressure off by asking players what turn they are on at regular intervals.
"I would actually much prefer a squad of "activist judges" that walked around enforcing reasonable turn times than I would with either timed turns or for tables to be left alone."
ReplyDeleteI do like this idea as its more informal. It may not endear the judges to the players, but it's good to have an outside party be able to say, "You've been playing for an hour and it's only the top of Turn 2. Hurry along."
I do like the "activist judges" as well, keep it informal (and thus gives you more wiggle room to adapt to specific circumstances).
ReplyDeleteWith the codex issue, easiest thing to do if it really has to come down to it is include in the rules packet, "Armies may use one codex from the following list to build their army" or however it's normally worded.
GW posts a list of valid codices. Those are official. I highly doubt we will see both DH and GK on the same of approved codices.
ReplyDeleteG
The DH/GK debate seems to be borrowing trouble, since we haven't seen the GK book yet. I suspect that the answer to the question will be obvious one way or the other once the book comes out. Only if it is not will this argument be necessary.
ReplyDelete