The Great Debate: 1,650pts for Large Scale 40k Events?

The Great Debate Serial Post Header

Hey everyone, Reecius from Frontline Gaming here to discuss a hot topic in 40k circles: lowering points for large scale tournaments.

7th edition is an awesome edition for 40k because it allows you to play the game any way you like. Yes, it does leave a lot of room for debate and disagreement if you don’t come to the table with the same expectations of what the game should be, but, once you get over that hump you have so much variety.

Naturally, we all want to take advantage of as much of that variety as possible! That means more points!!!! However, 7th ed 40k has also seen an increase in “free” points through detachment bonuses, summoning units, etc. We’ve also seen a steady decrease in points cost for core units and an increase in the time it takes to get the game started (determining random powers, warlord traits, etc.) as well as the new Psychic Phase which can take a lot of time for psychic heavy armies. We’ve also got a plethora of new movement happening in phases other than the movement phase, all of which combined adds up to more complex, longer games.

That said, you can still reliably get an 1,850pt game done in two and a half to three hours. That, in most cases, has been sufficient time we’ve found. Most of you reading this that enjoy tournament play will probably nod your head in agreement that at local RTTs, you don’t have an issue getting your games finished in that time frame. I would agree with this sentiment.


However, at larger scale events, typically when you hit the 100 player mark, things change quite a bit logistically. For one, once you have your pairing and table assignment (which can eat into the break as frequently a few tables lag in getting their scores in), simply walking to your table physically takes a longer period of time. The main hall at the LVO was huge, walking from one end to the other took a good chunk of time, and when you’re doing that carrying your army, avoiding other people doing the same thing, weaving around tables it slows down a bit. Now, it’s not difficult at all, but it simply takes longer than doing the same thing in a FLGS with 6 gaming tables to navigate. Packing up your army and unpacking it also takes some time. Once you are at your table, you have to go through the pre-game rituals and then off you go. What it all translates to is that at a larger scale event, you don’t actually get two hours and forty five minutes (or whatever your round time may be) to finish your games. Some of it is eaten up in non-gaming related activity.

When you’re playing a tournament game, you may also be thinking more about your actions in-game, as it feels more weighty to you. Your competition may be tougher than you normally face, forcing you to really consider your choices, further eating in to the time you have to finish your game. Now, that intensity of experience is also what makes tournament play so much fun, but it can cause you to slow down a bit, too, without realizing it.

A game not coming to a natural conclusion can be a frustrating experience. It’s easy to play the “if we’d had another turn, I would have won!” mental game. It’s always more satisfying to have the game end when it is meant to end, not simply because time ran out.

With the game becoming bigger in many ways, we’ve been noticing that tournament games have been coming to a natural conclusion less frequently. The question now is to consider how to handle it.

We could do nothing, leave the game at 1,850pts and simply encourage players to play faster. Things like projecting the time on a screen for players to see, making announcements as to what turn they should be on, etc. can all help move things along or at least keep players aware of time. While everyone is responsible for tracking their own game time, these ideas help.


We have talked about Chess Clocks, as they use in Chess (Duh!) and Warmachine. There are a lot of arguments on both sides of this potential solution. Some players feel that there is too much interactivity in 40k, with both players taking actions in each others’ turns. We’ve tried it in our Twitch studio and it works…when you remember to use the clock! It’s very easy to forget to hit it at the end of your turn. However, if there were some sort of negative consequence involved with running out of time, it would certainly be easier to remember. What that consequence would be, we would have to decide as a community. At the very least, we’ve found that using Chess clocks does help to see which player is eating up more of the clock.

The other factor to consider is cost. Chess clocks are not too expensive (around $30 to $45) but who provides them? Players won’t want to feel obligated to buy one but then if the TO is expected to buy them it gets REALLY expensive. For the LVO for example, the 40k Champs would have required $5,000 in Chess clocks, lol. That is a considerable sum of money for events that don’t generate a lot of excess revenue (if any).


The other solution discussed, and easiest to implement, is to simply lower points value. As–obviously–smaller games with less models play faster than larger games (all other things equal) you would find a higher percentage of games finishing to a natural conclusion. However, gamers understandably want to use their toys, and so often want more points, not less. I totally get this and really enjoy 2,000pt, 4 hour games, myself. However, this is simply not feasible in a tournament setting using Swiss format unless you had a reaaaaly long tournament. More toys often does mean more fun, but when the games don’t finish as often, that becomes a trade-off that may not be worth it.

Dropping down to 1,650 as we’ve been discussing for large events posses some interesting possibilities. For one, you wouldn’t be able to take as many formations and such, and many of the armies that really hum at 1,850 would find themselves lacking teeth at 1,650. Conversely, other builds would find that to be the sweet spot. It would provide an interesting meta shift.

1,650 also means it is easier to buy, build and paint a tournament army, which lowers the barrier to entry for a new gamer making the plunge into organized play for larger events which is a nice positive. And, just because we may opt to go this route for bigger events in the ITC doesn’t mean anyone else would have to play at that level. Local events can still of course, choose to play the game at whatever points value they chose, of course.

We’ve been play-testing games at 1,650 in our studio and I must say I do enjoy the faster games, and they are noticeably faster. It is a bummer to have to cut out a unit you really came to rely on at 1,850 though, which stings a bit. For me, I think the faster game is worth the trade. How do you all feel about it? Down in points or no? Chess clocks, good or bad? Let your voice be heard!


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

241 Responses to “The Great Debate: 1,650pts for Large Scale 40k Events?”

  1. Freeman February 18, 2016 3:12 pm #

    1650 works quite well.

    Problem is playing slowly is not going to go away, a legit system of recording how many turns were completed needs applying. A player who doesn’t complete at least 5 turns in 3/5 or 3/6 games should have all there results awarded as a full points victory to all their opponents.

    It speeds things up immeasurably.

    Also could you not just bump all the rounds up 15 minutes and start a bit earlier?

    a half 9 start and you can finish by 7 with an hour for lunch and 15 minute breaks between rounds.

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 3:18 pm #

      Yeah, some means of measuring time would help a lot, but how to do it? I am sure we can come up with something.

      Longer rounds means a longer day when the day is already quite long. Not the end of the world at all, but something to consider for those who want to do other things at a convention besides just the 40k tournament.

      • abusepuppy February 18, 2016 8:58 pm #

        I think just bring back something akin to the old “did the game reach a natural conclusion?” question from years past. Alternately, have a “did both players complete turn 5?” section instead- that is typically the gold standard for what players consider slow-playing, so if someone is consistently not making to the fifth turn it deserves a bit of a look.

        • Colinsherlow February 19, 2016 8:23 am #

          I did get lucky at LVO and had all of my games go to at least turn 5 except one game which ended at turn 3. So I was pretty happy with that. But the last turn were usually rushed and the time divided amongst the rounds left.
          But I was also playing experienced general’s and two of the armies I played against were fairly static so their movement phases were very quick

      • Sam February 19, 2016 7:46 am #

        The more points you put on the table, above a certain baseline threshold, the less player skill matters. The game becomes less tactical when both armies cover huge sections of the battlefield.

        Smaller points games mean that each move matters more, each unit loss hurts more, and it becomes incredibly difficult to not have a weakness somewhere in your army design.

        Go all out for a deathstar? You probably gave up any hope of winning Maelstrom. At 1850, you can usually build that deathstar and still have enough points left to throw some token units out to make it a game against an MSU army.

        It forces tough decisions in army building, and that’s a VERY good thing.

        Then there’s the speed thing. It’s just WAY more FUN to finish a game and not feel stressed than to have it decided in your favor because time ran out at the end of turn 3.

        Army viability. 1850 encourages small elite armies, just because of the time crunch. Wouldn’t you love to see someone give an Ork horde a shot and have some real possibility of finishing his game?

        1500 would be awesome, but 1650 is a vast improvement.

        • jeff February 19, 2016 8:19 am #

          “1500 would be awesome,”

          this is correct.

      • Sam February 19, 2016 8:00 am #

        A note on chess clocks. As a TO for our local RTTs, I can’t stand this idea. Please don’t make me buy chess clocks.

        And before anyone chimes in, yes, I know nobody is twisting my arm. But that doesn’t mean I won’t face a lot of pressure to provide equipment for people to use as they get ready for the larger events.

        I’d hate to see my local players show up at a major even with a disadvantage because they aren’t accustomed to playing with chess clocks.

        This isn’t necessarily wrong, just a knock on effect that I’m not a fan of.

      • Krootman February 21, 2016 1:48 pm #

        Longer day would be a bad thing imo, if anything leaving the time the same and dropping the points will hopefully give you the desired result.

        As it stands now you can sleep in a little bit and still have enough time to make it out when your games are done.

    • westrider February 18, 2016 4:02 pm #

      So how do you determine which player is responsible for the Game not going all the way if two Players who played each other both fall into this category? How do you deal with the pairings when someone fails to finish their round 5 Game on time, making three that they’ve failed, and suddenly turning two people’s earlier Losses into full Points Wins?

      Also, seriously, these events end up being a long enough day as it is. Show some mercy for those of us who aren’t in great shape and get wrecked by a day of this already, rather than slapping on an extra ~hour over the course of the day.

    • Joshua Taylor February 19, 2016 5:19 am #

      Tournaments in my experience are not very willing to punish a player for stats alone. For Example: My fourth round opponent at Adepticon 2014 was a Horribly poor sportsman, i looked up the stats for this player and him and another were tied for worst sportsmanship score at 2 or 3. where the next person up was around 12. if memory serves. The conduct policy states that Adepticon can remove this player based on this metric of opponent feedback but, i have yet to ever see it happen.

  2. Freeman February 18, 2016 3:21 pm #

    You guys with the LVO and BAO are in a great position as your events sell up really reliably but not playing 1850pts might resulted in attendance dropping, as the event suddenly gets perceived as not proper or second string. Plus it loses relevance to players hoping to compete internationally (ETC or gaming tourists) as it’s not the standard.

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 3:30 pm #

      That’s an interesting perspective, I guess it depends on what you’re used to in game size. For me I have fun at any points level (when to a 1K tournament played on 4×4’s, it was a blast!). It really is just a question of what is more important to you: more games finishing or more models on the table? Just depends on the individual, really.

    • abusepuppy February 18, 2016 9:01 pm #

      The thing is, 1850 WASN’T the standard until BAO/LVO switched over to it in 6th edition. Before that, tournaments (at least on the west coast USA) were almost all 1750 or 2000, and it was only with the rollover from the new edition that they switched. If Frontline starts switching to 1650 (or 1500, a value I personally prefer to 1650) then I think you’ll see a lot of other events following suit.

      Will they lose players? It’s possible, but I don’t think it will be a lot of people. And as for being perceived as “second string”- LVO was the largest 40K tournament that has ever happened anywhere. I don’t think they need to struggle with folks considering them second banana.

      • Sam February 19, 2016 7:52 am #

        Abusepuppy is right on here. I’ve been playing in tournaments since the (GW) Rouge Trader days. Any reasonable points value will still make for a tier 1 event if the attendance is large enough. It’s not the points that make a great tournament, it’s the venue, organization, and lack of controversy. Those ingredients are something that the Frontline folks have delivered WAY beyond other events. I include Adepticon in that comparison.

        I would laugh in the face of anyone who derides an LVO win with 300+ players just because it was “only” 1500 points.

        Player skill matters more, not less at 1500 points.

  3. Freeman February 18, 2016 3:23 pm #

    In terms of measuring game length in the UK, it’s on your results slip, did your game have a complete turn 5.

  4. Freeman February 18, 2016 3:25 pm #

    LVO was amazing though, I wouldn’t stress too much.

  5. masos February 18, 2016 3:37 pm #

    1650 kinda feels like a awkward number. Why not just go to 1500 at this point. 1650 will be a west coast only I feel like. Have we ever heard of a Major events like NOVA or some of the great east coast events doing any kind of 1650?

    Or are we trying to be original her lmao if so … woops

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 5:06 pm #

      Just trying to thread the needle between 1500 and 1850. Testing some ideas.

      • Sam February 19, 2016 7:56 am #

        1500 is a great points level that has the added benefit of smoothing out some codex imbalances.

        • Ste Amigo 1 February 22, 2016 6:15 am #

          I swear I read somewhere that the game was designed at 1500pts in mind. That was a good few years ago though. I play almost exclusively 1500pts as it plays better. Things that are armies that are ‘broken’ at 1850 are kept in line much better

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 8:48 am

            We were told that the game was play tested at 1500 and 2K.

      • krootman February 19, 2016 9:25 am #

        Having talked with a lot of casual and competitive players this week about the idea, I have learned one thing.

        Everyone, and i mean everyone hates 1500 points…its a toxic number, not sure why…maybe it brings back the days when you got curb stomped by your best buddy in 7th grade, (speaking from experence, I wish my starter army was blood angels and not ultras ) but once you say 1650…everyone is like ok…well we can do this.

        1650 is the sexy girl walking down the street, with a skirt and boots on in the middle of winter, and 1500 is the frumpy old women who just tossed you the finger at the last intersection.

        • Reecius February 19, 2016 10:13 am #


        • Pablo Martinez February 19, 2016 10:59 am #

          Lmao Another good reason for the 1650 argument.

    • abusepuppy February 18, 2016 9:03 pm #

      I personally think 1500 would be better as well. 1850 is a bit of an odd duck anyways, and 1650 is even more so. A lot of people pooh-pooh 1.5K as being “less competitive” or any number of other derogatory things, but that really isn’t true- it’s _different_, to be sure, but no less interesting or enjoyable for that.

      • Colinsherlow February 19, 2016 8:19 am #

        I personally love 1500 as it does mean you have to put a lot more thought into your army build and exactly what you want it to do. Most armies will have more weaknesses instead of being good at everything.

        Like puppy said. There is more player skill involved in playing 1500 points. Heck maybe some of the less competitive armies will be able to step it up and be better at tournaments.

        I would love to give 1500 or 1650 a swing

        • Variance Hammer February 19, 2016 1:40 pm #

          I’m not necessarily convinced there is “More player skill” at 1500 points.

          Consider the following: At this point, there are a large number of things you have to be able to deal with in order to have a shot at winning in a tournament with a large number of rounds. Tons of jetbikes, Wraithknights/Imperial Knights/Other Super Heavies, fliers, MSU ObSec, Deathstars, Renegade lists, etc.

          It’s likely impossible to cover *all* of them in a single list. This is, when it comes down to it, the whole point behind trying to find meta-breaking lists, to have a large number of your opponents say “Well, didn’t see *that* coming…” But if we assume points are actually “N number of available counters”, reducing the points just lowers N. Since the overwhelming number of potential opponents is still quite high, it may just increase the probability that you randomly draw an army for which you do not have a counter.

          • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 7:45 am

            Also as more dice are rolled to determine the outcome of an event the less likely luck is to play a roll and the more likely player skill is to come into effect. If 1500 requires more skill than 1850 then wouldn’t 100 point games have the MOST skill!

    • Pablo Martinez February 19, 2016 11:05 am #

      1850 is an awkward number, and that panned out for an entire year with no qualms (until now). I feel like 1650 is more logical. At 1650 you can fit 4 knights, War convo can at least have one pod, Battle company has to start looking at taking out detachments but may gain a bit more special weapons in their primary, and i’m sure there are other milestones common army list builds (not codexes) can hit at 1650. After playtesting 1650 games I have to say it FEELS a lot like 1850 while at the same time being quicker and slightly more tactical. I played a lot of 1500 points in all my FLGS leagues against 30-40 players consistently and, while I don’t dislike it at all, it is very much a different game, with a different meta, different builds, and a different play style. We aren’t looking to change our tournament scene, just improve it. 1650 does exactly that.

    • Sanchezsam2 February 19, 2016 11:06 am #

      On the flip side 1750 is still popular.
      However I think 1650 is a much better number then 1500.
      Just as many armies are hurt by going to 1500 as armies that might benefit.
      Off the top of my head Astra Militarum and thier decorian is a no go at 1500.

      • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:41 pm #

        Their decurion is no good at 1650 or 1850, either. Just sayin’.

        • Sanchezsam2 February 19, 2016 10:11 pm #

          It’s not a great decorian regardless but playable at 1850 and 1650.

  6. Trueknight February 18, 2016 3:50 pm #

    Personally, I prefer 1850. I think its a great level/limit. I only play in RTT’s though so I can’t say I’m intimate with the logistics of gt’s and larger.

    I also agree that 2000 pts in 3d ed is probably 1500 or so today.

    My main issue is reducing points is not going to stop behavior. I think if people are properly incentivized to finish their games they will play fast enough to get to/through turn 5.

    I don’t know the best way to accomplish that aside from penalizing a player for not getting through X amount of games in an X game tournament. Ie, if in an RTT you dont finish through turn 5 in both of your 1st 2 rounds, you are not eligible for top table/prizes in round 3.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 8:26 am #

      The point limit change isn’t trying to stop slow play and pull people to turn 5. (Although it will be harder to slow play without getting called out on it.)

      It’s to get the decent speed people who are running into the time wall at the end of 5 into turns 6 and 7, allowing their games to actually finish naturally, and possibly give some breathing room in between rounds to retray your army and chat, go to the bathroom, have a drink etc without needing to rush straight to your next opponent.

  7. tag8833 February 18, 2016 3:59 pm #

    Why 1650 instead of 1500? Personally I like 1500 more. If you are going to drop points, you might as well drop points.

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 5:22 pm #

      Either is an option, 1650 is just the points level we’ve been discussing here internally the most.

  8. Archon-Kalafex February 18, 2016 4:00 pm #

    Totally down for 1650 games. Not only would this speed games up, it would also allow more frequent practice just for that reason. As the game sits now, I think more armies than not would play more fluidly and allow more socializing between games at events which is always a plus. This is an exciting possibility.

  9. Bellerah February 18, 2016 4:01 pm #

    I believe the game should come to its natural conclusion, else it is not a game, but just part of a game. I personally think the chess clock is the best long term solution, and the penalty for running out of time is you lose, so you your time well. Knowing this going in will help you design an army that you are comfortable playing given the known time constraints.

    Dropping the points down is also a solution. Do you have numbers on games that did not go to the natural conclusion?

    • Mike February 19, 2016 8:34 am #

      Games not finishing naturally with random game length rolls is an epidemic at the events I’ve been to. A quick glance around the room at t minus 5 minutes sees a lot of tables still frantically rolling dice, with the exception of ones that had one-sided games where an army got blown off the table.

      Advocating chess clocks is basically saying “everyone isn’t playing fast enough.”. Somehow I don’t think that’s the case. I think the point value, amount of stuff on the board, and amount of special rules has just fattened the game up so much that it’s hard to finish a full game including random game length turns even for decently fast and skilled players.

  10. Alex yuen February 18, 2016 4:06 pm #

    I personally like 1500

    • Adam ( February 19, 2016 12:04 am #

      Agreed, 1650 is just goofy, go 1500 IMO.

      • Rolling thunder February 19, 2016 7:29 am #

        1650 is about as goofy as 1850 was before 1850 became popular

        • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:08 pm #

          All the numbers are arbitrary, really. None are any goofier than others, just more or less familiar, I suppose.

          • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 7:47 am

            1643 it is! I believe the English Civil war is important in determining event point levels.

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 8:47 am

            lol, nice!

          • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 7:50 am

            Damn, its actually 1642, I was pretty close for guessing off the top of my head.

          • westrider February 22, 2016 10:40 am

            1776 Points! This is AMERICA!

  11. amnesiaditit February 18, 2016 4:07 pm #

    I like the drop in points, 1500 or 1650, either works. I think it will force people to stop jamming all the goods into lists where you then see the same stuff over and over. At lower points more things can become viable and allow for more variety I feel. Counter to that is the WK and Riptide wing will definitely be boosted since they are so undercosted in the first place 🙁

    With the smaller tournaments staying 1850 I think that should satisfy a lot of people and I think while some people will still just play slow, overall most people should be getting full games in.

    Has anyone done an escalation tournament where in the first game you do 1500, second 1650, and by the final its 1850? Probably too much to hassle with but just a random thought.

  12. fluger February 18, 2016 4:12 pm #

    I know the size of my army from 5th to 7th has increased preposterously. At TSHFT I only had one game end normally, all the rest had time called. Lopping off 200 pts of Orks would certainly help me field a list that I enjoy ( I HAVE to outnumber my opponent!) while making it more tournament friendly. Count me in as for a reduction in points.

    • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 7:59 am #

      I play a huge number of models and it forces my opponent to spend a lot of time thinking. Also when you play against hordes you fire literally every gun in your army every turn, which takes forever.

  13. Elwrath February 18, 2016 4:18 pm #

    I prefer 1850. I think making the players more aware of the their time left, and even instituting each player getting half the time left at 1 hour would be the best way to fix these problems. In all honesty I just rewrote several lists at 1650 last night and I actually have more models in the army than before. If the community does decide to go to a lower point value I do like 1650 over 1500 though. 1650 is more unique and can be the ITC’s thing. 1500 is what everyone does when they’re not doing 1850 or 2k. Also at 1500 its clear that some codices are better than others. Also deathstars imo should be discouraged and lower points means more of them.

  14. lvalx February 18, 2016 4:28 pm #

    1650, preferably 1500!

  15. R2SAndrew February 18, 2016 4:33 pm #

    It may help honestly to adjust the mission system again, in most games, although labeled primary, secondary, tertiary, the maelstrom I feel ends up taking the roll of primary in most games as it is what you are fighting for through the whole game, as opposed to the eternal war missions which only actually score on the final turn. Having essentually 3 missions a game (prime, secon, terti) has slowed the game considerably as the time taken to determine and understand turn missions, plan for, and execute said missions, then tally and reroll each turn adds at least a half hour of non play time to the game.

    Obviously, YMMV, but that seemed to be a constant for me throughout LVO, and all ITC tournies Ive played in.

    I do agree though that most of the lack of game finish comes down to the player, not the points, and people need to just be more astute with the time they take to accomplish their turns, and be held accountable if they lag the game.

  16. Ryantsg February 18, 2016 4:35 pm #

    I like the idea of 1650 for competitive play since I’m sure it will bleed down to my local RTTs. The game complexity is getting bad enough that a drop from 1850 is a good idea. I like 1650 as a compromise from 1500

  17. R2SJay February 18, 2016 4:48 pm #

    First off, great article and great discussion.

    For me, I’d love to look into Chess clocks as that seems to be potentially the best option due to it still allowing the “big toys” and the bigger formations some armies rely on to stay competitive. It also doesn’t shrink the total points, which naturally inflates the strength of armies that benefit from free upgrades and free units.

    But more importantly, this directly points out the “slow players”. And as it not only identifies them, it accurately quantifies “how slow”. This quantifying provides the option to include penalties that can be 100% supported by fact.

    As an example, lets say a game only makes it to Turn 3 due to some slow playing by one player in particular. By leveraging the Chess clock, you can accurately see the difference in time between players and if you set a threshold of, lets say for this example (not thought through at all) 30% longer than the other player, that “slow player” would receive 0 points (or just tertiary) and the player who was slow-played would receive full points. This penalty would not only curb slow players from “slow-playing” but it’s also easy to enforce. The chess clock is king and fact is fact.

    I say we reward our faster players and not penalize them. This way we’re elevating the gameplay of 40K overall and addressing one of its biggest problems.

    Now the question becomes, as you pointed out, cost. Well folks, it turns out we play Warhammer 40K, where literally 1 Autarch costs me about $26 before shipping. And I’m not complaining about that, I just mean to put the cost of one $30 Chess Clock into perspective.

    If all I had to do, to not only keep my “fun toys” and “interesting formations”, while elevating the gameplay of our community and remove “slow-players”, was to pay……what? $15 dollars (15 per player because 1 clock per table)? That’s a one-time investment I will easily pay.

    This one-time payment supports your local TOs (Travis you’re the man) and supports these events we all love and fly hundreds of miles to. To me, it’s worth it, and worth exploring.

    • Joshua Death February 19, 2016 11:55 am #

      I have to agree here. I was more for the points decrease at first, but I fee like everyone has been talking about how to get 40k on a more “professional” scale and wanting the big events to have more of a professional feel. Almost every major event now has more casual events than you can shake a grot at, so the “champioships” should be left to be exactly that. The championships. Chess clocks would obviously work at penalizing slow play while rewarding those individuals that are passing at the hover level.

  18. Generalissimo_Fred February 18, 2016 4:48 pm #

    1500pts is best. It seems 1650 was decided on a week or so ago. Should be up to a vote.

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 5:20 pm #

      It will be voted on, this was just a discussion point.

    • Sanchezsam2 February 19, 2016 11:16 am #

      1650 allows someone to play a knight household 5x Knights.
      1500 doesn’t.

      • Generalissimo_Fred February 20, 2016 4:43 am #

        At 1500pts you can play 6 of the 7 Imperial Knight formations/detachments. The only one left out is the Royal Court. Pure Knight armies can indeed be played at 1500 including the 2 most common Baronial Court formation and Household detachment.

        • Pascalnz February 20, 2016 3:17 pm #

          yeah, but you miss out on the only possible pure formation. the others can be taken at smaller levels. but the “big one” has to be at 1850 or higher.

          It’s not the best[pure knight armies certainly aren’t going to win a gt.
          But it gives the most modelling and painting variety in the army.[For those that like to use the painting guides etc for knight households]

          it’s also the only way to field the “chapter master” equivalent.

  19. forkt February 18, 2016 4:51 pm #

    I am also in the 1500 arena. That value is used by other tournaments in many other areas, and for most casual gamers. 1650 seems like your trying to force something to fit in there for a particular codex and I also agree it heralds a west coast only ITC vibe, when you really want to encourage other groups to also participate at a level they are familiar with.

    • Reecius February 18, 2016 5:20 pm #

      1650 it actually quite popular in Europe from what we’ve been told. It’s not a new invention by us, so to speak.

      • abusepuppy February 18, 2016 9:05 pm #

        Interesting, I can’t say I’ve seen any events that use it referenced. Do you know of any offhand?

        • EmbraceYourInnerGeek February 18, 2016 11:35 pm #

          Every year in the UK there is a “GT”. There are 3 heats and a final. Each are stand alone tournaments, with the top half of the field from the heats going through to the final. Until this year it ran at 1650pts. This year it dropped to 1500 – not sure why. I don’t typically play in the GT, because of the lower points level, and lack of restrictions on what you can bring (for example they allow multiple wraith knights). However, Im sure if you reach out to the organisers of the UKGT, they will share their experience.

          • X078 February 19, 2016 1:55 am

            The UK GT format with 1500 and (almost) no restrictions is awesome, it is how 40k should be played. If ITC picked up on that it would gain traction in europe, otherwise not so much.

        • Arabvikiking February 19, 2016 6:50 am #

          Not that Norwegian tournaments are ever disscussed in any international setting, but several tournaments here have switched to 1650 (even my own).

          Albeit I don’t like the point level too much. For me personally, either go 1500 or at least 1750. 1650 feels “off”.

          • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:09 pm

            Thanks for sharing your experience.

          • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:43 pm

            Yeah, it comes across as a very strange number to me. That doesn’t mean a lot in itself- you could just as easily run a tournament on 1793 points or 1221 points or any other value you chose, but I struggle to grasp the rationale behind it.

        • W February 19, 2016 6:52 am #

          the Norwegian Masters in January were held at 1650, and in April another larger tournament in Bergen is also at 1650, so it’s been used here at least, before the LVO talk began.

        • Karaghul February 19, 2016 10:39 am #

          I can attest to it.

          Back in Sweden, most tournaments were, and still are either 1500 or 1750, with a couple 2000 per year just to spice things up.

          Here in Poland, the vast majority seem to be played at 1500, with 1650 popping up here and there too.

          In Spain it was usually 1500 or 2000 (granted, in that case I’m talking about a good 6+ years ago).

      • krootman February 19, 2016 9:44 am #

        the brits did it back in like 5th ed I think.

    • Morollan February 19, 2016 2:50 am #

      On the subject of fitting point limits to particular codexes, I went to an 1875 point event (Throne of Skulls) at Warhammer World (GW’s UK HQ). I spoke to one of the organisers there and asked why it was such an unusual point limit and found out the 1875 points total was specifically to allow people to bring Knight Households.

  20. forkt February 18, 2016 4:54 pm #

    Also I hope when you put it to vote you provide all options to be voted on.
    I.e. Tournament events should be at
    a) 1650
    b) 1500
    c) remain unchanged at 1850

    • tag8833 February 18, 2016 5:09 pm #

      Question 1:
      Should we Reduce Points for the ITC?
      _Yes _No

      Question 2:
      If we Reduce points for the ITC what points level would you prefer:
      _Some Other points level.

      • Reecius February 18, 2016 5:19 pm #

        Yeah, we’ll have to break it down into two questions.

  21. AzuNyanKnight February 18, 2016 5:17 pm #

    I’m down for 1650, cuts down a bit on time and let’s still field a few extra fun toys 🙂

  22. Venkarel February 18, 2016 5:23 pm #

    First, you can do research retroactively for LVO by asking on the forthcoming questionnaire, for each game how many rounds did you complete and a check the box if the game ended in a concession.

    Next, I would push for a slow play tracking system with just a simple how many turns did you complete question on the mission form.

    Once we get some data we could come up with a system. Something like, a round 3 completion is worth 2 penalty points and a round 4 is 1 penalty point. A player gets one loss per 3 points accumulated, if it happens last round then that round is counted as a loss.

    In combination I would implement changes to speed up play (clocks on walls, adjusted missions) Then chess clocks, and then finally adjust points if nothing worked.

    • Venkarel February 18, 2016 6:03 pm #

      One thing I would like to add is counter to intuition less points will probably result in less diversity and/or a very rock paper scissor environment. Gamers will be forced to bring the most optimum unit for each slot with less points to work with overall so very little specialization (think eldar, warp spider and wraithknights are point for point the best units around ) or tons of it no middle ground (think gimmick lists, all flyers, summoning spam (now even more powerful)). This happens in magic, block constructive is the most limited format but often the most stale.

      • Rolling thunder February 19, 2016 7:44 am #

        I think you will see eldar lists with warp spiders and wraith knights at any points level. It’s more of a internal and external balance problem with the codex than points value

        • punchymango February 19, 2016 8:55 am #

          People already take the optimal unit for each slot. And I wouldn’t expect Eldar lists to change much: the most commonly taken Eldar lists are mostly made up of self-sufficient units that are effective against almost any sort of target. 1650 tournament Eldar lists will be basically the same thing as 1850, just a little less of it; maybe one fewer squad of Warp Spiders or Scatterbikes.

          Inasmuch as I’m still invested in competitive 40k at all, I’d be onboard with smaller games; shorter games and less scrambling to finish all sound like good reasons.

      • Sam February 19, 2016 8:07 am #

        Venkarel, that is true – if the event is based primarily on how large of a win you achieved. In ITC, the win/loss is far more dominant in the scoring than the points achieved. This means that an army that eeks out three wins is ranked higher than the guy that tabled two opponents and got tabled by another.

        Some will definitely build gimmicky lists, but they’ll be less likely to win tournaments than today where that same gimmicky list can have enough leftover points to mask their deficiencies.

  23. Trasvi February 18, 2016 5:27 pm #

    I vehemently disagree with using chess clocks, in 40k… but price for them really isn’t a factor.

    A) I’d wager that 99% of people attending 40k tournaments have a smartphone. Chess clock apps are freely available – very common for Warmachine events. There are literally $10 smartphones available at Walmart.
    B) MY first eBay result shows them at $20 with free shipping.
    C) Once you’re paying $50 for a codex, $240 for 6 tactical squads / jetbike squads, $70 for tickets, $200 for hotels, $200 for carry case… etc, etc… $20 or so for a chess clock seems like a drop in the bucket.

    I’d prefer 1650 or 1500pts though. 2 hours for 1850pts was common in 4th or 5th editions… but have you ever gone back and compared the number of points your 4th edition army would cost in 7th? Plus all the newfangled rules like psychic phase, overwatch, running, special rules out the ears, hundreds of free points… we’re probably trying to play with 2500+ equivalent armies from 4th/5th. Definitely in favour of a decrease.

    • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 5:40 am #

      It’s not so much a matter of “oh man I can’t afford $30 for a chess clock” and more of “why am I being forced to arbitrarily pay an extra $30 for something I don’t need?” It’s an additional expense that, for most people, serves no real purpose except to inflate the cost of attending events.

      That said, there ARE people for whom an extra $30 tacked onto an event is a significant deterrent. A non-trivial number of 40K players are students, most of whom operate on very limited budgets- for people who are eating ramen soup for a week or three in order to be able to afford attending, adding an extra chunk of change onto the price tag can very easily be a make-or-break thing.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 7:52 am #

      It’s a significant deterrent for me. I afford all my 40k hobby “on the cheap” using eBay and such, because I don’t have a lot of money for it. I could barely afford to go to the 4 closest ITC events last season, and I’m probably not even making 4 this year. (Thank goodness one of them is a GT I won last year and is giving me free entry this year.)

      If a TO/rules pack says “bring a chess clock,” I won’t be there.

  24. kontraktkiller February 18, 2016 5:32 pm #

    There’s no harm in trying it out. In the end time will tell.

  25. Jason Wolfe February 18, 2016 5:37 pm #

    Do you know what percentage of LVO games finished 5 turns? If less than 50% of LVO games that weren’t tablings failed to finish 5 turns in the allotted time, then I think you need to change something.

    • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 5:43 am #

      I am virtually positive it wasn’t that bad, just from casual observation. I expect that at the lower tables you had more games that didn’t reach natural ends (because of players who were less experienced or simply didn’t care), but I would be surprised if the number even reached 20% “non-finishing” games total and if I were to lay actual money on it I would say the number is even lower than that.

      • Mike February 19, 2016 7:57 am #

        Didn’t every single streamed game hit the time wall and finish unnaturally? I can’t recall any of them actually rolling RGL.

        That’s been my experience at events lately. Look around at 5 minutes before time is called and most of the tables that didn’t have someone wiped out in a horrible mismatch are frantically trying to finish a timed final turn, usually turn 5.

        • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:46 pm #

          I couldn’t say, I wasn’t able to watch the streamed games because I was busy playing. 😛

          However, as I’ve mentioned, my experience is rather different; while a decent chunk of games do finish because of time limits, that is often on turn 6 and well over half of them reach natural conclusions. I can’t even remember the last time I had a game that didn’t make it to the end of turn 5; I think it was back in 5th Edition.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 9:21 am #

      The issue isn’t people not finishing 5 turns. The issue is people not finishing THE GAME. 2/3 of games should play a turn 6 by odds, but that isn’t happening.

      Players should have their game finished and have a little bit of breathing room before hopping into their next game. That also isn’t happening. (Unless their game was a blowout in one direction.)

      I went to my first ITC event last year. Quickly figured out that games barely ever created turn 5. Made a list that plans to win on objectives turn 5, and voila, got into the finals of Wargamescon with only one practice game beforehand, then won the next GT I attended after that.

      Going into the game knowing that turn 5 is 99% certain going to be the last turn because of time is not how the game should be played, but it currently is.

  26. Leth February 18, 2016 5:38 pm #

    I am a big fan of dropping the points a bit. I know when I am building a list most of the nasty combos stop working even with 50-100 fewer points and I have to do something else. What I can make for 2000 is completely different than 1850.

    1650 sounds good to me!! I also remember when 1750 was the standard as well lol.

  27. westrider February 18, 2016 5:48 pm #

    I’ve seen this tangentially brought up, but not quite from this angle: How common is it, really, to not finish? Is there actually data on this?

    If it’s a problem that’s affecting more than (just kind of picking semi-arbitrarily here) 20% of games or so, that suggests that the issue is something systematic, and a reduction in Points is probably warranted. If it’s like less than 5% of Games, all that’s really needed is some way of watching out for/reporting people who are deliberately slow-playing.

    I would also like to see some effort put in to not slap extra penalties on people who are slow, but not with deliberate intent. I know, it’s a hard line to find, but my experience has been that an above-average number of people who are into gaming tend to be pretty introverted, or have some kind of neurovariant thing going on, and a lot of those cause stresses to get exacerbated when in a noisy, highly active environment. Some people have physical issues that can slow them down, bad backs, shaky hands, whatever. I’d really like to see an effort made not to bias the system against folks like that.

    Similarly, some Armies are more involved than others, and getting really hardcore about time limits can put a serious bias on the playing field based on how quickly an Army can play. I remember people talking about that in Warmachine, how the Khador Assault Kommandos were really pretty good, but resolving that many AoE Attacks every Turn took so long that they just weren’t usable in a timed environment.

    I think there was some other point I had, but I’m fighting off a cold and I’m blanking. I’ll come back and add on if I remember.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 8:01 am #

      I see an absolute ton of unnatural finish games at 1850 with 2:45 time limit. I don’t know about events I didn’t go to, but the ones I’ve been to (Wargamescon included) had plenty of tables throwing dice til the last second. It feels to me that a game finishing naturally or even getting to roll for RGL has become a severe rarity.

      • westrider February 19, 2016 8:22 pm #

        That was my impression as well, I was mostly just wondering if there was any hard data on it.

        At TSHFT, all of my Games were either ended by the clock, or by one player calling it in Turn 3-4 because the other had such a dominant position that it wasn’t worth playing it out. Not a single one got to the point of actually rolling for RGL.

        Even worse at Elvensword, because they were rocking 2K there. 3/4 of my Games had time called on Turn 3, and the fourth was just a roflstomp anyhow.

    • westrider February 20, 2016 1:32 pm #

      Remembered my other point: Logistics. The number of Models we need for a given Points level has been steadily increasing, and the size of those Models has also been increasing. I used to be able to fit a 1500 Point SM Army in my backpack for a Tournament, now I need two cases plus the backpack for an 1850. We also need more books now, and they’re bigger than they were.

      A Points reduction, rather than a time increase, means less stuff to have to lug to the venue (especially nice if you’re stuck with Transit like I am), less stuff to get from table to table, less stuff needing sideboard space, less stuff to knock over. All these little things that add up more than you think over the course of a weekend.

  28. jy2 February 18, 2016 6:08 pm #

    1650….LET’S DO IT!

    Personally, this would hurt me as I normally play more elitist armies (MC-spam, deathstar-type armies), but I don’t care. 1650 sounds like a good time! We might even have time for 4-round RTT’s.

  29. Jp February 18, 2016 6:21 pm #

    I like 1850 and honestly slow players won’t finish with 200 less points. If part of your tactic is time management your not going to finish any game you don’t want. Without resorting to war machine clocks you really can’t control those players.
    As for not finishing games ya it sucks but we all know it’s out there. I’ve played summoning Deamons and finished a 7 turn full game in 2.5 hours against tasty taste’s green tide a year ago. It’s not there points at all it’s the players. If your going to make sure the game lasts 4 rounds as a Gladius strike force to optimize your chances of scoring objectives that’s on you. Losing 200 points won’t change that game at all….

    • Hiveminded February 18, 2016 8:04 pm #

      I agree. The issue isn’t 1850 points, the issue is that some players don’t manage time well. I believe that those same players who struggle to finish 1850 point games will struggle to finish 1650 point games.

      Playing fast is a mindset. Some have it, others don’t.

      • Hiveminded February 18, 2016 8:24 pm #

        Just to add another thought….I think slow players often play slow because they lack self awareness with regard to how much time they’re taking.

        All we need is for someone to make a simple 40k countdown App that people could load onto their smartphones. For example, a large countdown monitor that indicates what round people “should” be on. People start the app when the round begins. It could read something like….

        minutes 0-15: It would display “Deployment”
        minutes 15-30: It would display “Top of Round 1”
        minutes 30-45: It would display “Bottom of Round 1”
        minutes 45-60: It would display “Top of Round 2”

        Use of the app would be optional (but I think most people would choose to use it). Alternately, people could also be encouraged to voluntarily use a “chess clock” app, to mimic a chess clock and help keep the pace up on their own table.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 8:07 am #

      I disagree. I’ve seen plenty of decently fast players hitting the time wall at 1850. Virtually no one makes it to t6, when 2/3 of games are supposed to. It’s always “finish 5, oh look out of time.” And then you better tray up and move your army quick, because the next round is starting in like 45 seconds.

      We’ve tried out a few 1500 games with our same list blueprints scaled down. (Including a gladius.) We’re actually finishing games at like the 2:10-2:30 mark, which in an event would leave a little breathing time before going straight to the next match.

      • Kwodd February 19, 2016 9:09 am #

        “Vitually no one makes it to t6”

        What planet are you playing 40 on?

        • Mike February 19, 2016 9:25 am #

          Earth? I don’t know if something at your events is different, but that’s what I’ve seen at Wargamescon and other nearby GT’s. What’s further is that I started doing really well once I put together a list that assumed the game would end on t5, because that’s just how the points and time work out together.

          • Kwodd February 19, 2016 9:37 am

            People at my events know the time limit is 2:30 so they don’t stand around stroking their chin saying “hrmmmm”

          • Mike February 19, 2016 10:04 am

            Don’t know what to tell ya dude. I can only go off of what I’ve experienced, and that is that slow players get to turn 3, and most other people get to 5 before time is called. I’ve seen like 2 turn 6’s in all my events last year combined, and one of them was one of my own games.

            Obviously I’m not alone in this experience, or this wouldn’t even be a discussion.

  30. Black Blow Fly February 18, 2016 6:21 pm #

    I prefer 1850 and it’s not a number that was arbitrarily introduced… It was arrived at over time and has been proven to be successful. There are other ways to speed up the game… Maybe you simply need more staff on hand. I think with 1500-1650 you’ll see a noticeable drop in attendance and it will provide opportunities for rival TOs – they are out there too.

  31. Hotsauceman1 February 18, 2016 6:29 pm #

    Im not sure how I would feel about 1650……i just bought my battle company. and I got more rhinos right after the LVO for them too(Gotta love ebay, Rhinos for a 1.00$)
    but I think my bikes would really start to shine if we went that way. I want my bikes back damnit.
    I feel a change is missions can help, one that balances out heavy MSU we have come
    I also believe that one of the bigger problems of this years LVO was how hard it was to find tables. it really was hard guys. go back to the standees.
    Chess Clock to me dont feel feasible TBH. WM?H only has like, 2 instances of your opponent acting in your phase, tough roll and counter charge.
    The best thing we can do Is this. anyone who did not finish turn 5 must attempt to catch a greased pig before they can leave the hall

  32. KAPcom February 18, 2016 6:42 pm #

    I agree that running into time for some people is an issue, especially if you’re playing an army you’re not as familiar with. However, my primary concern with a drop in points is that under-costed units become more and more powerful the less points people have to work with.

    • tag8833 February 18, 2016 8:53 pm #

      That isn’t really how it works. A Wraith Knight becomes more of a problem because you are limited to one of them, so the comically undercosted nature of it is more apparent at lower points levels. Free Rhinos become better, because the ratio of free stuff increases.

      But many super-points efficient units like Warp Spiders, and Scat Bikes don’t get any better at all. The ratio stays the same.

  33. DCannon4Life February 18, 2016 6:43 pm #

    Have an Open (1850 with strict expectations for player performance) and Reserves (1500) section. Let people choose which one they’re signing up for, with the understanding that if they play in the 1850, they’re playing with the big boys (so slow play, not knowing your own army’s rules, etc. will not be tolerated). Keep the 165 minute game time.

    • Mike February 19, 2016 8:13 am #

      Really not a fan of further splitting of the events. There are already awesome side events like narrative games. It’s likely that one of the two competing singles events would be horribly under-attended. Probably whichever one you billed as “less competitive.”

      Also what would you do as the TO of such a thing if two of your “big boy fast players” failed to finish a game still? Because that IS currently happening at 1850, even among very good players.

    • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:12 pm #

      We’ve never seen that work very well in the past. We’ve seen that folks tend to prefer to play in the big events.

  34. Brother Cart February 18, 2016 6:48 pm #

    Chess clocks or a similar time system seem great in theory. Biggest issue in my mind is rules debates. What happens when your opponent starts questioning everything you do/about your army on your turn? All of a sudden you are the one viewed as slow playing when they are causing the issue and forcing your turns to be drawn out.

    It shouldn’t happen, and yes, you can knock them on sportsmanship, but how often does a negative sports score actually end up hurting someone, especially at a LVO/NOVA/Adepticon size event? In reality, any time keeping system can be abused by those who intend to, it’s all about the player.

    • Adam ( February 19, 2016 12:08 am #

      Exactly, chess clocks just don’t work in 40k, too much arguing and too much for your opponent to do during your turn.

    • happy_inquisitor February 19, 2016 10:54 am #

      Put chess clocks in there and some people will game that system just as much as they game the lack of chess clocks.

      It gets impossible to work out. If people question every rule are they being a jerk or just trying to avoid a bad situation where it turns out 3 turns later that you had a rule wrong and the judge cannot/will not sort it out?

      I have been there and done that and I will be the first to admit that having been stung I am now pretty chatty about the rules right through the game. I still got done over by someone claiming a rule they flat-out did not have in my last tournament.

      Talk a lot some people will game it claiming you are time-wasting. Keep quiet and they will game it by cheating on rules and saying you must have been OK with it because you said nothing at the time.

      Organised play is great. Labelling it as a competitive event just brings out the worst in some people, sadly. Until you find a way to deal with those people gaming the system you are just playing whack-a-mole with the latest problem. More serious competitive sports have clear penalties for infringements; the best that have the least cheating have a culture of absolute responsibility – there is no question of intent about things, you either violated the rule or you did not. The 40K attitude of “oh well I’m sure it was just a mistake” is just begging to be taken advantage of in all sorts of ways from gamesmanship (including timekeeping issues) to outright deliberate rule breaking.

    • X078 February 19, 2016 2:32 pm #

      Any interruption by the opponent (e.g. questions etc) he should punch his clock.

      • westrider February 19, 2016 9:51 pm #

        Dude. Think about that next time you play a Game. You’re gonna be hitting that clock every 15 seconds during some Phases.

        • X078 February 22, 2016 12:19 am #

          If you have a good reason to interrupt your opponent then sure you need to punch it, it is you that takes the time from him, otherwise let it be. It is like calling a Timeout sortof. That said in a competitive proffesional game interruptions should not be all that necessary if your playing with decent folks in my view.

          • westrider February 22, 2016 6:21 am

            What about when you’re rolling on his Turn? Think about how much you do during the Opponent’s Turn in 40K, and how much extra time would be added just punching the clock constantly as you work out Close Combats. Or alternatively, how much you could run down your Opponents clock by slow rolling if you don’t switch for every action.

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 8:51 am

            Yeah, that’s a good analogy, X078

  35. Kwodd February 18, 2016 7:33 pm #

    I had no trouble finishing any of my games at LVO, 3 of which went 7 turns.

    All dropping the points is going to do is widen the gap between free $hit/undercosted codices and everyone else.

    • tag8833 February 18, 2016 8:46 pm #

      If apples are worth 10 shots and Oranges are worth 15 shots.

      The rules are pick 10 Fruit.

      I pick 10 apples for a total worth of 100 shots
      You pick 10 oranges for a total worth of 150 shots
      So you have 50 more shots. That is 50% extra shots.

      Now if we change the rules to Pick 8 fruits.
      I pick 8 apples for a total worth of 80 shots
      You pick 8 oranges for a total worth of 120 shots
      So you have 40 more shots. That is 50% extra shots

      So by reducing the number, we also reduce the differential between us, however the ratio remains the same.

      This gets a little less clear cut when you add Bananas which are free and worth 5 shots, but generally changing the points level doesn’t exacerbate the gap between highly efficient codexes, and less efficient ones.

      • Jp February 19, 2016 1:53 am #

        The free pineapples is what kills your theory..

        550 free points of Razorbacks is a lot more manageable at 1850

        • tag8833 February 19, 2016 5:21 am #

          That is why a points drop isn’t enough. We also need to address free stuff. I expect that to be part of the vote.

          Should we allow formations with free units and upgrades?
          _ Yes _ No

          If we allow formations with free units and upgrades should we charge something for the units and upgrades?
          _ Yes 1/2 price. _ Yes Full Price _ No Keep them free.

          I also think we should vote on psychic heavy armies and demon summoning.

          Should we limit warp dice?
          _ Yes _ No

          If We limit war dice, what should be the limit?
          _ 30 _ 25 _ 20 _15 _ Some other number

          I think those two things coupled with a points drop would basically fix the problem with completing tourney games.

          • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 5:48 am

            Uh… free models and spells aren’t what slows the game down; you may be thinking of 8E WFB. The War Convocation players I have met are all VERY fast players and virtually never go to time on their games, especially because that army doesn’t really run all that many models at the end of the day. Gladius obviously does have more stuff, but it spends 80% of the game inside transports you get right back to 5th Edition speeds.

            Armies that generate high warp charges usually compensate by having essentially no shooting phase (and often a more-limited assault phase as well.) It’s really not problematic at all.

          • Mike February 19, 2016 6:33 am

            If we ban some formations for giving free bonuses, we should ban all of them. I would love for the game to return to an actual force org chart instead of “anyone can snag 3 riptides or a set of libbies that cast really well.”

            I really wish the competitive scene would’ve blocked formations at the door when they started showing up last edition. I know if wotc ever tried something silly like “if you put these 5 white cards in your deck, you can start with x bonus life” or something like that, the magic scene would just flip them off and ban it immediately, which would really be for the best.

            And yes eldar rock out when everyone else loses their formations. If we just followed it up with some eldar nerf batting the game might actually get close to…balance?

          • Kwodd February 19, 2016 7:24 am

            And down the rabbit hole we tumble all for what? Because some people couldn’t finish their games at LVO?

            I had more problems finding my pairing and table than I had finishing my games.

            Even though I don’t want to agree with tag if we drop the points to 1600 much more needs to be addressed. Free pineapples and 300ish point wraith blenders that teleport around the table will put the nails in the coffins of all those armies that are already struggling.

            Are we shooting for top 8 next LVO with only Eldar and Deamons?

            Players need to be tracked and penalized for consistent slow play instead of penalizing the community at large.

            Most of all can we just get this figured out so we can start building and playing to the new standard?

          • tag8833 February 19, 2016 11:17 am

            The reason War Convocation has trouble finishing games is because they spend 1/2 of the game explaining their wargear to their opponent. As people become more familiar with it, I expect it to be less of a problem.

            Here is a post that describes the issue with playing Gladius in a timely way:

            You can tell it is a problem, because even the absolute top players like Steve Sisk, and Vince (BigPig) had trouble finishing games at LVO.

            I don’t see any problem with voting on it. If people agree with you, then nothing changes. If a majority of people feel like a change is warranted, I don’t want to stand in their way.

  36. Jmanj321 February 18, 2016 8:12 pm #

    While my preference is 1850, all I ask is if there is going to be a change/vote, please do it asap. For people like myself who don’t play a lot of games these days I would like to know asap so I can plan for bao.

  37. Luke February 18, 2016 8:43 pm #

    I’m a fan of keeping it at 1850. Essentially, a true TAC list is probably dead, but at lower points values like 1500 and 1650, it’s even more of a fallacy. You simply will never truly be able to have a TAC list, with the exception of a few armies.

    I think that staying at 1850 can be managed logistically within the current system. What you need to do is set up time expectations for the end-game. What they did with Sean Nayden and Alex in the finals of the LVO was a perfect example of this. Say, for example, if there is 10-30 min left, you split the time evenly between the two players. If there is less than 10 minutes left, you can only start a turn of both players mutually agree.

    Getting scores in could also be done electronically with a smartphone application to speed things up, and could also instantaneously distribute pairings and tables. You could even implement a matrix based on previous game location to minimize travel (even keeping roughly 25% of players on the same table, for example).

    Beyond that, I know that there’s always someone who just can’t seem to get their scores in. Easiest way to fix that – implement a score penalty if you are beyond the time constraints. People will be finishing games early and lining up to get their scores in!

    • Pablo Martinez February 19, 2016 11:17 am #

      You know, I’ve never liked the idea of a true TAAC list. Lists like that will inevitably lead to everyone running just that style of list. Why build a list that does a special type of thing when you can just build a list that wins no matter the opponent? Why should I learn the meta, and matchups, and armies when I can just build an army that always has a shot at beating anything my opponent comes up with. Sure those are extreme scenarios but even in the case of a completely balanced TAAC list there would be no variety, and being able to build a TAAC for every codex is just a sad pipe dream.

  38. Mike February 18, 2016 9:02 pm #

    Just chiming in.

    -yes lower the points value please. 1500, 1650, both seem pretty good after close inspection over the last week. People thinking it’s about stopping slow play have the wrong idea. Lowering the points value is to help the guys going at average speed finish, because they currently are not. They’re hitting end of 4 or 5 and getting called dice down without random game length rolls. Although it will still help against slow play a little. It will at least be a bit more obvious when someone is doing it.

    -absolutely no to chess clocks. It’s a gentlemen’s game, and one of the main draws is the “friendly yet competitive” atmosphere of events. Chess clocks foster a mood contrary to that. I would never have convinced myself to try my hand at events if they had been using chess clocks, and even now I would still be very tempted to stop going to events if chess clocks became “a thing.”

    • Adam ( February 19, 2016 12:12 am #

      Exactly, a game ending on Turn 5 due to time isn’t a game ending at a natural conclusion, armies that do well with turn 5 wins, such as Eldar, are put at a huge advantage if there isn’t enough time to even roll for a 6th, let alone 7th turn, where Eldar frequently tend to fall apart.

  39. Joseph Love February 18, 2016 9:10 pm #

    if 1650 precludes 5 knights, then i’m down.

    • Mike February 18, 2016 9:26 pm #

      They could run 5 gallants still…

    • Floyd February 18, 2016 10:20 pm #

      Cause knights are winning everything, right?

      Being at LVO, all games reached a natural conclusion. 3 were 7 turns long. Much to do about nothing.

      • Kwodd February 19, 2016 8:58 am #

        Right there with you Floyd. The vocal minority and lowest common denominator trying to set the tone.

        • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:14 pm #

          Don’t forget guys, there were 300 people and your experience which are absolutely true for you, don’t necessarily translate to everyone else.

          • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:49 pm

            Sure, but that goes both ways- saying “all my games ended because of the clock” means just as little as “my games never end that way.” It’s why having some actual data on it (rather than just speculation) would’ve been nice if you were considering this change.

          • Floyd February 19, 2016 9:14 pm

            Just wondering, did you gather the definitive information on people finishing the games? If not the accountant in me says we need to gather the status at results gathering .

            What percentage of games are desired to finish in the time? 100% 80% 50%?

            In my business, 80% of tasks finishing in their allotted span is the standard. We use that standard to deliver against multi million dollar incentives.

            So the key questions are: what standard is the desire? Where are we against the standard? Until those are answered, one cannot stabilize the system for max results.

          • Venkarel February 20, 2016 1:30 pm

            I agree first step is to include a question on the upcoming vote questionare asking if you attended LVO in which turn did each of your games end and if they ended before turn 5 because one player conceded or was tabled (or something like this as games can end before turn 5 naturally). Once we get the numbers then we can do what the community thinks is correct, but until we have hard data everything is anecdotal.

          • 1PlusArmour February 21, 2016 8:45 am

            To echo what others said here – do you have hard data from LVO on the number of games that did not get to turn 5?

            This type of data absolutely must be available for anyone to make an informed decision on the poll, otherwise it’s just “well FLG thinks we should drop the points, so I’ll vote yes!”.

          • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:36 am

            We do not have hard data from the event, no. The app was not at the point where we could include any non-essential features. However, from observation, it was quite clear that many games were not finishing on time. That may not feel convincing to anyone that was not there, which I understand, but it was not in question at the event. Many players, most of them highly seasoned tournament players who do play very fast, were all reinforcing observational evidence.

            As much as I would love measured data too, what option is there? Wait a year to give it another try? That’s unreasonable, too. And again, this change, assuming it even happens which it may not, would only apply to large events. You would be free to play at the points level of your choice, of course.

            For me personally, I think lower points values is honestly better for tournament play and for what we’re trying to build: a pro league. Lower points means faster games which are more fun to watch, which means more people watching, and the higher likelihood we can negotiate sponsorship opportunities. Plus, when you’re actually playing the game, you don’t notice the points to much I’ve found. It’s really only a big deal when you’re writing your list where you can get annoyed by running out of options.

  40. Johnny February 18, 2016 10:39 pm #

    I say 1650, preferably 1500, I feel not only it saves time but makes the game a bit more tactical instead of every army takes unit (x), but maybe also a change in missions so that not every game going second is usually best, last minute objective grab armies totally dominated at LVO, maybe throw in 2 missions that have progressive points objectives and then keep the other 4 missions current ITC standards.

  41. Ishagu February 18, 2016 11:02 pm #

    I’d prefer 1850 as armies are just more varied at that level.
    Players just need a bit of discipline to make their turns faster…

  42. EmbraceYourInnerGeek February 18, 2016 11:46 pm #

    Seems like Im in the minority, but my preference would be 1850pts, with longer games. They don’t need to be very much longer, as in the later turns you have less stuff to move around. Sure it makes for a longer day, but so what? An extra hour isn’t going to kill anybody. In the UK (with the exception of the GT) we typically play 1,850pts at larger tournaments, with 3 hour rounds, and most games finish on a dice roll.

    Im going to a 6 game 1,850pt tournament this weekend, with 3 hour rounds. We start at 9 and finish at 7pm, with 45mins for lunch and 15min between rounds. I’ll report back, but I suspect all my games will finish on a dice roll.

    • Adam ( February 19, 2016 12:14 am #

      9 am to 7pm is insane, I’m not sure how many events you’ve gone to, but 3 rounds at the current time is already an endurance contest, let alone doing it 2-3 days in a row… Bump that up to 3 hour games? I’d rather eat dirt!

      • krootman February 19, 2016 9:52 am #

        ^ 2 hrs 45 and 3 hrs are the same thing honestly. I think 2 hr 45 min for a 1650 game will be enough time to reach a natural conclusion. If its not, then we are no worse off from where we started.

      • EmbraceYourInnerGeek February 19, 2016 12:10 pm #

        I’ve been to many, many (many) tournaments at these levels and these times. Its pretty common in the UK. Its a long day no doubt, but its hardly and insane endurance contest.

        • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 8:14 am #

          And if it is. MUHAHA, my endurance athlete days will give me an edge. Try doing 3 5k races in a day. 30,000 meters later a day of warhammer sounds pretty nice.

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 9:18 am

            That’s pretty bad ass! I used to do Ragnar Relays, 200 mile relay races over 30 hours. I haven’t in a while because my knees have been hurting, but, I do love endurance sports, also! I hope to be able to compete again this year. If I can’t run, I will probably switch to cycling.

  43. Nightman February 19, 2016 12:13 am #

    Personally i’d prefer either 1500 or 1850. I recently went to a 1650 torunament with 2.5 hour rounds and many tables did not get to turn 5. At 1500 you really can relax and still have plenty of time.

  44. Hush February 19, 2016 12:15 am #

    1650 all the way. 1500 seems to be coming up a bit on the UK but that extra 150 pts seems to make a difference to lists, I.e. getting more of what you want, without much extra time.

  45. Cortland February 19, 2016 12:28 am #

    I love the idea of a chess clock to monitor turn length and overall speed of the game.

    My big qualm is with some opponents would be slow roller, or not keeping up with the pace that I’m playing on my turn, whether that be with their saves, deciding to deny the witch, pop a one time use defensive cool down etc.

    I’m very intrigued by the idea of monitored turns but I don’t see how it can work in a sometime not extremely friendly environment.

  46. Freeman February 19, 2016 12:46 am #

    9-7 is pretty standard over here, I can’t speak for embrace your inner geek, but I’ve been to a lot of events now and it’s really not that bad. At the end of the day it’s a long day of playing with toys.

    At the end of the day I don’t really think it’s points limit that’s the issue, it’s about responsible players, since 7th ed came out we’ve all known that a hardcore summoning army is super strong but is rarely seen because a responsible player knows it would be hard to complete a game. Orks players aren’t as common as they could be because there is an understanding that 150+ model armies are tough to play if you are taking your movement seriously, same goes for blob guard.

    The issue seems to be that some current popular lists are pretty time dependant and the emphasis need to be on the player to bring an army that they can play in a timely manner. I used to play horde armies almost exclusively but moved to much lower model count armies when I started going to events for precisely that reason.

    At 1650pts or even 1500, I can easily take enough horrors to summon another 500pts turn one, and can keep doing that all while playing the fastest 40k anyone’s seen. Until we time out in turn three. It’s just respect for your opponent that stops it.

    I’m not saying people with battle companies or War convocation should be restricted, just that the responsibility of bringing an army they can play in the time should fall to them, even if there opponent has a long winded army as well.

    I really like the idea of a giant scoreboard with where in the game you should be. It would give a player who is being played against slowly a real stick to beat slow players with.

  47. Freeman February 19, 2016 12:52 am #

    And it’s not a sportsmanship issue the did your game finish naturally question should have nothing to do with poor sportsmanship. It’s pretty rare I feel people intentionally slow play is happening, it just need measuring and those perfectly fair and reasonable player need to know to bring a smaller army if they want to get points that count if they are regularly not finishing games.

  48. X078 February 19, 2016 1:29 am #

    1500 Points

    If you are gonna drop points then do it properly. 250/500 points step is logical and would allow scaling both up and down using those numbers.

    Still chess clocks (or some equivalent) will be needed. Otherwise you will still have the player with the 1500 point horde army who moves at snail’s pace for whatever reason.

    • Dakkath February 19, 2016 1:30 am #

      Agreed, definitely go with nice logical number steps.

    • Pablo Martinez February 19, 2016 11:24 am #

      if dropping a 250 point step is the logical conclusion then 250 from 1850 is 1600. 1650 is closer to that mark then 1500.

      Rememebr we don’t want to change the game or our meta completely, and 1500 points does exactly that. The difference between 1850 and 1500 points is 350 points. Want to know what that compares to? 1650 and 2000 points. Would you agree that games played at 1650 and 2000 points are the same game? No they are not, and no one will say that’s true. The same thing with such a radical jump from 1850 to 1500 two completely different games.

      1650 keeps people’s lists the same-ish and keeps all the current meta defining lists (4-5 Knights, War Convo, Thunderwolf Stars, Tau Big creatures) Those lists might not all consistently make the top 8 at events but they are common, varied, and players love to run them. They are also all very hard to run at 1500 points, especially with the ITC missions.

      • X078 February 19, 2016 2:36 pm #

        I would assume one starts from 0 and goes +250.

        Meta change would be good in my view. WarCon should be able to stand on its own and not rely on pods, Knights should be fine either as a LoW or 3 with allies (as they should be played in my view). Tau and Eldar will still be fine but might not be able to go completely nuts on the big stuff.

      • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:50 pm #

        1650 is also a huge change from 1850; it will mean lists are significantly different, arguably just as much so as between 1850 and 1500.

  49. Dakkath February 19, 2016 1:29 am #

    Put me in the 1500 camp if the change is made. 1850 is odd enough, 1650 just seems like a wtf number.

    • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:57 am #

      That always makes me chuckle when folks say the number sounds weird, any points limit is 1005 arbitrary. It really just boils down to what you are used to playing.

  50. Fagerlund February 19, 2016 1:42 am #

    Locally we usually play 1500p, it’s a really nice limit I think. It actually balances out the game a bit better than the larger games. However, there’s the one issue that if someone manages to squeeze in that big bad unit it gets even more difficult to deal with it as you have less tools to command. Just something to be aware of.

  51. Dayone916 February 19, 2016 1:55 am #

    I’m voting for 1500 but would be happy with 1650 as well. The chess clock idea is not a good idea in my opinion for the same reasons you listed Reece. Why should I lose and run out of time because my opponent plays orks (for example) and spends ten minutes rolling hundreds of attacks in combat on my turn? Or my opponent asks a rules question during my turn? Or any number of instances like that. For that and many other reasons chess clocks are a terrible idea.

  52. Happy_inquisitor February 19, 2016 3:12 am #

    If you want a proper competitive game then chess clocks might be part of that but you need a far more fundamental change in culture.

    Let’s talk about those disagreements and how they are resolved. As things stand the onus is on me to know my opponents rules and call them on “mistakes” straight away. If I find out one tun later the TO/judge will most likely shrug their shoulders, tell me it’s just a mistake and allow the advantage to stand. Gamers being what they are they work this system out and they game it, there is potential reward and no real risk so of course they do.

    This approach to the rules is perfect for friendly games. In a competitive environment environment it will be gamed for advantage.

    Adding chess clocks will give you the trappings of a competitive game but so long as it is built on assumptions that gamers will be gentlemen rather than game the system it will just create something else for them to game.

    • X078 February 19, 2016 2:39 pm #

      Any interruption by the opponent (e.g. questions etc) he should punch his clock.

  53. Davis Centis February 19, 2016 7:36 am #

    I know the game takes too long to play now, when one of the primary selling points of an All-Knight army is “I can set it up and get a game in quickly”.

    • asmodius February 19, 2016 9:27 am #

      Feast of blades before it went belly up did 1500 points for their last year and the points were never an issue nor did they detract from the game or tournament itself. You also did still see the big deathstars and builds you see at 1850 but they were not as flushed out. Compromises were made. I have found that 1500 is as valid of a points level as any. So is 1650. In running local events I have found that there is a magic ratio of points per minute. If you hit around 10 points per minute everyone finishes their games with very few exceptions. LVO was at around 12 points per minute. That mean LVO was fast but not insanely fast. There were isolated cases of people not finishing games. Most people got to turn 5. That is the same result I have seen at local event. For 1650 you would want 2.5 hours to be a little fast. 1500 at 2.5 hours would hit 10 points per minute and nearly everyone would finish game.

      To me the question is not what pionts level should be done but how you want your schedule to be at the event. Every points level is as competitive or not as any other points level. I have seen a 1000 points event be a blast(and we easily fit 4 games in a single day) and very competitive. Really though people will play any points level and find a way to like it and be competitive. Some prefer other points level but ultimately most people just follow the community.

  54. Loopy February 19, 2016 9:03 am #

    I’ve been doing 4 rounds at 1500 points in one day for the Goldensprue Cup, this is compared to 3 rounds at 1850, with more time per round for our other tournaments. The 1500 games still finish on time more successfully than the 1850 games, even with less time. People will still slow play, but I think the overall results will be far better with a 200pt reduction compared to increasing time per round or introducing punitive actions.

  55. Cpcarrot February 19, 2016 9:49 am #

    Lowering the point total to 1650 will speed the game up but it will also give more strength to the free cheese armies. So battle company takes the scouts formating instead of the hunter stalker formation. Cuts a little more and boom. They still have over 2k in points.

    Extending time by 15 min. That makes 45 min for a 3 round tourney 1 hour for a 4 round tourney. This should be acceptable considering we already know what we are getting into when we go to a large tourney. If it is run properly (see Know No Mercy GT, LVO and BAO) it isn’t a problem.

    I would also like to see data collected in the form of questions like did your game reach a natural conclusion? and what turn did you get to. Track that data with players and armies. Many players slow play to their advantage as a tactic. That will happen no matter the points.

    • Adam ( February 19, 2016 10:23 am #

      I disagree, at 1650 you can’t get drop pods in a War Convocation, which improves them exponentially, similarly you’re losing 200 points of weapons out of a Battle Company… 200 points really takes the teeth out of them, though I’d really hope they go all the way down to 1500. 🙂

      • Rolling thunder February 19, 2016 11:13 am #

        agree completely, war convo without pods (or 2 knights) or battle co without grav everywhere are a LOT less terrifying

      • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:52 pm #

        As an aside, Ben Cromwell (who was the highest-ranking War Convocation player at LVO) did not use any Drop Pods in his version of the list, and has been running it that way for some time.

      • elwrath February 20, 2016 12:48 am #

        I pointed out a couple BC lists at 1650 vs my 1850. at 1650 I actually gain models, meltas, flamers, and lascannon razorbacks. I lose only 2 out of 8 grav cannons. I don’t have a command squad on bike anymore. 1650 is nice, but not really the good fix. And if people say ban free points formations, only way to make that fair is ban all formations.

        • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:55 am #

          The change isn’t aimed at Battle Company specifically, that is taking too narrow of a view of it. The intended purpose would be to see a higher percentage of games–across all factions–finish to a natural conclusion more frequently.

  56. Daemonrider888 February 19, 2016 9:55 am #

    How many formations will not be playable if it drops below 1850? My Hunting Pack army is one.

    • xTHExCLINCHERx February 19, 2016 10:35 am #

      Yeah, this is really going to be the breaking point for most people since things like Battle Company (and “decurion style detachments”) are becoming popular but would be very hard to fit (at least in any customized form or fashion) at a smaller points level.

  57. FTGT Evan February 19, 2016 10:44 am #

    Nothing terribly new to the conversation, but my vote would be for 1,500, with 1,650 as second option.

    Also vehemently opposed to the idea of chess clocks; to me it would drive a further wedge between “competitive” and “casual” players, and honestly, I’m not sure it would fix problems so much as make more feel bad experiences.

  58. Requizen February 19, 2016 11:05 am #

    Hopefully the vote is two parts:

    1) Do you want to see points change?
    2) What point level would you like to see it change to, if the points levels were to decrease?

    Previous votes have been very confusing as to how they were worded.

    • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:16 pm #

      It will be two questions.

      • Floyd February 19, 2016 9:00 pm #

        Ok on the two questions, please don’t phrase them like proverbial ; so Mr Smith exactly when did you stop beating your wife.

        One of the hardest things to do is write neutral poll questions.

        I would suggest a baseline question if a change is needed? Followed by a multiple choice question with amounts above and below the standard 1850.

        Your choice obviously. ?

  59. Kartr_Kana February 19, 2016 11:08 am #

    I am very familiar with chess clocks from playing chess throughout my middle and high school years (made it to state twice but went 2 and 3 both times 🙁 ). I don’t think they would work that well in 40k. Do I slap the clock when he’s rolling saves in my turn? When he’s rolling to hit and wound in assault in my turn? Does the clock only switch over at the end of the turn? If so what’s to stop him from running out my clock by rolling his saves one dice at a time? What’s the penalty for running out of time? Is it a loss (like chess), or do I just lose the primary and calculate from there? Does my score for that game get halved?

    I think a chess clock would be great if the TOs know someone is slow playing and decide to clock him in games 3-5. That way they either have to speed up or lose.

    As for 1650 vs 1500 I’m leaning towards 1650. I know it feels like a funny number, but I also feel like it allows you to build something similar to an 1850 list, minus a few “extras.” Whereas 1500 requires a whole new concept/list. This is particularly advantageous if most RTTs stay at 1850 as you can play the same core list at both levels.

    For example the list I’m building for this year is an 1850 point SoT CAD with 2 tac squads and 2 scout squads for troops, Centurion devastators, deredeo, sicaran, vindicator squadron, MotF, Aegis with ammo dump and Coteaz. At 1500 I would have to rework the entire list any time I went to a GT. At 1650 I drop a tac squad and the dozer on the Sicaran and I’m still playing the same basic list.

    TL:DR chess clocks have too many problems for widespread use, and it’s easier to keep the same basic army from 1650 to 1850 than from 1500 to 1850.

  60. Andrew Gonyo February 19, 2016 11:18 am #

    I would prefer 1500, I’d settle for any significant reduction from 1850, so 1650 would be a great first step as well.

    I dislike the idea of chess clocks – for me it would greatly detract from gameplay/enjoyment, but if forced to, I’m sure I could adapt.

    And to the competitive/non-competitive guys thing, most competitive players I know are in support of a change in points. This exact topic is being discussed on the ETC Captains Council currently for the 2017 event (not the one this august, things are already set for that). So far everyone discussing it has felt it’s time for a drop in points to be looked at. So, YMMV, but from the perspective I have in the competitive community it all seems fairly positive.

    • Reecius February 19, 2016 2:16 pm #

      Be interesting to see what the ETC does.

  61. Sanchezsam2 February 19, 2016 11:25 am #

    Formations and lists that are hurt at 1500 over 1650.
    War conv can’t take drop pods
    5x knight formations are not playable
    Battle company loses most of its grav weapons
    Hunting pack army is unfieldable
    Astra Militarum decorian is unfieldable
    Probably many more popular lists that won’t be usable with a drop to 1500

    My vote is 1650 allows for hard choices but doesn’t completely negate entire builds and its 400pts of models making games faster.

    • Kartr_Kana February 19, 2016 11:54 am #

      Guard has a combi-detachment(decurion style) now? When did that happen? I didn’t think they’d gotten a new Codex yet.

      • Sanchezsam2 February 19, 2016 8:26 pm #

        Cadia formations you can buy the book on black library. No fact there is a full write up on it in this forum.

      • westrider February 19, 2016 8:30 pm #

        It was in the second part of the Tau Campaign books, Mont’ka, along with the Farsight Enclaves stuff.

        Frankly, it’s not really even very well suited for 1850, and probably comes into its own around 2500 or so. Very unwieldy, which is fitting for the IG fluff, but kind of obnoxious from a game play standpoint.

    • Requizen February 19, 2016 12:36 pm #

      Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s healthy for the meta. AdMech losing drop pods would hurt them, but they would still be strong and easily fielded. You don’t need Podding Grav or Plas or Haywire to make War Convo strong. Battle Company doesn’t need massive amounts of Grav on top of the stupid amount of ObSec.

      • Pablo Martinez February 19, 2016 1:24 pm #

        Variety is healthy for the meta ya loon. He named 5 different armies that are all hurt by dropping down to 1500 points, how many can you name that will rise up at 1500 points? Those are armies are all popular and not the same. Remember this isn’t for a little RTT or a local game store. This is for a huge event like the LVO, BAO, or ATC. It isn’t as simple as completely shifting the way we play the game to another meta entirely and calling it a day. Remember the drop between 1850 and 1500 is the same kind of drop as 2000 to 1650. Baby steps.

        • Requizen February 19, 2016 2:09 pm #

          I think there are plenty of armies that are made worthy by the top armies taking a hit. There are plenty of times people put together lists only to realize that, while they can stand up to War Convo on foot, they can’t stand up to War Convo with Alpha Strike capabilities. Or, while they can combat the scoring of Battle Company, they can’t also deal with the damage output of all those squads having special/heavy weapons on top of it.

          Oppressive lists going way means that other lists have room to breathe, which is good for the game.

          I would be totally fine with 1650 as well, don’t get me wrong. I just think 1500 opens up more doors for lists that differ from the ones that we currently see.

    • Generalissimo_Fred February 20, 2016 4:49 am #

      5x Knight armies can all turn into 4x Knight armies and still fit in 1500pts. Only the Royal Court is 5x Knights. All the others (especially the two most powerful, Baronial Court and Household detachment) can have 4 Knights in them.

      • Pascalnz February 20, 2016 3:28 pm #

        it’s jut a bit sad for fluff modellers and painters missing out on a high king+ his unique court of barons

        • Adam ( February 20, 2016 8:35 pm #

          I think all the knights should be customized anyhow! Your High King can be your Baron pretty easily, hell, I made my High King before I knew that a High King would be a thing… and he’s stuck in an Errant, haha.

  62. z3n1st February 19, 2016 11:34 am #

    Zod says 1500pts, all hail Zod

  63. C-Stock February 19, 2016 11:42 am #

    One thing to bear in mind about switching to less points is that free-point lists become WAY more powerful. They allow the player to have a significantly higher percentage of points than their opponent the smaller games go.

    Gladius with ten free obsec tanks is much harder to deal with when you have a smaller list.

    Similarly, summoning becomes more powerful.

    Unintended consequences.

    Unless free point lists are curbed then I think it’s best to stay at 1850:

    • Reecius February 19, 2016 12:23 pm #

      We’ve actually been finding that Battle Company specifically is actually a lot less powerful as they lose most of their killing power. War Convocaiton loses some of their Drop Pods which is what helps many of them to function at maximum effect. We really haven’t seen them get better at all in practice, but YMMV.

    • happy_inquisitor February 20, 2016 12:17 pm #

      I actually think that the big winners would be lists currently constrained in how many super-models they can take. The lower the points level the less of a constraint this becomes.

      Eldar are the obvious example, limiting them to one Wraithknight becomes increasingly less of a constraint as the points level goes down. I watched a 750 tournament practice game yesterday and at that points level a sword & board Wraithknight is crazy good. I think most lists should be able to cope at 1500 but I do think it is worth at least thinking about the guidelines on super-heavies that are permitted if the points level of a tournament goes down.

      • Kwodd February 21, 2016 12:32 pm #


        The Winners: Eldar, Battle Co, War Convo, Tau, Deamons.

        The Losers: Everyone Else

        • Reecius February 21, 2016 7:03 pm #

          It’s funny, we have some folks arguing that the listed armies get worse at lower points, others arguing the exact opposite. So much of this boils down to perception and personal experience. I don’t think there’s an objective truth, here.

          • abusepuppy February 21, 2016 11:35 pm

            There is a huge difference between “we don’t know what the objective truth is” and “there is no objective truth.” I can’t solve the Three-Body Problem, but that doesn’t mean there ISN’T a solution, only that I don’t know it yet.

  64. Codi February 19, 2016 11:52 am #

    We should go back to the glory days…2500pts

  65. Ryan February 19, 2016 1:07 pm #

    It may be a silly thought but why not just make the tournament game length 5 turns? If that is the benchmark for a complete game then just make it final.

    In any situation, slow playing I’ve never actually seen deal with. Telling a TO or judge usually just results in a shrug or nod but nothing points wise is ever done. I don’t have a great solution but it remains one of the great problems with competitive40K.

    • asmodius February 19, 2016 2:57 pm #

      Dropping to a set length of 5 rounds would probably be good. Most of the time that is all you have anyway. You could also make it so that if the players don’t finish turn 5 they are assigned a tie. That way a penalty is baked in that is simple to enforce. You can’t really assign one player a lose for slow playing unless you have the deathclock and have measured which player has taken more time. You can’t just rely on hear say as a TO.

      It would shift favor/balance(depending missions used) toward some armies. Eldar jetbikes would be king in end of game objective grabbing and no longer has the risk of the game going an extra turn and losing that objective they are holding. That is the only concern I see with that suggestion.

      Another idea would be to leave in random game length but if players don’t complete at least turn 5 both are assigned a draw. So if they make it to play 6 or 7 turns using random game length in the allotted time then the game continues. If in the time they will only end up playing through turn 5 then they just do that.

      • westrider February 19, 2016 8:32 pm #

        I played in Tournaments back before RGL was a thing. with good players, it was almost entirely about going second, playing defensively, and jumping on Objectives in the last Turn. Got really boring, fast.

        • abusepuppy February 19, 2016 8:54 pm #

          Absolutely. Knowing when the game will end with certainty makes objective-grabbing armies (Eldar, Battle Company, etc) incredibly difficult to beat when they go second- and even when they go first.

          • Adam ( February 20, 2016 12:49 pm

            Yup, more reason to lower the point limits, since as it is most games are hitting the time limit so you often know if it’s the last turn you’ll get in or not.

  66. Cowboy February 19, 2016 1:59 pm #

    I enthusiastically support a drop to 1,650. Games need a natural (random game length) ending and smaller armies will shift the meta a bit for sure.

  67. Variance Hammer February 19, 2016 2:24 pm #

    If there was a major tournament that *did* have chess clocks, and recorded the results, it would be trivial to actually estimate the role slow play has in games.

  68. westrider February 19, 2016 10:00 pm #

    Just as one more random point, I actually turned up one of my old 4th Ed IG Tournament lists, and worked out what it would cost to run as close to the same thing as possible now. It dropped by almost 10%, from 1500 Points to 1360, and the obvious changes from there would actually free up even more space, because a lot of those old standby Units (Perhaps most notably in this case the Russes and Basilisk) still cost basically the same, but there are newer options that are better and/or cheaper.

    I went with my IG because they’re one of the ones that’s changed the least in some ways. I would actually still run a fairly similar list today (2 big Platoons, some Tanks/Artillery for backup), but a quick glance suggests that most of my Nid and CSM Lists would see similar drops.

  69. BobC February 20, 2016 4:14 am #

    My concern with having less points is that it makes it harder to include a counter for everything. Some units become really dominating in smaller point games. For example, have you ever tried to kill a WK in a 1000 pt match?

  70. Luke February 20, 2016 7:17 am #

    I’m surprised people haven’t considered a throwback to 1750 points (which used to be the norm). I don’t recall there really being an issue with time at 1750, though 1650 would certainly ensure that there would be no issue.

    Truly, I think that with adding a little more time in between rounds, or to the game itself, as well as managing the in between round system a little more effectively, might work.

    For example, consider the following situation – have a dedicated recorder for each game. They could track the score of each game and input it electronically into the large database so that the instant something happens, it is counted and reported. It then becomes trivial to get results and do matchups for the next round, and you could even report that back to the recorder for a given table, who could tell each player immediately where they are supposed to go.

    You’d think that having a dedicated spectator (who really is an employee) for each game might be a daunting and expensive task. Simply give that person free admission to the LVO. Once their responsibilities are fulfilled, they can do whatever they want for the rest of the weekend. Event gets more popular and you have a bunch of helpers that can do what you need them to.

    Or, even more simply, just have the players electronically send in the scores and send the table assignments in. You could even make such a system compatible with normal text messages, so you don’t have to have a smart phone

    • westrider February 20, 2016 12:01 pm #

      When 1750 was the standard, the Game was significantly simpler. It didn’t have all this stuff like snap shots, overwatch, a highly granular Wound Allocation system, Challenges, multiple Pile-in Moves per Assault Phase, a separate Psychic Phase, etc. 40K is a more complex Game now than it’s been since 2nd Ed ended, and we’re putting 3-4 times as many Models (if not even more) on the board as we did then.

  71. Greek February 20, 2016 10:12 am #

    Didn’t LVO’s round 1 start extremely late? I heard most of the time problems stemmed from the start time being poorly enforced, which caused the round to spill over and affect each following round as well.

    I like 1850 points. 1650 or 1500 is an unnecessary change that’s being suggested in response to a problem that doesn’t actually even stem from the sizes of armies to begin with. Start rounds on time, end them at the intended time…. don’t allow them to affect future rounds. Chess clocks is a little extreme…. I think it’s $5,000 that, historically, has been unnecessary.

    If someone is called for slow-playing then maybe bring in the chess clocks for that player’s future matches. There are players who totally staul for time when they’re ahead on maelstrom but realize that things will get worse for them the later the game goes. And those people should be dealt with. But buying a clock for every table….. probably not necessary.

    • Reecius February 20, 2016 11:13 am #

      No, we started on time.

    • Adam ( February 20, 2016 12:58 pm #

      LVO this year was running on time from everything I saw. The bigger issue is that 7th edition itself takes longer to play than previous editions, plus you’re having armies that are worth a lot more than 1850 points on the board. If you throw down a Battle Company against an Ironwolf you can easily have over 5000 points on the board in an 1850 game. Really, lowering the points is the only way to make sure that games come to natural conclusions, a game that goes to turn 5 but ends because of the time limit isn’t a natural conclusion, and gives an advantage to faster armies like Eldar that can jump on objectives on the last turn.

      It’s hard to even tell what slow playing means… if someone builds an army with 9 units of warp spiders that are moving 3 times a turn, and potentially on your opponent’s turn, is that slow playing? It sure as hell takes forever. 🙂

      • 1PlusArmour February 21, 2016 8:42 am #

        It doesn’t take that long if the players know what they’re doing.

        Our top table, last round, yesterday was 45 Warp Spiders vs 30+ bikes. These two don’t play each other on a regular basis (~300 miles separating them), but they had both practiced the scenarios, and knew their lists.

        They finished their 5 turns with 25 minutes to spare, including rolling for a turn 6.

        One of these players (45 Warp Spiders) also played against someone who had their game end on turn 2 first round (Gladius). They also finished their full 5 turns because the non-Gladius player kept their opponent in check, hustled them, and kept them playing at an acceptable pace.

        1850pts, 2 1/2 hour rounds, ITC style missions.

  72. Sanchezsam2 February 20, 2016 1:48 pm #

    Add the ork decorian as another list that won’t work at 1500 but is manageable at 1650.
    1650 all the way to many lists wouldn’t work at 1500.

    • Codi February 21, 2016 8:24 am #

      I’m not convinced it works any way.

  73. Freeman February 20, 2016 5:24 pm #

    It’s a shame if we have to drop the points because people aren’t capable of playing at a reasonable pace.

    If you decide to play a battle company you, in my opinion, have committed to playing at a faster pace. If you want to spend a long time thinking about all your moves, you should bring a knight army.

    It’s easy to record which players are consistantly timing out. Those players need all there scores changing to 11-0 losses. If you did that at BAO to every player that failed to roll for turn 6 in three games, I can almost guarantee that nobody will have it happen to them in future events.

    People would argue that it wasn’t there fault that there games took so long but it doesn’t matter, we aren’t talking about vilifying people. There should be no shame attached to having your tourney points taken away, other than that attached to the rest of the people at the bottom of the rankings who have also been found to be not good enough at the game.

    • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:28 am #

      You can’t give people 11-0 losses if their games didn’t finish on time. That sounds good in theory, but in practice you turn people away that aren’t hardcore tournament gamers.

      • Vercingatorix February 22, 2016 8:18 am #

        I like when people throw out suggestions that if you put into practice would get you absolutely crucified.

  74. 1PlusArmour February 21, 2016 8:30 am #

    So is the goal here to get more people to finish their games, or is the goal to play smaller games? These are not mutually inclusive concepts. If someone is unprepared to play 1850pts in 2 1/2 hours, cutting off an arbitrary 200pts is not going to magically make them a more competent/faster player.

    Yes, there is inherently less to do, but many people will translate that into “oh, there’s less stuff, now I have more time to think!” which is already the root cause of the issue. Over the full length of a game at 1850, only a fraction of it is actually spent literally moving the models and resolving shooting/assaults/etc…

    Will 1650 in 2 1/2 hours result in more games finishing? Maybe. Will it solve slow play problems? Absolutely not, as the problem is the players, not the clock.

    I know it sounds like victim blaming, but after running an RTT yesterday and hearing someone bitch about “slow playing opponents” all I could say was “you didn’t say a thing to me throughout the entire event, you are equally to blame”. Players need to push each other to keep their turns to a good amount of time, and they need to be prudent in calling a TO if their opponent is burning the clock for no good reason. Yes, it’s victim blaming, but if you don’t say anything you end up with massive changes like this (e.g. 1650pts) instead of actually addressing the underlying problem.

    If you want a directly comparable situation – how many games of Warmachine end in the deathclock running out? Warmachine is lauded as being handled excellently by PP for their tournament play. Do people say that 50pts needs to go down, or games need to be longer, because one player runs down the clock? Everyone I’ve spoken to on that front opts for “get better, play faster”. And before anyone even says “but there are big differences in the number of models between factions in 40k!”, there are in Warmachine as well. It’s not an excuse.

    • 1PlusArmour February 21, 2016 8:31 am #

      This, of course, is also to say that if the goal is also to get more data points for tournaments (e.g. more rounds), the point drop is irrelevant as the round time will also be decreased which just results in the status quo.

      • westrider February 21, 2016 11:28 am #

        The discussion at hand is actually cutting Points without changing the time available.

      • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:53 am #

        The time would not decrease, it would remain the same, otherwise the proposed change would not accomplish the intended goal, or be less likely to do so.

    • Reecius February 21, 2016 11:27 am #

      You can’t really compare Warmachine and 40k, the games play very differently. In Warmachine, only 1 player is acting in a turn, and it really does make a big difference and is why the game lends itself to deathclocks.

      And we run 2hr45mn rounds and were still seeing a lot of games not finishing. 2.5hrs is impressive for your group.

      Again, if this change does happen, which it may, you guys are free to continue to play at 1850pts, no big deal.

      • Xodarkun February 21, 2016 6:48 pm #

        I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but lvo isn’t as organized as say nova open. You don’t mark your tables, the tables are crowded, and not even doing a dry run on the projector a year ago shows that you have some improvements to make in organization and logistics. At least take some meaningful data before you throw something like this up for a vote.

        • Reecius February 21, 2016 7:01 pm #

          The tables aren’t marked? What do you mean by that? As in table numbers? We had laser cut table numbers on every table. And a dry run on the projector? I’m not following you, what do you mean by that? Last year we did try to use the projector but due to lighting issues it wasn’t plausible. The event itself ran on time, though, but if you felt it lacked in organization, that is your prerogative. If it felt crowded in comparison to an event like NOVA, that may be so, but the event was also very nearly twice as big.

          As for taking meaningful data, we feel that we have. However, what you count as meaningful may vary from what do, which is totally fair. And voting on this boils down to more than just time and measurements of games finishing, it also includes preference. A great number of players have approached us asking us to reduce the points, so we respond. If more players do not want to see a points reduction then it won’t pass/

          • Xodarkun February 21, 2016 7:22 pm

            The table marking was in reference to another persons post. I didn’t attend this year. If you have a bigger event, you need a bigger venue. As for the projector, you should have known that ahead of time. There was no backup plan in place. It was chaos with 200 people crowding around 3 tables to figure out where to go. I was only trying to help you understand that some of the issues could be fixed by the staff. I feel that the main drivers for games not finishing are people not familiar with the rules, players not being cognizant of time, and slow players. None of these will be fixed by lowering points. And none of the TOs are good about penalizing slow players because they don’t want to alienate their attendees. Have you thought about incentives like bonus points for complete games?

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 9:01 am

            You are offering critiques on an event you didn’t attend….or, are these about the LVO 2015? I’m sorry, this is really confusing, are you talking about the event last year or this year? This year we did have a bigger venue, over twice as big, actually. We also had more room on each table for each game. And how would we know about the projector ahead of time? They don’t let us come into the hall any time we like and mess around with the equipment. We have to contract with a third party AV company to have one of their reps there to set up and test the equipment, and that can only be done when the hall isn’t in use by another convention, which is nearly year round. I appreciate your feedback of course, but you’re saying what could have run better this year at an event you weren’t at by comparing it to the previous year going off of hearsay with false information….I hope you can understand that that is a weird position to take.

            At any rate, we’re working on an app that will shoot your table pairing and opponent to your phone, which will alleviate the issue. These things take time though, and it simply wasn’t ready to rock this year. Although, a lot of players were using their phones to get their pairings off of the pairing website, which was awesome. The site not loading when it got pinged too many times at once was the only drawback this year, but easily fixed going forward. And yes, lowering points does alleviate the issues you bring up for games going slower as players not knowing rules and such does slow things down but obviously if they have less units on the table to know the rules for, they won’t go as slow. Point penalties or bonuses for finishing games is something we’ve considered but how do you prove the info? If you set up an incentive to say a game finished with a bonus point, you are encouraging players to lie about their game finishing to get that point. If you have a negative point for games not finishing, how do you prove which player was to blame to penalize? It’s not something that works in practice very well.

          • Alex yuen February 22, 2016 2:02 am

            Xodarkun. You not even there then how do you even compare between nova and lvo. Like you said, dont tkae it personal but lair aka spreading false information and retarded like you have little value in your factional point of view.

          • westrider February 22, 2016 6:30 am

            “And none of the TOs are good about penalizing slow players because they don’t want to alienate their attendees.”

            Yeah, because without the attendees, you don’t have an event at all. If you want to sell an event, you have to make it one that people want to attend.

  75. westrider February 21, 2016 11:48 am #

    Going through this whole thread again, I’m seeing a lot of lack of understanding of subjectivity, lack of empathy. A lot of “I can do it, therefore everyone who doesn’t is lazy or cheating.” We’re not all stamped out of the same mold, folks.

    I’m also seeing a bunch of people who I regularly see railing against comp supporting de facto comp here by saying “If you play a list that takes a long time, you deserve an automatic loss in all your games.”

    If we cut Points, we get more Games finishing naturally for a wider variety of Players and Armies. The faster Players, who are fine already, get more time to socialize or take a bit of a break before their next round, so they’ll be even less likely to make errors and give us still tighter and more exciting Games at the very top.

  76. Stainless Steel Rat February 22, 2016 9:54 am #

    1650 seems to work well. True that it denies some formations, deathstars, and other temptations (to which I am not immune at times), but I have found players react very well to actually finishing their games within the tournament time limit. It also gives “horde” players (eg. AM, bugs, Orcs) a chance to get beyond the 3rd turn with a shot at a natural finish as well. All things considered and balancing pros & cons, I have no reservations about cutting points back to 1650.

  77. Castle February 22, 2016 3:28 pm #

    Just use 1500pts. 1650pts would create a new meta game where people need to design new lists to optimize the point limit. You wouldn’t see people playing their practiced lists they take to other tournaments just their unproven 1650 list that wouldn’t get played much.

    I feel it would take away from the quality of lists we would see as they wouldn’t be as well thought out, it would probably just be peoples 1500 lists with 150pts tacked on. 1500pts, 1750pts, and 1850pts(which again just feels like 1750 with 100pts tacked on) are all very popular sub 2000pts styles. No need to re-invent the wheel, if 1850 is taking too long just switch to 1500 or 1750.

    As for the Chess Clock idea, I think it’s a good idea in theory. But 40k does have a lot of interaction with other players. A solution may be to give each player a set amount of time to complete their psychic, movement phases and then stop the timer at assault and shooting. Movement generally is where a lot of time is wasted and that’s really just on 1 player so time them there. As for the cost of the chess clock or stopwatch, players are required to bring measuring tapes etc 1 extra item shouldn’t be too much to ask to smooth out the tournament. Just be sure to sell them at the venue(cheap ones) for when people forget to bring it there are options.

  78. Freeman February 23, 2016 9:34 am #

    the organisation of the LVO was exceptional, and the room was probably the most spacious I’ve ever seen at event. I didn’t experience any technical difficulties getting my round pairing.

    Fair point that it could put some people of by punishing slow play. How about incentivising. Add the tertiary objective “responsible gamer” for both players if turn 5 is completed? At very least that would almost guarantee that the tournament champ has no slow play allegations.

    So you think that smaller events would carry on with 1850. I’d guess that your premier events have such a prestige and influence I bet whatever you decide will turn into the standard.

    I don’t think that would be a bad thing though.

Leave a Reply