Just now, ImpStarDeuces said:

I'd agree if people weren't getting 6 turns in. That tends not to be the case in Armada. Most other games with time limits tend to make people hustle. Armada let's people contemplate or dawdle depending on your point of view. Drop the time and people will learn to automatically move faster.

To some extent, sure. But people don't always get all 6 turns in*. And some lists would suffer quite a bit being forced to plan faster. I mean, sure, you could probably shave 15 minutes or maybe even half an hour off the tournament time and tell players "just play faster!" ...but I don't think you'd get more than that (when you really need to if you want people to feel like the tournament rounds are quicker), and you're going to annoy people doing so anyway.

If you want a 90-minute tournament round (and, IMHO, Armada cannot be shortened down more than that without becoming a very different game, and I don't think anyone wants that - but I do think this is an achievable target), you'd need to make other adjustments besides simply reducing the time limit.

* And of course, as I pointed out above, some games do easily fly under that time limit. It depends a lot on list type. Some types of lists - with fewer units - just play faster . So if you want to universally reduce the play time, it behooves you to also put the requirement in place that the lists that WORK with shorter play times are the ones that need to be used.

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

To some extent, sure. But people don't always get all 6 turns in*. And some lists would suffer quite a bit being forced to plan faster. I mean, sure, you could probably shave 15 minutes or maybe even half an hour off the tournament time and tell players "just play faster!" ...but I don't think you'd get more than that (when you really need to if you want people to feel like the tournament rounds are quicker), and you're going to annoy people doing so anyway.

If you want a 90-minute tournament round (and, IMHO, Armada cannot be shortened down more than that without becoming a very different game, and I don't think anyone wants that - but I do think this is an achievable target), you'd need to make other adjustments besides simply reducing the time limit.

* And of course, as I pointed out above, some games do easily fly under that time limit. It depends a lot on list type. Some types of lists - with fewer units - just play faster . So if you want to universally reduce the play time, it behooves you to also put the requirement in place that the lists that WORK with shorter play times are the ones that need to be used.

You shouldn't really set tourney time to make sure everyone gets every possible turn/action. The point is to get people to move. I agree that you could probably easily shave off 15 minutes and maybe 30 (IMO shaving 30 is very doable - if you want to bring the swarm you'll learn to play it quick). Once you do that people may start shaving models like you suggested before just to fit under time (see warmachine during the infantrymachine days as an example). The good news is that even with a 15 min haircut, Armada falls into the 2 hour tourney round which is actually pretty normal for a tabletop game.

And 2 hours is already the “fleet patrol” official tournament types timing of rounds too.

49 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

You shouldn't really set tourney time to make sure everyone gets every possible turn/action. The point is to get people to move. I agree that you could probably easily shave off 15 minutes and maybe 30 (IMO shaving 30 is very doable - if you want to bring the swarm you'll learn to play it quick). Once you do that people may start shaving models like you suggested before just to fit under time (see warmachine during the infantrymachine days as an example). The good news is that even with a 15 min haircut, Armada falls into the 2 hour tourney round which is actually pretty normal for a tabletop game.

Perhaps. But if you adopted the x-ship/y-squadron cap format (whatever that is, maybe 4-ship/6-squadron with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option) and could get it down to 90 minutes...I mean, that'd be pretty useful, no? The reduced time limit would be very handy for tournaments...a typical day could easily add another whole round...

2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Perhaps. But if you adopted the x-ship/y-squadron cap format (whatever that is, maybe 4-ship/6-squadron with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option) and could get it down to 90 minutes...I mean, that'd be pretty useful, no? The reduced time limit would be very handy for tournaments...a typical day could easily add another whole round...

Or accept the fact that A LOT of people already play at that sort of limitation (especially recently) and yet....

I mean, I don’t think I’ve built a list that breaks them...

10 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Perhaps. But if you adopted the x-ship/y-squadron cap format (whatever that is, maybe 4-ship/6-squadron with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option) and could get it down to 90 minutes...I mean, that'd be pretty useful, no? The reduced time limit would be very handy for tournaments...a typical day could easily add another whole round...

Just seems like a way to reduce Max Squadrons, Flotilla spam and MSU lists even further. Nothing like reducing option for tournament play to speed up play...

18 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Just seems like a way to reduce Max Squadrons, Flotilla spam and MSU lists even further. Nothing like reducing option for tournament play to speed up play...

If there is a goal of speeding up tournament play (and I don't know if there is or isn't, or if that would even be what FFG might call 'something big' - I sort of doubt it ) then accepting the game would need to be a somewhat 'focused subset of everything otherwise possible' seems inevitable.

(And you still have those choices, just...not as extreme. Presume the format is 4-ship/6 squadron, with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option and a -1 ship/+2 squadron option...that still lets you run a 5-ship MSU list if you want or an 8-squadron list, and especially for the Rebels you'd be hard pressed to take 8 squadrons that isn't already bumping into the max point total allowed for them)

31 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Or accept the fact that A LOT of people already play at that sort of limitation (especially recently) and yet....

Sure, but many don't . And those games always go to time as a result. And so the tournament needs to factor in the speed of the slowest list archetype when scheduling rounds. So...

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

If there is a goal of speeding up tournament play (and I don't know if there is or isn't, or if that would even be what FFG might call 'something big' - I sort of doubt it ) then accepting the game would need to be a somewhat 'focused subset of everything otherwise possible' seems inevitable.

(And you still have those choices, just...not as extreme. Presume the format is 4-ship/6 squadron, with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option and a -1 ship/+2 squadron option...that still lets you run a 5-ship MSU list if you want or an 8-squadron list, and especially for the Rebels you'd be hard pressed to take 8 squadrons that isn't already bumping into the max point total allowed for them)

Sure, but many don't . And those games always go to time as a result. And so the tournament needs to factor in the speed of the slowest list archetype when scheduling rounds. So...

Why does it?

is it not up to the player to consider ALL factors when fleet building?

If a player builds a list that is going to take longer to play, the onus is on THEM...

Not me as a TO to coddle, restrict, deny or enable.

Its my job to run it.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

If a player builds a list that is going to take longer to play, the onus is on THEM...

I tend to agree with your overall opinion here, but it's worth pointing out that if your opponent has brought a list that takes forever to play and you have one that makes its money on round 5 or 6, that definitely rates as a negative play experience in my book. If I never had a chance because you brought something that takes forever to play and didn't play it exceptionally fast, that sucks.

I point this out because it has happened to me more than once, and I've seen it happen to multiple others, even under the extant rules and when the player called the TO for slow play.

If we were going to try and get more stringent with the timing, I think it would have to come with more rigor in the amount of time each player takes. And that's hard to do in this game, with all the simultaneous/parallel decisions going on.

I mean, I'm not a particularly quick player, but I've had tournament games that didn't get past round 4 when I was literally rushing through my activations to make sure I got the chance to finish an ISD that I'd been working over all game.

7 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

I mean, I'm not a particularly quick player, but I've had tournament games that didn't get past round 4 when I was literally rushing through my activations to make sure I got the chance to finish an ISD that I'd been working over all game.

Which is why slow play rules should be enforced, especially at the upper echelons of both tournaments and tournament types.

im much more forgiving at fleet patrols, and far less so at store champs - and would be even less so at regionals if I was running it...

The onus is on you to play the game - there is NO excuse for a game to go to time if both players are playing to the best of their ability... at least at the competitive levels...

i should clarify that - I speak only about competitive levels ?

But then, I’m an arsehole of a TO. I expect rules to be followed and I don’t enjoy seeing people not improving on their game tones - which is why I work hard, run training camps and such.

its a holdover from my BADGaming days where I was nicknamed “The Commissar”...

48 minutes ago, xanderf said:

If there is a goal of speeding up tournament play (and I don't know if there is or isn't, or if that would even be what FFG might call 'something big' - I sort of doubt it ) then accepting the game would need to be a somewhat 'focused subset of everything otherwise possible' seems inevitable.

(And you still have those choices, just...not as extreme. Presume the format is 4-ship/6 squadron, with a +1 ship/-4 squadron option and a -1 ship/+2 squadron option...that still lets you run a 5-ship MSU list if you want or an 8-squadron list, and especially for the Rebels you'd be hard pressed to take 8 squadrons that isn't already bumping into the max point total allowed for them)

Sure, but many don't . And those games always go to time as a result. And so the tournament needs to factor in the speed of the slowest list archetype when scheduling rounds. So...

You also have to run your argument in reverse. You use the format you suggest without a new time limit people could just use more time moving less stuff and less things happen within a given time. If time is really an issue they should address it directly.

16 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Which is why slow play rules should be enforced, especially at the upper echelons of both tournaments and tournament types.

...

The onus is on you to play the game - there is NO excuse for a game to go to time if both players are playing to the best of their ability... at least at the competitive levels...

I dunno, I'm not sure I've met a player that can manage an 8x CR90 and GR75 list with a dozen Z-95s and get through round 4 even given 2.5 hrs of play...

(Heck, the last game I played against that sort of list was in a Corellian Conflict campaign and took 5 hours to get all 6 turns done).

Some lists just take a really long time to play - you're talking about 20 different things on the table, there, that you are carefully trying to fit into a very small space, and getting a maneuver tool to even fit amongst that sort of mess....

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

I dunno, I'm not sure I've met a player that can manage an 8x CR90 and GR75 list with a dozen Z-95s and get through round 4 even given 2.5 hrs of play...

(Heck, the last game I played against that sort of list was in a Corellian Conflict campaign and took 5 hours to get all 6 turns done).

Some lists just take a really long time to play - you're talking about 20 different things on the table, there, that you are carefully trying to fit into a very small space, and getting a maneuver tool to even fit amongst that sort of mess....

Yep.

Shouldnt that be your fault for taking?

Why is the blame being out anywhere other than on the person taking it?

Because by blaming the tournament rules, you are basically blaming the TO, the person responsible for upholding those rules...

Just now, ImpStarDeuces said:

You also have to run your argument in reverse. You use the format you suggest without a new time limit people could just use more time moving less stuff and less things happen within a given time. If time is really an issue they should address it directly.

I have no idea why you'd change the format to something like that without reducing the time limit. Or why you'd reduce the time limit without changing the list-build format like this. The two are inextricably linked.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Yep.

Shouldnt that be your fault for taking?

*I* was running a 3-ship list. MSU lists are for bad people who should feel badly for their badness . Not me! But you still have to deal with the agonizing torturous death that they turn the game into when flying against them...

2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

*I* was running a 3-ship list. MSU lists are for bad people who should feel badly for their badness . Not me! But you still have to deal with the agonizing torturous death that they turn the game into when flying against them...

So don’t you feel like the person taking the list should be held accountable to their timing?

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So don’t you feel like the person taking the list should be held accountable to their timing?

Well, yes, I totally agree that people taking MSU lists should just be disqualified on the spot. Because, I mean, otherwise...how exactly do you decide what is 'slow play' or not? Even if they are blasting through their maneuvering lighting-quick and taking half as long per unit as I am...they are still going to take twice as long on their turn as I do, just by nature of the disparity in unit count. Then we get to the orders phase of any round past 1, and I'm setting 3 command dials...and they are setting 8. Again, even working twice as fast as I do per command dial, they still take nearly 50% longer than me.

Which isn't necessarily a problem if 2.5 hr tournament rounds (that feel like an eternity because you are spending the vast majority of your time just watching your opponent slog through their turn) are an acceptable thing. If you want 90-minute rounds, though...well, that'd just exacerbate that problem something fierce, without some other sort of cap on what can be brought to the table.

Your opinion hinges on the statement that done lists simply cannot be played on time, correct?

That seems to be the fundamental issue of problem here.

which - although I personally feel it is a fallacy - I can see how it would gain traction.

i mean, you get @LegionOfBOOM and I together and we play 6 games in 10 hours, even with list building and lunch breaks....

if if you are getting bored waiting, well, I don’t know what to say...

22 hours ago, Palanthas said:

If they didn’t make a 6x3 for legion then they aren’t for armada

That's the joke

Like some here I don't see why we need artificial caps.

The last 3 comps i have been at all but 2 games were done in an hour. The two that went to 90 minutes one was an ISD and mid base ships and a AF2 and y wing spam.

The only thing it hurts is MSU's and out side the main stream meta lists.

If we were looking at caps it is not where I would start to look. (Named sqn would be my first stop)

1 hour ago, xanderf said:

I dunno, I'm not sure I've met a player that can manage an 8x CR90 and GR75 list with a dozen Z-95s and get through round 4 even given 2.5 hrs of play...

Yo, I could do that, it's doable. You have to practice with your list, but if I want to run that, I'll be sure to practice it, and I'll be sure to play with alacrity. If someone shows up with that and slow plays you, you gotta call the TO on them for slow playing you, though. That's on you to make sure you're getting a fair game in.

52 minutes ago, xanderf said:

They are still going to take twice as long on their turn as I do, just by nature of the disparity in unit count. Then we get to the orders phase of any round past 1, and I'm setting 3 command dials...and they are setting 8. Again, even working twice as fast as I do per command dial, they still take nearly 50% longer than me.

Start killing their stuff faster? Git gud, comma, scrub?

I am helpful.

20 minutes ago, Radaeon said:

If we were looking at caps it is not where I would start to look. (Named sqn would be my first stop)

If knocking together an 'Armada fast(er) play' format, that wouldn't be a bad idea to cap, too. (Although I'd do it with the above caps as well, I think it would fit nicely in that concept)

What would you think would be a reasonable limit? 1 unique squadron? 2?

As far as slow play issues go, if a chess clock were implemented to the tournament scene and at the end of the game if it went to time, whoevers clock showed the least amount of time elapsed could be awarded an objective token (or whatever points would make it fair) to really punish slow play but only the extreme cases.

Wow this thread has been derailed.

*Insert crazed chanting* SSD! SSD! SSD!

Nothing big yet