Opinions on if in competitive tournaments they should put a max limit on number of units in list or if a player timer should be used?

[Gun4hire 26]

So sometimes we all know Legion games can take a while to complete. In competitive tournament play the game time is set at 2hrs. The more activations a player has the more time he takes up. After special forces comes out some lists could have 11-13 activations in theory. Ive already noticed people talking about how most games only can go 3-4 maybe even 5 rounds in 2hrs. And with more activations this could make game rounds go even slower. Soooooo..... two ideas i had to maybe help alleveiate this would be....

1st idea

Max number of units in list to 8 or maybe  9 to.... 

1) speed up activations and play time. Allowing games to get closer to round 5 and 6.

2) allow more things to be viable instead of trooper spam. Fewer units allows upgrades to become more viable too.

3) harder list descisions and variety

4) each player would have equal activations

5) maybe more fun?

2nd idea

A player timer like how chess has. Say the player gets 10-12 mins to make all their activations, which would lead to 20-24 min rounds so in 2hrs your guaranteed to get 6 rounds in. If you go over your timer you you forfeit any left over units you have left to activate. I feel this would make a few things happen.....

1)This would make trooper spam more difficult to use because they would have less time to strategize each unit and would have to move more quickly compared to less units alowing more time to strategize with each activation.

2) reduce trooper spam and make a few more things viable

3) add another layer to the overall strategy and make you think quick on your feet

4) Make games feel and move faster 

5) stop people from slow playing

Anyway just wanted to see peoples opinion. Thanks for reading ?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Gun4hire

[DangerShine Designs 363]

So, i have yet to play in a tourney but aren’t those games played with objectives and conditions and so, wouldn’t the 2 hour time limit essentially force the right actions and time frame?

As the games take a good while, most of the group at my FLGS have agreed to limit our games to 2 hours and that limit not only causes people to speed up but also forced us to focus on the objectives knowing that the game may not even get beyond round 4.

short version - very opposed to limiting lists as you suggest. I’m ok with playing alternate format games (as I have done in X-Wing) but I don’t see why other people’s slow-play should define what i can and can’t bring to a tourney 

[Gun4hire 26]

Well alot of lists run 9 to 10 activations and its causing games to go 3-4 rounds sometimes 5. But unless someone concedes games are usually going to time instead of completing round 6.

[DangerShine Designs 363]

4 minutes ago, Gun4hire said:

Well alot of lists run 9 to 10 activations and its causing games to go 3-4 rounds sometimes 5. But unless someone concedes games are usually going to time instead of completing round 6.

Yeah, one of my lists has 9 activations but to my earlier point, if you are playing objectives, so what? If you have an objective to complete and you know you have 2 hours (and not 6 rounds), you get the same outcome.

i am not being argumentative and admit i might be missing your point, but why do you care if the game goes 6 rounds or 2 hours? Do you feel a sense of incompleteness if you don’t get 6 rounds in or do you feel like you can’t enact strategies?

(note: having played Armada may have bised my opinion)

[Gun4hire 26]

Say u have 9 activations and your opponent has 9 activations and average time per activation is 2 mins that 36 mins, so lets just say its 30 mins per round that means your getting only 4 rounds a game

[Gun4hire 26]

The game was designed to go 6 rounds not be decided by round 3 or 4. Wait til we get special forces and there will be 11-13 activation lists and you will be lucky to reach round 4. 

[DangerShine Designs 363]

2 minutes ago, Gun4hire said:

The game was designed to go 6 rounds not be decided by round 3 or 4. Wait til we get special forces and there will be 11-13 activation lists and you will be lucky to reach round 4. 

You keep making the same argument and not adressing my point - a tournament game is two hours, not six rounds. The number of activations is irreverent as the game is timed and a winner can be had by the end of round 1 or 2, even if those rounds take two hours to complete.

again, all I’m getting is “we can’t play 6 rounds in 2 hours” - yup, this game’s design doesn’t lend itself to quick play but a tournament game IS built around a time limit.

 

[Gun4hire 26]

Nevermind man your not getting my point and im not getting yours. So lets just agree to disagree. 

[DangerShine Designs 363]

6 minutes ago, Gun4hire said:

Nevermind man your not getting my point and im not getting yours. So lets just agree to disagree. 

I have asked you a few times to help me understand your point as I’m not trying to be obtuse or shout down your opinion - is the root of your argument that you feel the game is incomplete if it doesn’t go a full six rounds, or is there something else I’m missing?

[Gun4hire 26]

If each round takes 30-40 mins than once one side is in a winning position theres not enough game left for the other side to react in just 3 or 4 rounds. 

Key positions and breakthrough are good examples i guess. So with key positions say the blue player has 12activations and red has 12 activations. Your saying 3 rounds if enough play time for the red player to march across and fight the blue player for objectives?

Say breakthrough, the blue player has 13 activations and the red player has 9. So 3 rounds is enought time for the red player to try and even up unit numbers while still moving to the other deployment zone?

[Amanal 2,557]

 

3 hours ago, DangerShine Designs said:

A tournament game is two hours, not six rounds.

This is correct, however, it creates an unhealthy situation for playing the game.  I think that you have to achieve a certain number of turns played or the victory conditions can be skewed to advantage. Because you don't know if you are playing for 2-4-6 turns you can't develop a strategy or tactics to cover the game length in turns.

I think this rule is setting up TO's for a lot of end game "salt" because an opponent played only fast enough to get 5 turns in.

 

[Copes 225]

So, to answer the question, I don't think that number of activiations should be limited. I think the list-building restrictions as they exist in game are designed to allow you to take more units that are lighter verus fewer units that are heavier, and I think that's a strategic decision. Limiting activations will push people towards bulkier units, and take away a list-building element. 

I also think that as the game gets played more, and people get used to the rules, games will speed up. My 800 point games with 8-10 activations are currently clocking in around 2:15 - 2:30. I played one in almost two hours the other day. 

If anything I would suggest increasing the game time-limit in a tournament to 2.5 hours.

[Gun4hire 26]

What about when 12 and 13 activations becomes a thing? 3hr game limit i guess.

[Qwrety77 57]

Instead of a time limit for a player's total activations, you could institute a per activation timer. That way certain list types aren't punished, but it encourages swifter play.

[LunarSol 1,369]

You really can't go time limit over round limit.  It invites stalling for the player ahead.  Chess clocks are the only truly fair answer out there.  Most minis games player better with them, particularly in tournaments.  I suspect Legion would as well.

[Copes 225]

4 hours ago, Gun4hire said:

What about when 12 and 13 activations becomes a thing? 3hr game limit i guess.

That would require unit price to drop. But fine, in my opinion. When building lists, players need to be cognoscente of the tournament rules around time, and they need to make sure their lists function effectively. 

 

[Amanal 2,557]

Further to what I said there is an added problem in when time gets called you play out the turn. So if you have more units to activate or activate last you could make rather silly moves would the game have continued to do a last move grab for VP.

[Derrault 1,091]

Increasing the amount of starting firepower on the field also means more units dying faster. Unless you do nothing at all with them. 

[Amanal 2,557]

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Increasing the amount of starting firepower on the field also means more units dying faster. Unless you do nothing at all with them. 

In Flames we had run tournaments from 1200 to 2500 points. Because of this reason we found that games went about 2.5 hours no matter, at 2500 points you had everything and the kitchen sink to throw at your opponent and did so, making the turns get faster as you ended up with less on the board. At low points values mistakes were a problem so players took longer to consider what they were doing.

[TallGiraffe 3,447]

14 hours ago, Gun4hire said:

What about when 12 and 13 activations becomes a thing? 3hr game limit i guess.

What games do you play when no side loses units? I think you're too focused on the potential number of units. People would have to run their troopers pretty lean to achieve this. 

[Briaros6 1]

Right now this is a huge issue in the tournament scene in 40k, to which the result has been instituting chess clocks. Discussion about altering point levels has come up, but slow play is a thing especially with objective based games and lowering points does not necessarily hurt horde armies in these situations.

From the perspective of Legion, 800 points is fair with between 9-12 activiations and a 2 hour game limit 4-6 rounds should be fairly consistent. If the game is only going 2-3 rounds that tells me the players do not know their armies nor the rules well enough at this point or are playing the advantage and are purposefully slow gaming to keep the advantage. These two situations will be very clear to recognize but only the latter fixable in-game with some proactive encouragement. 

This game is in infancy so give it some time to develop and let’s see where FFG takes us with this very quickly expanding game. I feel as the competitive scene grows FFG will take notes and help create parameters to make this game flow easier and more importantly be enjoyable regardless the player involved be it competitive or leisurely.

[CaptainRocket 527]

9 hours ago, Briaros6 said:

If the game is only going 2-3 rounds that tells me the players do not know their armies nor the rules well enough at this point

Guilty as charged!

[Bojanglez 2,158]

6 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

Guilty as charged!

Add me to that list too! 

As someone else said, playing Armada may have gotten me used to playing in tournaments where i know there is a good chance games won’t play out fully and whilst i don’t particularly like it, it’s not like players aren’t aware of the time passing and it becomes part of game strategy.

havent played a Legion tournament yet but me and my pal are self-limiting our games to tourney length in preparation.

[Susanooo 113]

I will play with chess timer and i tjink thats the only way to speed things up. 1h per player, the guy that exceeded his time looses. without it one player might stall the game to end when hes got ibjectives and his oponent didnt have time to fight for them (we had such siyuation on tournament acually, the one guy won on turn 4 with one objective and his opponent had respurces to take it from him, but didnt had time to execute it)

[jocke01 920]

It is why games like armada and legion don't work as well for a one day tournament as X-wing. 

Lists that needs all 6 turns are disadvantaged, stalling becomes a valid tactic for the players in the lead.

I rather play legion in a 3 game leauge over three weeks than a hectic one day tournament of unfinished games.