Signals from the Frontline #507: FLG Mats are Now Available!

507b

Join us for the live show on our Twitch channel by following this link! The show starts at 11am, PST.

Show Notes

Date: 2-17-17

Intro

  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.
  • You think Reecius’ T-Shirts are cool? Buy yours, here!

News

  • Big News! We have a limited supply of our FLG Mats now available! Jump in there and grab one that looks cool to you.
  • Much of the very awesome ITC Terrian you saw at the LVO will also be available in the near future, stand by for news on that front, too.
  • New releases from Forgeworld! Inferno, Morg-n-Thorg for Bloodbowl and Iron Hills Dwarves for the Lord of the Rings.

99550999003_MorgnThorg01 99551465005_IronhillsGoatRiders01 99551465006_IronHillDwarfswithSpears01 99561499001_WatchtowerAmonSul01 Inferno-1

  • Adeptus Titanicus starter set to come without Titans?

adeptus-titanicus-box-back

  • The new Stormcast Eternal battletome is inbound and will see quite a few changes for the AoS poster boys! Deep striking, new artefacts, Battalions, etc. should be very exciting! They also nerfed the Knight Vexilor….thank you Sigmar! Also, the Triumvirate of Ynead is also available at our 25% off new release special price while supplies last. Those are some sexy models, too. Wow.

order.ga.01

  • New forces for Kings of War on the way, Goblins and Ogres!

KW-goblin-mega-force

  • The new Warhammer Quest expansion: Shadows over Hammerhall looks to be quite popular, featuring loads of Chaos villains and some new heroes such as a Lord Cellestant, Cogmaster, Black Ark Fleetmaster, Loremaster and a Gryph-hound. The adventure takes the heroes though the titular city.

WHQSoH-Unboxing1-Content

  • The LVO feedbakc forms will be going out ASAP, Reece got sick mid week and is behind a bit.

Upcoming ITC Events

itc.logo.01.1

Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

Rant Session

“Episode 3
Points Wars: The Organizers Strike Back

Hello ladies and gents of “The Community”,

I have some food for thought and I have some stats for you to go along with our discussion today.

Quick stats:
1650 was major success.
180 games were played, 60 people x 6 rounds /2 for number of people per table.
97%, 174 games were reported by players to finish ‘naturally’.  End on dice roll, turn 7, or Tabling.
3%, 6 games were reported by players to ran to time, 2hrs 30mins.
80%, 144 of all games finished with 20 minutes or more left in the round.
The rest finished with less time remaining.

To contrast as a baseline compared to 1850 from 2015 Renegade Open (had to go look this up on our stats in Google Drive).
174 games were played, 58 players, 6 games, 2 players per game.
57%, 99 games, were finished ‘naturally’, dice roll, turn 7, or Tabling.
43%, 75 games, went to time and didn’t finish their game ‘naturally’.
20%, 35 games, finished with more than 20 minutes left in the round, however these are all tablings unlike with 1650.

This shows a 58% increase in games being concluded naturally (57% of 174 games played, vs 97% of 180 games played), where the only variable changed was the Points allowed for army construction.

So short message is 1650 is far better for getting games completed within 2.5 hours.  When we consider the effect that being able to finish games with a natural conclusion.  It would shift the balance of power away from slow play, or time sink, armies.  Thus making it easier on TO’s on determining if “slow-play” complaints are valid or bogus.  Thus improving Event Orchestration.

From the player perspective there are multiple benefits.  First that there is less on the table at beginning of play.  Making it easier to get through turns.  Second that with increased speed of “dicing” and “play” allows for more actions and more “thought organization” time without worry of being accused of “slow-play”.  Which would have the added benefit of giving all more time to reconcile unknown rules.  Third it makes for fewer units on the table thus reducing the complexity of the game.  Again helping to ensure everyone has time to get through every action and thought.
While we gamers love our “toys” it is to our shared experience, and benefit of happy gaming, to reduce the stress and anxiety of the game by reducing points rather than extending the round times and making for a longer day.  This is why we should all push for smaller points limits.  Yes it means less of our toys on the table, but it also means more fun had by both sides of the table.
I hope this has helped you to realize why there has been a push to lower the standard points limit for armies over the last year.  Have a great day, and as always happy gaming!
Sincerely,
David Arimond
Renegade Events, Warhammer 40 000″

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

Completed Commissions

List Review

Tags:

About Reecius

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

30 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #507: FLG Mats are Now Available!”

  1. Codi February 17, 2017 11:15 am
    #

    Dear “The Organizers Who are Striking Back at the Community”

    If you want your event to be at 1650 set it at 1650, but please stop berating us for voting with our preference.

    • Heldericht February 17, 2017 1:43 pm
      #

      I think they are justified in their frustration. The points limit set by ITC is seen as official by most tournaments not to mention the ones being run by FLG (BAO and LVO), as such most people create lists and practice in that setting.

      When a tournament deviates from this (especially small local RTTs), it leads to a noticeable drop in attendance because people don’t want to change their lists as the practice they get at 1650 is useless (in their mind). They want to play at the points limit that they expect to encounter most of the time.

      When ITC lowers the points limit officially, most tournaments will switch to it and this way small RTTs can safely run lower points limit without losing attendance.

      People are just too stubborn/ignorant to understand that lower points is necessary and needs to be implemented.

      • ryan February 17, 2017 2:38 pm
        #

        and by that same token do you not think larger tournaments would not suffer the same drop in attendance going to a smaller size. Keep in mind the smaller size has twice been rejected by ITC voters.

        Its pretty brazen to effectively insult others by calling them stubborn for refusing to want to play lower point games, while at the same time not even to be willing to try other viable options, like chess clock. I like 1850 games and if somebody playing a huge army limits us to 4 turns, the problem is the larger army player, bring something else.

      • Codi February 17, 2017 2:55 pm
        #

        Having a preference does not make someone stubborn or ignorant; even if that preference is not shared by you.

    • David Arimond February 17, 2017 4:00 pm
      #

      Greetings Codi. The title was intended to be light hearted joke witha Star Wars twist, as the Monday show of ‘Signals’ had been wrought withh various Science Fiction references.

      The above article does not intend to “berate” the community for its vote. But it does intend on informing people of what the difference in points brings to the table. As a preference for the writer (and suspect Reecius as well, but I will NOT speak for him or other community organizers) I prefer to orchastrate an event with the lower points as it allow for more “complete” games.

      It was not the intent of the author to belittle anyone’s opinion nor try to dictate policy. Merely an effort to inform and provide the perspective of the above expressed opinion.

      I hope this helps the clarify the intent for you.

      Sincerely,
      David Arimond
      Renegade Events, Warhammer 40k

      • Codi February 17, 2017 8:57 pm
        #

        David, that is fair thank you for the response

  2. Donthemagnificent February 17, 2017 11:39 am
    #

    Looks great, though it appears that the LVO Sunday RTT data has not found its way to the new season. Keep up the great work.

    • Sean McNamara February 17, 2017 4:10 pm
      #

      Not to mention the results for my pod were all wrong. Scores were submitted and then suddenly changed a few hours after the tournament was over. I don’t know if all suffered this problem.

      • Reecius
        Reecius February 17, 2017 4:26 pm
        #

        The guys are working on that this weekend.

  3. GeekmasterK February 17, 2017 11:52 am
    #

    @Reece, what are your thoughts on the idea of starting with a reduction to 1750 points, then reducing it to 1650 if the first reduction doesn’t do enough to speed up the games? I think it could be a good test to see how much of a reduction is needed, as well as keeping some of the backlash down, and making it easier to adapt lists. Making the change gradual instead of immediate, if you will.

  4. Lockinfinity February 17, 2017 2:28 pm
    #

    @community I dont think lowering to 1650pts is enough. All the usually culprits warcon/battle company/heavy pysker lists/new Ynarri will benefit even more so from a reduction in points. Tournaments should be 1250pts with 250pts sideboards. This would also allow for tactical list building. Some of the TOs in Australia set up their events in this format. I just watched a Ynarri list play at 1850 on the warhammertv livestream and it only made it to turn 3.

    • GeekmasterK February 18, 2017 12:10 pm
      #

      Still, you have to start somewhere, and this might be a good benchmark to see if it works. For me personally, my army plays naturally pretty slowly due to how much it does per turn, but I could totally see a lower model count mitigating that. If it doesn’t at least solve most of the problem, more can be looked into at that time. This might be the engineer in me talking, but I’ve found that breaking the problem down into smaller pieces and fixing them one at a time is more manageable than trying to solve the whole thing as one big piece. I know that personally, I plan to get a chess clock for myself to bring to tournaments. Not to see if I’m being slow played, but to be sure that I’m aware of how long I’m taking on my turn. The sideboard idea sounds good in theory, but I did hear some people at the LVO complaining about it unbalancing the Age of Sigmar tournament more than it would have otherwise. Plus, the comparison to MTG was seen as a negative for some. I really don’t know if a point reduction will be the final solution to the problem, but it seems like a good place to start, at the very least.

  5. AhzekXV February 17, 2017 4:52 pm
    #

    A idea for a mat, what about a asteroid landscape with maybe old looking sci-fi mining equipment or something showing there is or was some sort of base on the asteroid. IDK just a idea, everyone has a Mars looking mats but I haven’t seen to many asteroid looking ones, tho I might just be missing them.

    • Reecius
      Reecius February 17, 2017 5:20 pm
      #

      Cool idea, I dig it!

  6. Skallagoose February 17, 2017 5:19 pm
    #

    There are a lot of arguments for lowering points, and almost every single argument has a counter-point. Its a preference thing. At my last few tournaments, at 1850, there was 1-2 tables not finishing on time, but most finished either on time or early (out of 15+ tables).

    Your statements about chess clocks speak more to a player being self-aware. I think people, who go to a tournament, should be prepped on how to play the game. I plan on using a chess clock (FOR FREE FROM APP STORE!) at a tournament this coming weekend; not because i feel i’ll be slow-played, but because i know i can improve my own speed by using it.

    Lowering points is one solution to a problem being experienced by a group of players (not sure if majority or minority). It is not the only solution. If a local meta is dealing with a lot of unfinished games- lower the cap. i know that splits the player base, but then you can have a proper scientific debate (Variable and control). We ALL know lowering points finishes the game sooner; the question is whether the % difference is worth it, and i think that should be left to the community.

    • David February 17, 2017 10:32 pm
      #

      Well the community wants to keep 1850 and complain about not finishing games. So it really is a golden age for tournament players.

    • A H Corlett February 17, 2017 10:50 pm
      #

      This point is simply wrong. When you watch the best in the world play and they can’t finish with time to spare then what hope do the rest of us have unless your playing low model lists. And when they don’t get past turn 3 somethings seriously wrong.
      I’m a frequent tournament player at 1750 and a majority of games don’t get a natural conclusion at the ones I attend. If it.gets to turn 5 people say it ‘finished’ but that’s not a natural finish.

      • David February 18, 2017 10:15 am
        #

        Sarcasm is never wrong.

        Given that the rules say the game can end on 5, 6, or 7 means it is a natural finish.

  7. ZeroDiscount February 18, 2017 1:25 am
    #

    I have a 5’x3′ table too! Would love a custom sized mat for smaller skirmish games – 1000pts, kill team, etc. Make it happen guys 🙂

  8. zyekian February 18, 2017 4:28 am
    #

    @Reece

    Right now 1850 appears to be the “official” ITC points level, even though TOs can of course set it at whatever they like.

    What about just removing points from the ITC altogether? No more votes on points preferences, just be silent on it. Set the LVO points at whatever you and other organizers think is the best for that event… just like every other event TO does.

    I’m not sure why there’s an ITC-wide vote on the LVO’s points, especially given the fact that 95% of the people voting don’t even go to the LVO. If anything there should be a poll among people who attended the most recent LVO.

    • Troy Graber February 19, 2017 1:23 am
      #

      No Points!?! That’s Sigmar talk.

      But to be a bit more serious. Right Now 40K doesn’t really scale. If you play it RAW you are playing APoc games at 400 points. It’s why combat patrol events add restrictions like no 2+ armor. No combined armor (F+S+R) of 33 or more. No models with more than 3 wounds.

      All points levels have appropriate restrictions that make them work as a scalable level. I think it would be great if the ITC supported different levels a bit.

      For instance, 1500 points could be limited to 2 detachments, no formations, and no super heaves with a cap of 15 warp dice.

      1850 could be 3 detachments, 0-1 formations (from an approved list), 0-1 super heavies (from an approved list)

      2500 could be unlimited detachments, unlimited formations, unlimited superheavies.

      If they setup reasonable restrictions that allow 40K to scale the various points levels it would really help TO’s out. Personally, I like 400, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, and 2,500+ as a basis for a wide variety of game sizes, but I’m open to other levels provided they are accompanied with appropriate restrictions. If we drop points to 1,500, but still allow 3 detachments, unlimited formations, and the same extremely permissive list of super heavies, it wouldn’t be as fun of a game. Renegade gets past this to some degree by adding massive penalties to super heavies into their mission rules, but they still suffer from this problem.

  9. Ruben88 February 18, 2017 6:45 am
    #

    I’d love a gamemat which is inspired on a WWI battlefield. I really like the way you tried to simplify the graphics on your mats while keeping the detailed print. Great job!

    • Reecius
      Reecius February 18, 2017 9:56 am
      #

      Thanks and good suggestion!

  10. ryan February 18, 2017 8:29 am
    #

    The vote isnt for the LVO, the vote is for what standard size the ITC wants its events at. And just because somebody dosnt go to the LVO, dosnt mean they dont play 12 other ITC events in a year. Not sure what your point was or if your just confused as to what the actual vote was.

  11. vachones February 18, 2017 11:03 am
    #

    I would love an FLG mat with an Eldar Craftworld design, with curved wraith bone patterns with gems. Not sure if you would be infringing on GWs IP, but I bet you could make it generic enough. Eldar terrain would also be really cool. You could not do the 3D curved surfaces, but you could do some flat curved shapes.

  12. GeekmasterK February 18, 2017 12:01 pm
    #

    I’d like to see a 4’x4′ mat that looks like an aerial shot in orbit above a planet. Specifically, it would work well for Dropfleet Commander and similar games, and you could have a variety to represent different planets or different regions on the same planet. Just thought I’d pitch the idea. I know other people have done this already, but I’d be interested in your take on it.

  13. jared February 18, 2017 9:24 pm
    #

    I mentioned it to you at the LVO, but a mat showing an aerial view of a dark city would be good. It could be used for both Xwing and Gangs of Comorragh.

  14. Ahkris February 19, 2017 5:33 am
    #

    Kinda sad to hear the guys from FLG berating the community so much for 1850 points when the community has clearly voted for it twice.

    Personally i either play a play war convocation, which at 1650 points has pretty much zero options whatsoever, and an imperial knights army which again at 1650 just severely hampers my list building. Both of these lists ive played 20+ competetive matches with in the past year, and pretty much all of them finishing on time. Even against a battle company i can play 7 turns with my knights as my army plays so fast.

    You should penalize the players who bring 2500 point armies to a tournament and then cant finish their rounds, not penalize everyone else. A chess clock app on your phone sounds way better to me than severely limiting several popular army builds, and i will keep voting this every time it comes up.

  15. Zain February 20, 2017 4:57 am
    #

    So let’s assume it’s 5 matches. Three hours, means 18 minutes per round, per player. That should be more than enough time to conclude a round. Unless of course, you play one of those formations that either bring >= 2500pts to an 1850pt match or throw around literal buckets of warp charges.

    I only play since a bit over a year, but even I can manage to conclude my rounds fast enough. If a player chooses to use shenanigans that require more time during rounds, that is their choice. If they can’t finish their rounds, it’s their fault. If the opposing player is slacking on the save rolls, well.. That’s what there are judges for, right?

    .. All comes down to I want to bring mah toys 🙁

  16. Mirthless56 February 20, 2017 5:40 am
    #

    I don’t understand where all this is coming from about games not finishing. I have played my fair share of tournaments in Europe that last 3 years. I am quite confident with all my lists, and i either finish the game on time or we are in turn 6 of 7.

    The sense i am getting is that this is a specific list problem with high summoning lists or list with lots of free upgrades or units.

    Since i can afford a warhammer army, i can probly take the hit of a 20 or 30 dollar chess clock.

    #sarcasm on# Maybe allow full strength ranged D, so more of the enemy army gets annihilated. Games will be much shorter #sarcasm off#