40258
Post by: dkoz
So now that the ITC is offically going to be supporting chess clocks how does everyone feel about it? Will you be practicing w/them when you practice for tournament, will you be asking for them at upcoming tournaments?
77922
Post by: Overread
I think chess clocks work great in chess because each turn is very distinct. If its your turn its your turn, you don't need anything at all from your opponent during that turn, your opponent makes no action, makes no choices nor does anything to the game table.
As such each turn is totally distinct from the other.
In Wargames and Warhammer though each turn is still, in part, a conversation between two players. The player who's turn it is does the leading and the bulk of actions, but the opponent can still have a huge impact.
They get to react to attack via dice rolls - ok sure that's not long so that's ok to leave on the players clock
They get to make choices on abilities and remove dead units from attacks. Ok so they could take a while over this would you want to flick that back over their clock?!
They get to ask questions of your codex. You might have to prove how an ability works or the stats of a unit. Or even query a rule in the core game and how it interacts/works. Again this is another point where the opponent is causing a time-lag, yet its counting against the active players turn time on the clock.
Another potential negative is that I can see it penalising large/swarm armies over smaller elite armies that are able to operate quicker by simple reduced model count.
I can see it working in terms of aiming to speed up turns and also punishing players who take too long with turns at the extreme end. I think that PP (warmachine) games have also made more extensive use of them so chances are some (all?) of the issues I've raised might be resolvable with guidelines; or might not be as important as one might suppose.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
IMO it's a stupid knee-jerk reaction to the LVO.
117663
Post by: KinGensai
I played a lot of warmachine, including using chess clock. The mechanics of this works out well: If it's your turn, your clock is running. If your opponent is promptly resolving their effects as you are resolving your effects, no problem the clock can continue without incident. The moment anyone starts resolving slowly (and there is any suspicion of intentional slow play), the active player can flip the clock over to the opponent until they resolve their effects, at which point the clock reverts and the turn continues as normal.
Both players have the potential to abuse the system, so judges will have to be readily available to mediate and resolve any disputes about the matter. If WM/H tournaments are any indication though, such disputes are an exception to the norm.
Yes model counts are going to vary quite widely in 40k, just as they do in WM/H. I managed 50 model lists in 1 hour deathclocks decently with some practice, it shouldn't be that different if the clock goes to 1 hour 30 minutes to account for the higher model count. The precision necessary in WM/H is also not at all required in 40k as far as movement goes, so it shouldn't be that big a deal.
118014
Post by: meleti
Judging by all the people worried about chess clocks and ITC's guidelines for using them, roughly half of Dakka usually has winning records on day 2, or is playing in the top 8. Guess there's a lot of top tier competitors lurking here, eh?
101179
Post by: Asmodios
for as long as I've played warhammer there has always been at least one person at any given tournament or event that complains about the amount of time their opponent took. Chess clocks are the simplest and fairest way to end the "slow play" issue once and for all. I also suspect that you will have fewer people jumping to the new hot build of the week to remain competitive because you won't be able to spend half the game looking up rules. This should also lead to fewer people playing rules wrong as it will openly encourage you to bring an army you know so you can play efficiently with your time.
40258
Post by: dkoz
This FLGs prototype i believe and from what I read it seems like a pretty good idea for real competitive games. I think early on in tournaments it may put of some of the just there for fun people but if TOs introduces them more for the final tables it will make the real competitive players happier.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/03/07/open-source-chess-clock-rules-for-warhammer-40k-tournaments/
66539
Post by: greyknight12
More than that, it’s a refusal to consider that 3 times per turn scoring, points values, or even the BCP app crashing round 1 and 3 might be a cause, and instead blames the player base for “slow play”
77728
Post by: dosiere
It makes a lot more sense in a game like Kings of War where it’s your turn it’s just your turn. Not much for your opponent to do so it’s really just on you to actually just go. 40k is probably not a Great system for it, but at this point something needs to be done. If it means more games go a few more rounds I think it’s only to the positive. I think of it as the lesser of two evils.
Of course they could just stop trying to make a game not designed for a tight tournament setting into one in the first place.
29836
Post by: Elbows
I think it's a good idea. It's not the best idea (as that hasn't been discovered yet) but it's better than any of the other alternatives.
It will also force people to adjust their army lists accordingly.
112400
Post by: Aetare
Never a bad idea to get prepped if that’s the way it’s going to be from now on.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
 Elbows wrote:I think it's a good idea. It's not the best idea (as that hasn't been discovered yet) but it's better than any of the other alternatives.
It will also force people to adjust their army lists accordingly.
It would require some serious thought to get it to work. Overread surmised the possible issues quite well.
79006
Post by: Nightlord1987
If you're playing a tournament, it's expected to adhere to the time limit set for those type of matches.
That said, I would only expect such from a Tourny setting. My gaming group is stuck on 2000 pt games, and we barely ever have time to complete them.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
It's something I think that's good to practice with.
If it turns out to be awful, no harm no foul. This is not mandatory.
105418
Post by: John Prins
I bet this boosts the sales of movement trays for 40K.
It's bad for horde lists, good for alpha strike and gunline lists. Maybe tournaments will consider a lower overall point total, it really depends on how many people run out clocks in the first few tournaments.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 greyknight12 wrote:
More than that, it’s a refusal to consider that 3 times per turn scoring, points values, or even the BCP app crashing round 1 and 3 might be a cause, and instead blames the player base for “slow play”
Curiously players were able to speed up 3x speed when judge was next to them enforcing time limit though...Hmmm...Curious. Can't score fast without judge next to you but when he comes magically gain ability to it.
Hopefully tournaments also drop point levels as well though. 2k short of 3h is just silly
743
Post by: Justyn
As a casual player I wouldn't ever use them. For tournaments I can see the appeal. But are you going to hit it every time your opponent needs to make saves? Then again for his ignore wound saves? What about for Deny the Witch rolls? 40k is a game where even on your turn your opponent can run down a timer.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
I don't like chess clocks for 40k, that said, i'm not influenced by it.
Luckily in my area ITC is non existent. CA missions are (IMHO) much better.
118083
Post by: Wibe
OhhYeah! Equal playing time for both players!
No more 1hour opponent first turns on both players time. Or at least when it happens, it happens on my opponent's time, not mine.
I can't see how this in anyway is a bad thing. Organizing and throwing dice takes way more time than moving troops anyway, so not feeling it much for horde armies.
75099
Post by: Sneggy
WE've been practising with them since the LVO in my area and are going to be running a 'speed' 40k event in a couple of weeks. Short clocks and 4 rounds in a day instead of 3.
I'm liking them and it is speeding up play. Tending to find people become more aware of the clock and we are having mroe games conclude naturally than by time limit which is the point afterall.
I'm finding it easier to play relaxed on it; not bothering to flip the clock for every little thing. SO long as your opponent rolls their saves in a timely manner they do it on my clock and vice versa helps really remove the clocking constantly issue and keeps it flowing nicely.
77922
Post by: Overread
Thing is with terrain and close combat I really don't see how movement trays helps 40K. They worked great in fantasy because your units had to remain in formation for the majority to the whole of the game. So the terrain, movement, combat - everything worked with the trays naturally.
Meanwhile in 40K if you move around you might go from a block to a line or a wibbly wobbly shape as you move around a building; or you might find that you're going into close combat and suddenly groups of units are circling around others.
I've seen a few nifty "trays" that seem to work on some kind of individual edge hinge, but even then at times you want to either bunch up or spread out your models.
I just can't visualise how trays would help things beyond perhaps the first one or two turns of the game, and then you'd have to faff around removing models from the trays.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Wibe wrote:
I can't see how this in anyway is a bad thing. Organizing and throwing dice takes way more time than moving troops anyway, so not feeling it much for horde armies.
And guess which armies tends to roll more dice? Army with 20 model or army with 200 dice.
If tournament organizers still try to run 2k games in 2-2.5h might just as well ban horde armies.
10746
Post by: Corrode
Justyn wrote:As a casual player I wouldn't ever use them. For tournaments I can see the appeal. But are you going to hit it every time your opponent needs to make saves? Then again for his ignore wound saves? What about for Deny the Witch rolls? 40k is a game where even on your turn your opponent can run down a timer.
The post on FLG discussing it deals with this sensibly - if your opponent is ready and rolls saves/deny/whatever promptly, don't pass the clock. If they take more than a reasonable amount of time, then they do it on their time.
100848
Post by: tneva82
 Overread wrote:
I just can't visualise how trays would help things beyond perhaps the first one or two turns of the game, and then you'd have to faff around removing models from the trays.
Well 8th ed is 2 turn game anyway so that would not be that bad. After 2 turns theres generally not much left to move anyway!
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
I think a lot of.people who critisize chess clocks have never actually used them.
At high level play passing the clock for your opponents reactive dice rolls like saving throws becomes second nature after a while so its not a big deal. It also makes the game a lot more tense in the closing stages.
118083
Post by: Wibe
tneva82 wrote: Wibe wrote:
I can't see how this in anyway is a bad thing. Organizing and throwing dice takes way more time than moving troops anyway, so not feeling it much for horde armies.
And guess which armies tends to roll more dice? Army with 20 model or army with 200 dice.
If tournament organizers still try to run 2k games in 2-2.5h might just as well ban horde armies.
Moving is already fast after you have decided where to go, and even faster with, say 5man movement trays. Making a 30boys units a 6 model unit.
And shaving of time when it comes to throwing and organizing dice is doable, and when you start to prepare it goes way faster.
When it comes to dices, having a dice container with 50 dice of one color, one with 20/10etc. then adding/removing to it when you attack saves a lot of time.
When people start planning ahead, games will start to run a lot faster.
My DeathGuard army got tons of rerolls, and extra save rolls. They throw a lot of dice, yet I find this change to be purely positive.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
Even if you're opposed to chess clocks, I can't see how this is bad because the one thing we don't really have at the moment is any real data about their effect on games of 40k under tournament conditions. Now we'll have that and can discuss things from an informed point of view.
From the look of the initial rules I think they're maybe a bit too complicated and could do with streamlining. The rules for not resolving an assault seem a bit pointless, for example. I get what they're trying to achieve, I just don't think it's needed. Similarly, I'd rather see an instant loss with full points scored for the opponent for remaining turns if you run out of time, just to make things easier.
Finally, I still think tournament points limits need looking at, and perhaps the time allocated to each game too but chess clocks are apparently the least controversial option to implement first.
113188
Post by: pismakron
In principle I'd love to play with a chess-clock, but I don't think the phasing-structure of 40k lends it well to chess-clock usage. Specifically I think the way a defending player will pick casualties and roll armour saves when an attacker rolls to wound is problematic. Regards
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Been practicing with them as a method of improving my game-play since 8th dropped. They work great. Especially when you approach them the right way (where it is your right but not your duty to see the time managed evenly). I rarely pass to my opponent when he's making less than 10 saves, only if its more than that or if he's activating in combat do I pass on my turn.
I play a large model count horde army (chaos) and I've never had any issues with Chess Clocks. I do several things to speed up my play as well (multiple separate pre-counted pools of dice, movement trays, etc). Ultimately I feel like I've gotten more 'fair share' of time using clocks than I ever did without them. Personally I'm excited about the adoption of the process.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
pismakron wrote:In principle I'd love to play with a chess-clock, but I don't think the phasing-structure of 40k lends it well to chess-clock usage. Specifically I think the way a defending player will pick casualties and roll armour saves when an attacker rolls to wound is problematic. Regards
It works like this:
Attacker on clock
Rolls hits and wounds
"Your unit takes this many wounds."
Switches clock to opponent
Defender rolls saves and removes casualties on his time
Switches clock back to attacker.
It literally amounts to pressing a button when you're not doibg something.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
 chess clocks.
29836
Post by: Elbows
Solid point, Deviant - most people probably hadn't considered that.
73016
Post by: auticus
I won't in any way play in tournaments without a way to stop the cancerous intentional slow play. So I am all for chess clocks.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
Well this is the 100th chess clock thread since LVO. The answers should be pretty streamlined by now.
53988
Post by: Insularum
In principle I'm against the use of player clocks as a direct control over game length, as it creates a built in advantage to low model count armies that has nothing to do with player skill or the absence/presence of intentional slow play.
This feels like more of a knee-jerk - instead of punishing all from fear of slow play, you should incentivise faster play. Relatively simple measures could include:
1. ruling and advice on the use of movement trays.
2. introducing score modifiers to missions that only kick in after turn x for a higher scoring potential.
3. introducing new end game missions that can only be scored after x number of turns have passed.
77922
Post by: Overread
I wonder if there isn't an alternative to chess clocks in aiming to improve game speed without impeding other areas of the gameplay.
In the end the idea of the chess clock isn't really to time matches nor to award points based on speed of play (since armies can have widely varying play speeds depending on how they are setup); its there to try and avoid time wasters lagging the game and to try and get players focused on the game whilst they are playing it.
I guess one method would be to have a TO at each table or between a pair of tables, since an official being on hand and watching might well discourage people from cheap tactics like lagging the play. Of course at much bigger events this becomes less and less viable and puts more pressure on finding more people willing to spend the day officiating rather than playing.
Another aspect could be to live-stream or at least record and display all games. At least once a few people have been "shown up" as time wasters it might discourage that behaviour within the community.
73016
Post by: auticus
You can't subjectively determine intentional slow play. There are one thousand ways to fake it like its legit.
117663
Post by: KinGensai
Overread wrote:I wonder if there isn't an alternative to chess clocks in aiming to improve game speed without impeding other areas of the gameplay.
In the end the idea of the chess clock isn't really to time matches nor to award points based on speed of play (since armies can have widely varying play speeds depending on how they are setup); its there to try and avoid time wasters lagging the game and to try and get players focused on the game whilst they are playing it.
I guess one method would be to have a TO at each table or between a pair of tables, since an official being on hand and watching might well discourage people from cheap tactics like lagging the play. Of course at much bigger events this becomes less and less viable and puts more pressure on finding more people willing to spend the day officiating rather than playing.
Another aspect could be to live-stream or at least record and display all games. At least once a few people have been "shown up" as time wasters it might discourage that behaviour within the community.
This is an ideal solution if manpower is available at a 1:2 ratio ( TO:players). I don't think this has ever been the case unless the tournament is absolutely tiny (say 4 people). The logistics involved in streaming is also going to be much more expensive than running a timer for both parties. Recording games has been done before, but as far as I know, it's mostly done in the last half of an event where there are less games going on.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
 Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
I don't think that'll ever be the point, I think there's a fair amount of it that actually amounts to basically showing a non intentionally slow player that he's playing too slow. I've had several opponents realize just how long they take when we started using a clock.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
 Farseer_V2 wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
I don't think that'll ever be the point, I think there's a fair amount of it that actually amounts to basically showing a non intentionally slow player that he's playing too slow. I've had several opponents realize just how long they take when we started using a clock.
Yeah, i'm definitely interested in trying this. Locally, we've been discussing practicing with timers for some time, this will be the impetus to actually start. One rule i found interesting - electing to let your opponent decide the outcome of an action - I think this is actually a good way to help speed things up. There is a lot of irrelevant dice rolling in this game.... to determine if something is "dead" or "super dead." People need to get in the habit of skipping meaningless actions. Another thing to speed up the game would be to drop the number of secondaries down from 3 to 2. People are already gaming them in list construction heavily.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
40258
Post by: dkoz
 deviantduck wrote:Well this is the 100th chess clock thread since LVO. The answers should be pretty streamlined by now.
This thread is because FLG has announced how they plan to start implementing chess cloaks and they also put out a rule set for how to start implementing their use.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
deviantduck wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
And how do you ensure that? That isn't how chess clocks work unless you hamsting yourself by not using all of your army or make rash/careless decisions.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
 Sim-Life wrote: deviantduck wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
And how do you ensure that? That isn't how chess clocks work unless you hamsting yourself by not using all of your army or make decisions.
Let's say the game is a neck and neck nailbiter. Nobody really played slowly. The clocks are close. You have a 5 minute edge on your opponent. He runs out of time on the bottom of turn 3. You now only need to capture an objective. He's out of time and can't participate. Ok. Turn 4. I move 1 unit. My turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 5, I move 1 unit, my turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 6, I move my unit onto his backfield objective and I get the objective and linebreaker, etc. That 5 minutes turned out to be super important.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
deviantduck wrote: Sim-Life wrote: deviantduck wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
And how do you ensure that? That isn't how chess clocks work unless you hamsting yourself by not using all of your army or make decisions.
Let's say the game is a neck and neck nailbiter. Nobody really played slowly. The clocks are close. You have a 5 minute edge on your opponent. He runs out of time on the bottom of turn 3. You now only need to capture an objective. He's out of time and can't participate. Ok. Turn 4. I move 1 unit. My turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 5, I move 1 unit, my turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 6, I move my unit onto his backfield objective and I get the objective and linebreaker, etc. That 5 minutes turned out to be super important.
Did you bother reading the rules FLG posted for use that basically prevent this from happening?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Farseer_V2 wrote:
Did you bother reading the rules FLG posted for use that basically prevent this from happening?
Well, it says game ends when neither (both) player has less than 10 minutes left, but suggest 5 as workable. So, it could be done with 6 minutes on the clock.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
deviantduck wrote: Sim-Life wrote: deviantduck wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
And how do you ensure that? That isn't how chess clocks work unless you hamsting yourself by not using all of your army or make decisions.
Let's say the game is a neck and neck nailbiter. Nobody really played slowly. The clocks are close. You have a 5 minute edge on your opponent. He runs out of time on the bottom of turn 3. You now only need to capture an objective. He's out of time and can't participate. Ok. Turn 4. I move 1 unit. My turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 5, I move 1 unit, my turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 6, I move my unit onto his backfield objective and I get the objective and linebreaker, etc. That 5 minutes turned out to be super important.
So he shouldn't have run out of time before you. That's what the clocks are for. I'm not sure how this is so difficult to understand. You can't make your opponent manage their time badly - that's on them. It's just another of the meta-skills required to do well at certain tournaments, like knowing the lists you'll likely face or being familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the armies.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Just to talk about a few not clear answers.
Clock etiquette.
You have the time on your chess clock to do anything you want. I was in the middle of a turn and the opponent swapped the time from me to his turn, and went to the restroom. He apologized, but he said he couldn’t hold it. No worries, it was his time. We laughed and kept playing. I won, but not due to him clocking himself.
As a rule any time the game is waiting on a player’s actions his time should be ticking.
As my rule, if I’ve just rolled you taking 4 up saves, and you have the dice ready and roll, I’m not going to flip the clock. If your standing there slackjawed trying to see how some guy glued a nurgling that way, I’m going to flip it to you to get your work done. It’s not hard to stand there with a handful of dice during his shooting phase rolling saves as they come up. Stay involved in the game.
If it’s not your turn and you want to use a stratagem, like Armor of Contempt, reach down and flip the clock to you, state what you’re doing and put down your marker, then flip the clock back to him.
If you need a judge, the person posing the question, or questioning the situation should flip the clock to his time while a judge is called. Once the judge gets there they should pause the clock, and make the call.
Simple.
People act like the clock is going to rob them of all fun, and hock their favorite miniature.
I’ve found it makes the game much more enjoyable, most specifically in casual play.
First, you get more turns in. While I’m playing, when he is moving is a good time to eat a snack and take a drink. Second, it gets the game done, to actually take a drink and talk smack about how the mighty winner will fall to the less mighty loser the next game. Third, it keeps me on the schedule to get home, keep the wife agro low, so I get to come and enjoy the game with you again soon. Versus never cause the Wife is pissed that my 3 hour window stretched to 5 hours.
Next, the clock is not the final arbitrator when playing casual. But I’ve found several times that it let me get more games in, when we locked in 1 hour we got to a point where one side was going to win, we reset and got a full second game in, cause those first 2 turns went so fast.
Also, many times, I’ve ignored the clock. Having a fun casual game and the clock dings? Keep playing. Its fine to keep on and let the game sort its self.
Overall there is way to much angst over the clock. I play with them when I’m on a time line, at a tourney, and practicing for a tourney. They are not the bad guy people want them to be.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
That seems to have less to do with who's better at the game than who's able to get through their movement and psychic phase faster. Faster doesn't mean better.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
 EnTyme wrote:That seems to have less to do with who's better at the game than who's able to get through their movement and psychic phase faster. Faster doesn't mean better.
It does in the context of a tournament. Part of being a good tournament player is great time management so it 100% is indicative of skill set.
118333
Post by: Cryogenicman
Insularum wrote:In principle I'm against the use of player clocks as a direct control over game length, as it creates a built in advantage to low model count armies that has nothing to do with player skill or the absence/presence of intentional slow play.
The thing is, chess clocks don't create an advantage for low model count armies. They just limit each player to half of the available time. The real constraint is the overall time limit, determined by the tournament format, which has nothing to do with how that time is measured. If you are unable to play 6 turns in half the available time, you are bringing the wrong army to that event. Or perhaps you need more practice on how to play faster.
Can you really stand on an argument where you claim to deserve more than half the available time? Just imagine saying it out loud, or hearing it: "I deserve more time than you because ________". And if you had a mirror matchup, what then? Do you both deserve more than half of the available time?
I totally get it if people think that the allotted time is too short to play in. but let's direct that criticism to the time limits established for an event, or to a players particular ability. Chess clocks don't have anything to do with it.
117663
Post by: KinGensai
deviantduck wrote: Sim-Life wrote: deviantduck wrote: Marmatag wrote:As long as chess clocks are used to catch obvious slowplayers i'm fine. Let's not punish people: "Oh you used 5 minutes more than me, therefore <insert here>."
Chess clocks are the punishment. That's how it can be gamed. Stay 5 minutes ahead of your opponent. They run out of time on turn 3. Now you can play 2-3 quick turns in 5 minutes without them participating.
And how do you ensure that? That isn't how chess clocks work unless you hamsting yourself by not using all of your army or make decisions.
Let's say the game is a neck and neck nailbiter. Nobody really played slowly. The clocks are close. You have a 5 minute edge on your opponent. He runs out of time on the bottom of turn 3. You now only need to capture an objective. He's out of time and can't participate. Ok. Turn 4. I move 1 unit. My turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 5, I move 1 unit, my turn is over. He does nothing. Turn 6, I move my unit onto his backfield objective and I get the objective and linebreaker, etc. That 5 minutes turned out to be super important.
That's not how deathclocks work. If you run out of time, you immediately lose the game at whatever penalty the TO deems appropriate. Sure that might suck, but it just means that either you are not skilled enough with your army to play efficiently or the time limit is unreasonably low to compensate for what is a reasonable model count army (1hour 30mins is quite a bit of time to get stuff done, and that's pushing a 3 hour limit each round, which is logistically harsh on the TO already). This may have been a problem when players used to have to space carefully to avoid flame templates and blast weapons, but that's no longer the case and blobbing has no repercussions. Positioning means so little in 40k that it really shouldn't take much time to consider the exact formation of each unit when moving them. My old Irusk2 Iron Fang block was 1/3 the size of my friend's Tyranid army, and yet it took me longer to resolve my turns without opening myself up to assassination or losing blocks of pikemen than he did shoveling gaunts and stealers around.
113112
Post by: Reemule
EnTyme wrote:That seems to have less to do with who's better at the game than who's able to get through their movement and psychic phase faster. Faster doesn't mean better.
Ahh... see your right..
But the chess clock doesn't care how fast your opponent plays. You still get your allotted time. If you beat him with 20 seconds on your clock and he has 40 minutes.. you still won.
117663
Post by: KinGensai
Reemule wrote: EnTyme wrote:That seems to have less to do with who's better at the game than who's able to get through their movement and psychic phase faster. Faster doesn't mean better.
Ahh... see your right..
But the chess clock doesn't care how fast your opponent plays. You still get your allotted time. If you beat him with 20 seconds on your clock and he has 40 minutes.. you still won.
ha, I know what that feels like. My Harkevich list had my opponent dominated by my scenario play with little time spent. I even felt good about my play at the end of turn 2. Problem was that I misplayed and left an opening to my caster for my opponent to use to assassinate me. If I had taken my time and considered the offensive vectors, I'd have kept that hole shut at the cost of time. Faster isn't always better than slower.
118083
Post by: Wibe
Been thinking, and they have to state when you can change the clock.
TFG will press the clock when his 50+ dice are still in the air, counting wounds on your time. And stand there waiting to throw the one dice for his armour 6+ save, or the dice for the moral phase he can not lose, until you change the clock.
But even so, I prefer all of that to every game ending turn3...
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Wibe wrote:Been thinking, and they have to state when you can change the clock.
TFG will press the clock when his 50+ dice are still in the air, counting wounds on your time. And stand there waiting to throw the one dice for his armour 6+ save, or the dice for the moral phase he can not lose, until you change the clock.
But even so, I prefer all of that to every game ending turn3...
Again if he is counting wounds thats on his time. If he's takes his time throwing dice in the first few rolls just switch it to him every time.
Again switching clocks on a single roll is common, maybe not at the start of the game but when it comes down to the wire it happens plenty.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Overread wrote:I think chess clocks work great in chess because each turn is very distinct. If its your turn its your turn, you don't need anything at all from your opponent during that turn, your opponent makes no action, makes no choices nor does anything to the game table.
As such each turn is totally distinct from the other.
In Wargames and Warhammer though each turn is still, in part, a conversation between two players. The player who's turn it is does the leading and the bulk of actions, but the opponent can still have a huge impact.
They get to react to attack via dice rolls - ok sure that's not long so that's ok to leave on the players clock
They get to make choices on abilities and remove dead units from attacks. Ok so they could take a while over this would you want to flick that back over their clock?!
They get to ask questions of your codex. You might have to prove how an ability works or the stats of a unit. Or even query a rule in the core game and how it interacts/works. Again this is another point where the opponent is causing a time-lag, yet its counting against the active players turn time on the clock.
Another potential negative is that I can see it penalising large/swarm armies over smaller elite armies that are able to operate quicker by simple reduced model count.
I can see it working in terms of aiming to speed up turns and also punishing players who take too long with turns at the extreme end. I think that PP (warmachine) games have also made more extensive use of them so chances are some (all?) of the issues I've raised might be resolvable with guidelines; or might not be as important as one might suppose.
I agree wit this entire post.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Chess clocks are a terrible idea in a game like 40k, where it isn't clear which player's clock should be running at all times. For reasonable players they just add a ton of extra clock management, constantly swapping back and forth every few seconds as you alternate who is rolling dice and obsessing over whose time it should be. For TFGs they just give TFG new ways to cheat, exploiting the system to drain the reasonable player's clock and then "winning" on time.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Peregrine wrote:Chess clocks are a terrible idea in a game like 40k, where it isn't clear which player's clock should be running at all times. For reasonable players they just add a ton of extra clock management, constantly swapping back and forth every few seconds as you alternate who is rolling dice and obsessing over whose time it should be. For TFGs they just give TFG new ways to cheat, exploiting the system to drain the reasonable player's clock and then "winning" on time.
Why is it so hard to understand how chess clocks work for wargames? IF YOU ARE THE ONE DOING SOMETHING, YOU DO IT ON YOUR TIME. Micromanagment of the clock isn't a big deal. Its already been proven with Warmachine. And yes, before you say it, Warmachine has just as many (if not more) opponent reactions during your turn as 40k.
Besides, you hate 8th edition anyway, why do you care?
93221
Post by: Lance845
Amazingly people can have opinions and they are not invalidated because their opinion is negative.
Just because Peregrine dislikes 8th doesn't mean his arguments against chess clocks in 40k carry no weight.
If thats your only argument against his points it seems like you are the one with nothing to actually say.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Define "doing something". We'll start with something as simple as a LOS check. One player claims LOS for shooting, the other player disputes it. Whose clock runs?
If the player claiming LOS has to run their clock while establishing it then TFG contests every LOS claim (including "obvious" ones), demanding perfect measurements with a laser pointer and dragging out the process as long as possible for the sole purpose of wasting their opponent's clock time.
If the player contesting LOS has to run their clock while proving that LOS does not exist then TFG claims LOS even when it is clearly not possible, forcing their opponent to choose between burning clock time to contest LOS (with the same time-consuming process of perfect and constantly disputed measurement) or allowing TFG's units to shoot through walls.
Neither one of these situations is acceptable, therefore chess clocks are not acceptable.
87004
Post by: warhead01
I think it's fantastic. I don't play ITC so it wont be an issue for me directly. But if it cuts down on the crying about slow play I'm sure it's fine. I don't like it though and wont use one in any of my games.
118083
Post by: Wibe
Sim-Life wrote: Wibe wrote:Been thinking, and they have to state when you can change the clock.
TFG will press the clock when his 50+ dice are still in the air, counting wounds on your time. And stand there waiting to throw the one dice for his armour 6+ save, or the dice for the moral phase he can not lose, until you change the clock.
But even so, I prefer all of that to every game ending turn3...
Again if he is counting wounds thats on his time. If he's takes his time throwing dice in the first few rolls just switch it to him every time.
Again switching clocks on a single roll is common, maybe not at the start of the game but when it comes down to the wire it happens plenty.
TFG will be dropping 50+ dice, and then argue that the dice is thrown (arguing on your time), so the wounds are counted on your time. That part of the warhammer crowd needs rules for stuff like this.
77922
Post by: Overread
One thing I've seen is that people keep saying "if my opponent starts wasting time then I flip the clock to them". However this implies that the player has to waste time before the clock flips to them when its not their turn. So they've already achieved the time wasting goal of wasting time not on their clock.
The point that the clocks aim to give each player 50% of the total time allotted is a good point and does bring a little sanity into the discussion, but still doesn't get around the "drama" and dispute angles that are being raised.
The other aspect is to consider that because the game can swap back and forth very quickly during turns (you roll they roll) I could well see that if players were fast swapping the clock during a turn you could end up with the clock missing a step. You could well end up playing on your opponents time very easily if you were swapping back and forth fairly fast.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
I still maintain that clearly identifying and punishing obvious slow play (which LVO and GW manifestly failed to do) is a far better system than making everyone use a clock and creating a whole extra layer of complexity.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Peregrine wrote:
Define "doing something". We'll start with something as simple as a LOS check. One player claims LOS for shooting, the other player disputes it. Whose clock runs?
If the player claiming LOS has to run their clock while establishing it then TFG contests every LOS claim (including "obvious" ones), demanding perfect measurements with a laser pointer and dragging out the process as long as possible for the sole purpose of wasting their opponent's clock time.
If the player contesting LOS has to run their clock while proving that LOS does not exist then TFG claims LOS even when it is clearly not possible, forcing their opponent to choose between burning clock time to contest LOS (with the same time-consuming process of perfect and constantly disputed measurement) or allowing TFG's units to shoot through walls.
Neither one of these situations is acceptable, therefore chess clocks are not acceptable.
If the opposing player is contesting every LoS claim then call a judge, it's what they're there for.
Stop acting like players have no recourse in these situations. Or is the charisma of the TFGs in your area so crushingly overwhelming that judges crumple into simpering piles of cowerdice at TFGs mighty arguments?
3750
Post by: Wayniac
For a game like Warhammer that has a lot of back and forth things I think chess clocks are not going to help and are the wrong response. It works fine and a game like war machine because there is very little that gets rolled in your turn by your opponent; tough is about it, barring things like admonition or counter charge.
What games have in common that use chess clock is there is no armor saves. Because those exist I think this will be silly for 40K since you could theoretically jump back and forth between players for seconds at a time multiple times during the game
118083
Post by: Wibe
Sim-Life wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Define "doing something". We'll start with something as simple as a LOS check. One player claims LOS for shooting, the other player disputes it. Whose clock runs?
If the player claiming LOS has to run their clock while establishing it then TFG contests every LOS claim (including "obvious" ones), demanding perfect measurements with a laser pointer and dragging out the process as long as possible for the sole purpose of wasting their opponent's clock time.
If the player contesting LOS has to run their clock while proving that LOS does not exist then TFG claims LOS even when it is clearly not possible, forcing their opponent to choose between burning clock time to contest LOS (with the same time-consuming process of perfect and constantly disputed measurement) or allowing TFG's units to shoot through walls.
Neither one of these situations is acceptable, therefore chess clocks are not acceptable.
If the opposing player is contesting every LoS claim then call a judge, it's what they're there for.
Stop acting like players have no recourse in these situations. Or is the charisma of the TFGs in your area so crushingly overwhelming that judges crumple into simpering piles of cowerdice at TFGs mighty arguments?
It is not that they have no recourse, it is that it is better to kill off those arguments of from the start.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Sim-Life wrote: Peregrine wrote: Define "doing something". We'll start with something as simple as a LOS check. One player claims LOS for shooting, the other player disputes it. Whose clock runs? If the player claiming LOS has to run their clock while establishing it then TFG contests every LOS claim (including "obvious" ones), demanding perfect measurements with a laser pointer and dragging out the process as long as possible for the sole purpose of wasting their opponent's clock time. If the player contesting LOS has to run their clock while proving that LOS does not exist then TFG claims LOS even when it is clearly not possible, forcing their opponent to choose between burning clock time to contest LOS (with the same time-consuming process of perfect and constantly disputed measurement) or allowing TFG's units to shoot through walls. Neither one of these situations is acceptable, therefore chess clocks are not acceptable.
If the opposing player is contesting every LoS claim then call a judge, it's what they're there for. Stop acting like players have no recourse in these situations. Or is the charisma of the TFGs in your area so crushingly overwhelming that judges crumple into simpering piles of cowerdice at TFGs mighty arguments?
A judge can't be everywhere at once. Also whose time has to tick down while you wait for a judge? Yours or your opponents?
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Matt.Kingsley wrote: Sim-Life wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Define "doing something". We'll start with something as simple as a LOS check. One player claims LOS for shooting, the other player disputes it. Whose clock runs?
If the player claiming LOS has to run their clock while establishing it then TFG contests every LOS claim (including "obvious" ones), demanding perfect measurements with a laser pointer and dragging out the process as long as possible for the sole purpose of wasting their opponent's clock time.
If the player contesting LOS has to run their clock while proving that LOS does not exist then TFG claims LOS even when it is clearly not possible, forcing their opponent to choose between burning clock time to contest LOS (with the same time-consuming process of perfect and constantly disputed measurement) or allowing TFG's units to shoot through walls.
Neither one of these situations is acceptable, therefore chess clocks are not acceptable.
If the opposing player is contesting every LoS claim then call a judge, it's what they're there for.
Stop acting like players have no recourse in these situations. Or is the charisma of the TFGs in your area so crushingly overwhelming that judges crumple into simpering piles of cowerdice at TFGs mighty arguments?
A judge can't be everywhere at once.
Also whose time has to tick down while you wait for a judge? Yours or your opponents?
You pause the clock.
The fact that you would even ask that is astounding.
77922
Post by: Overread
Thing is if you look at nearly any other sporting or competitive event judges or referees or such are generally viewing every single match taking place within a competition. You might have some where there are minor judges watching most games and then an overall judge over the top.
The only ones that tend to not have an official watching the whole thing tend to be things like long distance cross country runs where you can't view the whole thing from one spot.
Gaming lacks the competitive sponsoring and income that allows for payment of more officials, but I do wonder if wargaming couldn't do more to promote itself and gain more officials to oversee matches at competitive events. MTG seems to manage pretty well without the need for clocks and to deal with timewasters (though in general those matches are much faster anyway).
Considering the complexity it seems almost daft that wargames rely upon almost a handful of roaming officials at competitive events.
93221
Post by: Lance845
MTG and other games don't have the gak house poorly written rules GW does that just don't work RAW.
77922
Post by: Overread
 Lance845 wrote:MTG and other games don't have the gak house poorly written rules GW does that just don't work RAW.
They still have huge arguments on the order of abilities and such and some of those upper level combos can get rather complicated, esp when the counters to them can be equally complicated. And asides we've not really been arguing about rule disputes in this but time wasters as a specific cheating tactic within games. The clock is there to counter a specific problem. My view is that having more officials would make for reduced rule dispute times; reduced "waiting for judge" times and also reduce the chances of cheating.
The core issue is finding, training and reimbursing officials for larger events.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
EnTyme wrote:That seems to have less to do with who's better at the game than who's able to get through their movement and psychic phase faster. Faster doesn't mean better.
Being able to play fast but well is a skill. If you had two chess players who both played identical games against an identical opponent, with identical outcomes (them winning), but one of them won in 30 minutes whereas the other took 2 hours, which would you say is the more skilled player?
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Sim-Life wrote:If the opposing player is contesting every LoS claim then call a judge, it's what they're there for.
Wouldn't it be easier all round to just call a judge if your opponent is slow playing (and have the judge act on it) and remove the 'need' for the clocks entirely..?
93221
Post by: Lance845
Overread wrote: Lance845 wrote:MTG and other games don't have the gak house poorly written rules GW does that just don't work RAW.
They still have huge arguments on the order of abilities and such and some of those upper level combos can get rather complicated, esp when the counters to them can be equally complicated.
They do. And the end result may be complicated. But the answer to 2 + 2 is always 4 even if you add a whole bunch of complicated steps in the middle to get there. The problem with GWs rules is 2 + 2 doesn't always equal 4. Because the rules don't actually work. That is a gak job for a Judge. If GW wants to branch out to being more popular and attracting more and higher quality sponsors so they can pay more and higher quality judges then they need their game to actually work. And asides we've not really been arguing about rule disputes in this but time wasters as a specific cheating tactic within games. The clock is there to counter a specific problem. My view is that having more officials would make for reduced rule dispute times; reduced "waiting for judge" times and also reduce the chances of cheating.
The core issue is finding, training and reimbursing officials for larger events.
As above. You want sponsors to pay for more and better judges you need to start treating the game like something worth sponsoring.
77922
Post by: Overread
Thing is in chess the time required to play either side (white or black) is identical. In Warhammer games some armies are going to be faster than others by inherent design. Custodes VS Swarm Tyranids the Custodes is always going to be faster because its focusing on far far fewer elite units; meanwhile the Swarm Tyranid player is going to take longer as there are so many more models on the table.
So in that case even a more skilled tyranid player might not be able to play "as fast" as a lesser skilled custodes player.
I think that's one crux of the issue. Players know that there is natural variation in play style and speed between the factions of the game and even with different army compositions within factions. I think some don't want to see Chess Clocks become the start of rewarding faster and faster players; when it should be there only to punish slower players and reduce the chances of cheating via slow play.
Otherwise it could end up rather like the Sportsmanship score - where by its got intent, but actual use can be very different in how people interpret and use the score.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Why don't we wait until some major event tries the clock and see what the participants say about their experience?
Oh wait, this is the internet where practical experience doesn't mean much.
81438
Post by: Turnip Jedi
It'll be interesting to see how the experiment goes, I'd like it to work but suspect I'll cause the same amount of problems as it solves for a net result of pointless faffing
77922
Post by: Overread
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Why don't we wait until some major event tries the clock and see what the participants say about their experience?
Oh wait, this is the internet where practical experience doesn't mean much.
Naws nothing to do with the internet - its just people
We could do this down the pub and have the same conversation without a practical test case. Thing is its kinda hard to get everyone in dakka in the SAME place like that - so we make do with the interwebs.
That and we can certainly chat about it and other games have used chess clocks - so we can bring those experiences into the discussion. There's also practical elements which can be debated or discussed before we even get to a real world testing situation.
113188
Post by: pismakron
Sim-Life wrote:pismakron wrote:In principle I'd love to play with a chess-clock, but I don't think the phasing-structure of 40k lends it well to chess-clock usage. Specifically I think the way a defending player will pick casualties and roll armour saves when an attacker rolls to wound is problematic. Regards
It works like this:
Attacker on clock
Rolls hits and wounds
"Your unit takes this many wounds."
Switches clock to opponent
Defender rolls saves and removes casualties on his time
Switches clock back to attacker.
It literally amounts to pressing a button when you're not doibg something.
Or pressing a button when you are interrupting your opponents gameplay. For that scenario a chess clock is almost ideal.
The problem is when you are attacking with 10-20 squads, each having a default weapon, a special weapon, a heavy weapon and a nob/seargeant with something. We are potentially talking about 40+ switches in every shooting phase and in every fight phase, and all that twice over for each battle-round. In comparison most chess-games have, what, 80 switches ? I am not saying that it is a bad idea, I just think 40k is a bit too cumbersome for chess-clocks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Overread wrote:Thing is in chess the time required to play either side (white or black) is identical. In Warhammer games some armies are going to be faster than others by inherent design. Custodes VS Swarm Tyranids the Custodes is always going to be faster because its focusing on far far fewer elite units; meanwhile the Swarm Tyranid player is going to take longer as there are so many more models on the table.
So in that case even a more skilled tyranid player might not be able to play "as fast" as a lesser skilled custodes player.
The Tyranid player does not have to play as fast as the Custodes player. He just needs to complete all his moves in half of the alloted time-slot. There are no bonus for finishing with more time on your clock than your opponent.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
pismakron wrote: Sim-Life wrote:pismakron wrote:In principle I'd love to play with a chess-clock, but I don't think the phasing-structure of 40k lends it well to chess-clock usage. Specifically I think the way a defending player will pick casualties and roll armour saves when an attacker rolls to wound is problematic. Regards
It works like this:
Attacker on clock
Rolls hits and wounds
"Your unit takes this many wounds."
Switches clock to opponent
Defender rolls saves and removes casualties on his time
Switches clock back to attacker.
It literally amounts to pressing a button when you're not doibg something.
Or pressing a button when you are interrupting your opponents gameplay. For that scenario a chess clock is almost ideal.
The problem is when you are attacking with 10-20 squads, each having a default weapon, a special weapon, a heavy weapon and a nob/seargeant with something.
/quote]
Then people will need to learn to use different coloured dice to indocate different weapons/models and roll them at the same time.
If people want to curtail TFG behaviours like slow play then they're going to need to start adapting to the things that regulate that behaviour.
Also I don't know why the quoting system on this forum hates mobile phones.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
I saw this exact same argument on Facebook not to long ago. The argument against them was really good and the replies were utter nonsense, so lets see if we can rehash this in my memory.
Custodes player Vs Ork Player.
Currently a competitive Custodes army anywhere from 10-30 models at the extremes. A competitive Ork Army is anywhere from 150-240 models because nothing we have is worth taking beyond Boyz and things to make Boyz better (kommandos/stormboyz included).
So with a chess clock, Custodes player will spend anywhere from 1/24th to 1/5th as much time moving his models, running his models, shooting his models and assaulting with his models. He will also not have to worry about positioning nearly as much because its relatively easy to fit 3-5 man squads into cover or into range of an aura where as its a bit trickier with 30 man squads.
Now the rather dumb argument FOR Time clocks that i saw in response to this was something along the lines of:
"Well if you know there will be a clock its your decision to bring that many models" And while that is technically a valid point it only takes a cursory look deeper into the issue to call BS. Orkz and i am sure other armies RELY on cheap wounds to survive more then 2 turns. Ive tried playing battlewagonz, kan wall, walker heavy lists, elite meganobz lists and all sorts of other in between lists, NONE have performed for me nearly as well as my Kommando Bravo strike force nor my Green tide lists. So in essence what that person was saying was "I don't want to play against a horde so lets penalize that play style" which is rather mean spirited to start with and even more so when you realize what I said about units being effective is being represented across the tournament scene. Orkz have no option but Boyz and boy style models. So these Time Clocks effectively NERF one of the weakest armies in the game right now.
Another argument I saw trying to be reasonable to an ork player was:
"Well just put your models on a movement tray then" Not a bad idea in theory, but a rather bad one in practice. In a competitive game it is incredibly important to maximize as many bonuses as you can and to capitalize an opponents mistakes as quickly as possible. To put it another way, get in cover, get out of LOS and stay inside buff bubbles. A movement tray directly stops most of those things from happening so you are right back to square one.
Basically, I would be fine with a Time clock, so long as the clock is based on Model count and not a simple 50/50 split.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
SemperMortis wrote:
"Well just put your models on a movement tray then" Not a bad idea in theory, but a rather bad one in practice. In a competitive game it is incredibly important to maximize as many bonuses as you can and to capitalize an opponents mistakes as quickly as possible. To put it another way, get in cover, get out of LOS and stay inside buff bubbles. A movement tray directly stops most of those things from happening so you are right back to square one.
Youre not permanently confined to a tray. Move the core on trays and keep a tail.
109034
Post by: Slipspace
SemperMortis wrote:I saw this exact same argument on Facebook not to long ago. The argument against them was really good and the replies were utter nonsense, so lets see if we can rehash this in my memory.
Custodes player Vs Ork Player.
Currently a competitive Custodes army anywhere from 10-30 models at the extremes. A competitive Ork Army is anywhere from 150-240 models because nothing we have is worth taking beyond Boyz and things to make Boyz better (kommandos/stormboyz included).
So with a chess clock, Custodes player will spend anywhere from 1/24th to 1/5th as much time moving his models, running his models, shooting his models and assaulting with his models. He will also not have to worry about positioning nearly as much because its relatively easy to fit 3-5 man squads into cover or into range of an aura where as its a bit trickier with 30 man squads.
Now the rather dumb argument FOR Time clocks that i saw in response to this was something along the lines of:
"Well if you know there will be a clock its your decision to bring that many models" And while that is technically a valid point it only takes a cursory look deeper into the issue to call BS. Orkz and i am sure other armies RELY on cheap wounds to survive more then 2 turns. Ive tried playing battlewagonz, kan wall, walker heavy lists, elite meganobz lists and all sorts of other in between lists, NONE have performed for me nearly as well as my Kommando Bravo strike force nor my Green tide lists. So in essence what that person was saying was "I don't want to play against a horde so lets penalize that play style" which is rather mean spirited to start with and even more so when you realize what I said about units being effective is being represented across the tournament scene. Orkz have no option but Boyz and boy style models. So these Time Clocks effectively NERF one of the weakest armies in the game right now.
Another argument I saw trying to be reasonable to an ork player was:
"Well just put your models on a movement tray then" Not a bad idea in theory, but a rather bad one in practice. In a competitive game it is incredibly important to maximize as many bonuses as you can and to capitalize an opponents mistakes as quickly as possible. To put it another way, get in cover, get out of LOS and stay inside buff bubbles. A movement tray directly stops most of those things from happening so you are right back to square one.
Basically, I would be fine with a Time clock, so long as the clock is based on Model count and not a simple 50/50 split.
And ultimately the counter is still: why do you deserve more time than your opponent to play the game? Even if you think you deserve more time, how much more? Twice as much? Three times? 24 times (which you mention above, comparing models)? What about a mirror match, how do you ensure equality there? Again, all you need to be able to do is complete a game within half the total game time. The amount of time your opponent uses is irrelevant because he has his own clock.
I think there's a valid debate to be had about whether the amount of time allocated for a tournament game is enough, considering some armies can have over 150 models. Regardless of whether you think clocks are a good idea I think everyone can agree the most important thing is having enough time to reasonably expect to complete a game.
73016
Post by: auticus
I played a 200+ model count IG army with chess clocks in play and I did just fine.
The reason for chess clocks is purely to stop intentional slow play.
It shouldn't matter if horde armies need more of the chess clock. IF I have to choose between horde players having to get a little faster vs the rampant douchebaggery of intentional slow play that is a regular thing, I'll choose the chess clock every time.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
 auticus wrote:I played a 200+ model count IG army with chess clocks in play and I did just fine.
The reason for chess clocks is purely to stop intentional slow play.
It shouldn't matter if horde armies need more of the chess clock. IF I have to choose between horde players having to get a little faster vs the rampant douchebaggery of intentional slow play that is a regular thing, I'll choose the chess clock every time.
200 Model IG army is about as opposite as possible from an Ork Horde army. your IG army doesn't move HALF as much as a Ork Horde army, and the movement phase is the longest for Ork players, for IG its blasting off Lasguns.
And ultimately the counter is still: why do you deserve more time than your opponent to play the game? Even if you think you deserve more time, how much more? Twice as much? Three times? 24 times (which you mention above, comparing models)? What about a mirror match, how do you ensure equality there? Again, all you need to be able to do is complete a game within half the total game time. The amount of time your opponent uses is irrelevant because he has his own clock.
I would LOVE to not be required to take 180+ models to be competitive in games, but unfortunately GW didn't ask Ork players if they liked the other 4/5ths of their codex/index and instead gave us good Boyz, Stormboyz, Kommandos and KMKs. So why do Ork hordes deserve move time? because we require anywhere from 3 to 8 times as many models to be even remotely as competitive as other armies, its a wonderful design flaw of GWs. How do I ensure equality? 1: but not using Chess clocks which are designed to be used by two people with THE EXACT SAME ARMIES. 2: If you really want them, then give Horde armies more time, how much is debatable and 3: Just flat out Ban Horde armies and then watch as Most Ork players, nidz and IG armies stop showing up to events.
73016
Post by: auticus
Ok. You can still get the game done on a chess clock with orks. The goal posts keep moving here. So now its not really about hordes its about orks being at some form of disadvantage with a timer.
I've seen ork hordes in chess timer tournaments. They use movement trays and other things to help them get their movement done.
I've never seen anyone have a problem with their horde army other than the theory crafting on the internet about how its not fair.
Its also not fair for unsportsmanlike conduct being a regular thing to have to endure with intentional slow play. I would say based on years and years of watching this work fine that if one cannot move their horde army in a tournament, that one should play something else, or improve their rate of play in a tournament.
Chess clocks are happening. They are going to continue to happen. People will adapt. Things will be fine.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
SemperMortis wrote: How do I ensure equality? 1: but not using Chess clocks which are designed to be used by two people with THE EXACT SAME ARMIES. 2: If you really want them, then give Horde armies more time, how much is debatable and 3: Just flat out Ban Horde armies and then watch as Most Ork players, nidz and IG armies stop showing up to events.
You ensure equality by being unequal? 1) Warmahordes uses chess clocks but don't have the exact same armies. In fact the armies can vary greatly in size between the 2 players. 2)That's not an answer it's an excuse and it doesn't answer the question of do 2 horde armies get more time for their round then when 2 "elite" armies are matched up against each other? 3)There are people in this very thread saying that they use horde armies and a clock without having problems. Why should we ban them?
Have you even tried using a chess clock? 
31121
Post by: amanita
In our group sometimes we use a timer, but only for the movement phase. There are too many variables with both players in other phases to be absolutely fair. Nobody is trying to play slowly, but people get distracted so a two and a half hour game can often turn in to a four hour game. The timer is more a tool to keep players focused, and it can even add to the challenge because you can't afford to micromanage every move. It forces players to plan their next movement phase a bit before it happens, thus shortening the game time.
Is it a slight advantage for smaller armies if given the same allotted time? Well sure, but if the larger army has enough time to move they are not penalized too greatly, and in reality larger forces are and should be harder for command and control anyway.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sim-Life wrote:You pause the clock.
The fact that you would even ask that is astounding.
WTF, I didn't agree to let you stop the clock. Get it moving again or I'm calling the TO to have you disqualified for clock cheating.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Leo_the_Rat wrote:SemperMortis wrote: How do I ensure equality? 1: but not using Chess clocks which are designed to be used by two people with THE EXACT SAME ARMIES. 2: If you really want them, then give Horde armies more time, how much is debatable and 3: Just flat out Ban Horde armies and then watch as Most Ork players, nidz and IG armies stop showing up to events.
You ensure equality by being unequal? 1) Warmahordes uses chess clocks but don't have the exact same armies. In fact the armies can vary greatly in size between the 2 players. 2)That's not an answer it's an excuse and it doesn't answer the question of do 2 horde armies get more time for their round then when 2 "elite" armies are matched up against each other? 3)There are people in this very thread saying that they use horde armies and a clock without having problems. Why should we ban them?
Have you even tried using a chess clock?
Yes you ensure equality by being unequal, I know you are attempting to play a wonderful game of semantics but lets get to the point. It takes more time to play a larger army then it does a smaller army, Fact. 1: Warmahordes plays with what? less then 20 models on average? 40-50 at the absolute most? I honestly don't know ive never paid attention to that game. I highly doubt the difference between armies is 200+ models. 2: That is in fact an answer, its actually a reasonable answer but since it isn't your answer you don't like it. If two horde armies play against each other then they each get the same time since neither side needs more time then the other. common sense goes a long way. 3: anecdotal evidence is wonderful when it works in your favor right? If you want I can provide a metric ton of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Why don't we wait until some major event tries the clock and see what the participants say about their experience?
Oh wait, this is the internet where practical experience doesn't mean much.
Practical experience doesn't mean much because it can't separate between "chess clocks worked because the system is good" and "chess clocks worked because no TFGs were present to exploit them". I don't disagree that the clocks can "work" in a TFG-free environment, but in that environment you aren't going to need them because nobody is trying to slow play their way to victory. Automatically Appended Next Post: Leo_the_Rat wrote:it doesn't answer the question of do 2 horde armies get more time for their round then when 2 "elite" armies are matched up against each other?
Exactly. If hordes deserve extra time then what happens in a horde mirror match? By demanding more than 50% of the time you're implicitly saying that if you ever play another horde army the game can not finish.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:it doesn't answer the question of do 2 horde armies get more time for their round then when 2 "elite" armies are matched up against each other?
Exactly. If hordes deserve extra time then what happens in a horde mirror match? By demanding more than 50% of the time you're implicitly saying that if you ever play another horde army the game can not finish.
Or two horde armies would get the same time because they are equal in set up and if the game doesn't finish it doesn't finish....kind of like how it is right now.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
SemperMortis wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:SemperMortis wrote: How do I ensure equality? 1: but not using Chess clocks which are designed to be used by two people with THE EXACT SAME ARMIES. 2: If you really want them, then give Horde armies more time, how much is debatable and 3: Just flat out Ban Horde armies and then watch as Most Ork players, nidz and IG armies stop showing up to events.
You ensure equality by being unequal? 1) Warmahordes uses chess clocks but don't have the exact same armies. In fact the armies can vary greatly in size between the 2 players. 2)That's not an answer it's an excuse and it doesn't answer the question of do 2 horde armies get more time for their round then when 2 "elite" armies are matched up against each other? 3)There are people in this very thread saying that they use horde armies and a clock without having problems. Why should we ban them?
Have you even tried using a chess clock?
Warmahordes plays with what? less then 20 models on average? 40-50 at the absolute most? I honestly don't know ive never paid attention to that game. I highly doubt the difference between armies is 200+ models.
The difference between Warmahordes and 40k seems be that the horde army players in WMH aren't whiney babies who demand special treatment. They know they're at a disadvantage by taking large armies but practice till they know their army inside and out in order to compete at the same level.
If you KNOW theres a time constraint at an event and you still choose to play a horde then have some accountability rather than whinging and demanding more time because you made a difficult choice.
Anyway, I play horde nids all the time an never have a problem with games lasting longer than usual.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Rule #1 my friend.
50563
Post by: quickfuze
If this becomes a thing, I will pass the clock anytime my opponent touches even a single dice, book or army list page. This is a piss poor excuse of a solution, implemented by a group of TO's who can not or will not effectively judge/control their events. As others have said, it's amazing that people suddenly learn to play fast when a judge is watching. Start handing out meaningful penalties to habitual offenders and this stuff will stop itself.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
It doesn't matter how many more models 40K has v Warmachine. That's a matter of how much time is given to each side. Each game is given a certain amount of time to play a round at an event. You deserve no more time than me regardless of who is playing what army. We each know how long the round is and how much time you are entitled to (both are the same as me). If you can't play your army to your satisfaction at your current ability then you can either modify your army or practice with it until you can use it to your satisfaction.
You seem to be ignoring the other posters who say that they run horde armies with no problem on a chess clock. If others can run their armies within the time limit then you should be able to do so as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Quickfuze- That is as childish a response as I can imagine. It's the equivalent to saying "I don't like that rule so I'm going to do everything that I can to sabatage it." Why not try playing the rule as it's supposed to be played and not be TFG about it?
50563
Post by: quickfuze
Leo_the_Rat wrote:It doesn't matter how many more models 40K has v Warmachine. That's a matter of how much time is given to each side. Each game is given a certain amount of time to play a round at an event. You deserve no more time than me regardless of who is playing what army. We each know how long the round is and how much time you are entitled to (both are the same as me). If you can't play your army to your satisfaction at your current ability then you can either modify your army or practice with it until you can use it to your satisfaction.
You seem to be ignoring the other posters who say that they run horde armies with no problem on a chess clock. If others can run their armies within the time limit then you should be able to do so as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Quickfuze- That is as childish a response as I can imagine. It's the equivalent to saying "I don't like that rule so I'm going to do everything that I can to sabatage it." Why not try playing the rule as it's supposed to be played and not be TFG about it?
No chess clocks is a childish response to an inability to accept responsibility for running a controlled fair event. However, just like every other rule in the game I will simply maximize it's benefit to me, within the limits of the rule. Next.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Let me ask you, how would you monitor an event that has say 8 tables to make sure that no one is using more time than necessary? Let's leave aside the question of how much time is fair for each player.
I would be interested in the wording of the rule that ITC is using on how clock operation is to be done. I've heard that the whole clock issue is optional for events in any case.
Found this from the ITC site: "It is each player’s right to pass the time to his opponent whenever they are making an action or spending time making a decision."
I would like to add that it is each players right to make as much of a donkey of themselves as they like as well. Most people are reasonable and play that way but there is always TFG floating around at some events.
50563
Post by: quickfuze
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Let me ask you, how would you monitor an event that has say 8 tables to make sure that no one is using more time than necessary? Let's leave aside the question of how much time is fair for each player.
I would be interested in the wording of the rule that ITC is using on how clock operation is to be done. I've heard that the whole clock issue is optional for events in any case.
Found this from the ITC site: "It is each player’s right to pass the time to his opponent whenever they are making an action or spending time making a decision."
I would like to add that it is each players right to make as much of a donkey of themselves as they like as well. Most people are reasonable and play that way but there is always TFG floating around at some events.
First, I would look to experts on how they control gaming and "cheating". I would look at Vegas and the Pitboss dynamic. Can you effectively have a TO for every table? No, but you if you pod your tables instead of the traditional convention line set up, a single TO can effectively monitor 4 to 6 tables. So who should he watch? Well again lets look at math, using a 3 hour round time limit (for sake of ease of the math) that breaks down to 1.5 hours per player, or 15 minutes per player turn. By the one hour mark, the game should be complete of two full player rounds. Is that hard cap, no because we know the later rounds will go faster, but within a reasonable window of that 1 hour mark/2nd turn complete objective. If you have a table is at the top of turn 2 still, well this is an indicator of the table the TO should be monitoring.
"Well what about horde?" What about it? You gain no additional benefit from bringing more models. Learn to play your army effectively to meet the requirement, or play a different army/list. When people stop bouncing around to the next powercreep army they will start to learn their army inside and out. I know plenty of Gaunt horde Nid players who have no issue in accomplishing a 6 turn game.
The main issue at smaller venues is the TO's are not dedicated to the event. Often it is a shop owner/employee who is also trying to run the store, or play in the event also. Or they just hover at the computer until called for, or talking with their favorite locals in the event. TO's need to run events; period.
171
Post by: Lorek
Let's not bag on player groups here. That's still a Rule #1 violation.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Leo_the_Rat wrote:It doesn't matter how many more models 40K has v Warmachine. That's a matter of how much time is given to each side. Each game is given a certain amount of time to play a round at an event. You deserve no more time than me regardless of who is playing what army. We each know how long the round is and how much time you are entitled to (both are the same as me). If you can't play your army to your satisfaction at your current ability then you can either modify your army or practice with it until you can use it to your satisfaction.
You seem to be ignoring the other posters who say that they run horde armies with no problem on a chess clock. If others can run their armies within the time limit then you should be able to do so as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Quickfuze- That is as childish a response as I can imagine. It's the equivalent to saying "I don't like that rule so I'm going to do everything that I can to sabatage it." Why not try playing the rule as it's supposed to be played and not be TFG about it?
 You seem to not understand the difference between a fact and anecdotal evidence. I can go find 20-30 Ork or Nid players who say the opposite, Mob rule (Pun intended) does not determine who is right and who is wrong. The actual facts here are that an army with several time as many models then the other army will take longer to play. To counter that nonsensical argument that "well they need to avoid net lists with lots of models then" well, GW designed the game and set it up so I need to take 3 infantry squads of Boyz or Grotz to even fill out a basic list, and guess what? 3 full squads by themselves are 30-90 models, Ohh they also incentivized me to take the maximum amount with leadership and attack bonuses. Same thing for Grotz. Those of us who compete in tournaments have found that even 90 isn't enough because of all the cheese being thrown around the game right now so go figure, we bring more models to try and win. But lets get away from just the fact that the Ork army has been built from the start of the game as a horde army and get back to the basics of what a chess clock is used for.
In a game of chess you have 2 opposing sides with the exact same models, the exact same moves and the only inherent benefit in the entire game is that white pieces get to go first. The time clock in this situation is inherently fair because nobody can use it as an advantage over the other beyond playing as fast as physically possible to wrong foot your opponent. In a game of 40k a chess clock is inherently unfair because as pointed out, some armies require significantly more models to play.
I mean I could keep on writing how this is inherently a nerf to horde armies brought about by gamers not wanting to have to change their Anti-vehicle/monster net lists to adjust to a different meta and as a way to force players with horde armies to rush and make more mistakes but I think it would honestly be a waste since you don't care about my opinion and merely want your Army to do better by nerfing others.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Stupid Idea. Not going to fix anything.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I understand the difference between facts and anecdotes quite well thank you. You keep saying that it is a fact that the clock is a disadvantage to horde type armies. I'm merely pointing out that this fact isn't always true. Using counter examples to show that a hypothesis is not true is a valid form of argument.
Just because you (not just you personally) say that you can not play the game at a certain tempo doesn't mean that the game should be changed to suit your play speed. You are choosing your army composition and, theoretically, you should be able to play it within a certain time limit. You do not have the right to more time than I do just because of your decision about army composition.
Should the event consider army size? Definitely but then you would still want a bigger share of the clock due to your hordes' status.
A clock may not be the solution but it is an attempt at a solution.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 quickfuze wrote:If this becomes a thing, I will pass the clock anytime my opponent touches even a single dice, book or army list page. This is a piss poor excuse of a solution, implemented by a group of TO's who can not or will not effectively judge/control their events. As others have said, it's amazing that people suddenly learn to play fast when a judge is watching. Start handing out meaningful penalties to habitual offenders and this stuff will stop itself.
That's a great attitude. Actively sabotage it and be TFG instead of having an open mind about it. There are only so many judges.
117047
Post by: Glane
It works for Chess because the two sides are identical. Thus any slowness in play is exclusively down to the player themselves. It doesn't take more time to move black pieces than it does to move white pieces.
It will absolutely take more time for my Ork army to move and attack than my opponent's Custodes army. I cannot get around that; if we both play equally quickly, I will always be at a time disadvantage.
I understand that this is a response to players intentionally playing slow but all this serves to do is penalise some armies and promote others.
50563
Post by: quickfuze
 Glane wrote:It works for Chess because the two sides are identical. Thus any slowness in play is exclusively down to the player themselves. It doesn't take more time to move black pieces than it does to move white pieces.
It will absolutely take more time for my Ork army to move and attack than my opponent's Custodes army. I cannot get around that; if we both play equally quickly, I will always be at a time disadvantage.
I understand that this is a response to players intentionally playing slow but all this serves to do is penalise some armies and promote others.
This I completely agree with. A very valid reason not to implement this nonsense. However, if it is used,there should be no additional time awarded to a horde army.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
If it only works when 2 sides are identical then someone please explain how/why it works so well for the Warmahordes community.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Leo_the_Rat wrote:If it only works when 2 sides are identical then someone please explain how/why it works so well for the Warmahordes community.
Low model count smaller scale game with rules that work.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Lance845 wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:If it only works when 2 sides are identical then someone please explain how/why it works so well for the Warmahordes community.
Low model count smaller scale game with rules that work.
You need to take into account that WMH clocks have less time to be played in (each player has an hour total) and the rules interactions and gameplay is far more complex and precise than 40k. You can spend a good 5 mins or so at the start of your turn just deciding how to allocate focus or planning your moves.
Off clock it takes about as much time to play a game of Warmahordes after deployment etc as it does to play a 2000pts 40k game because 40k requires less intensive thinking.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Sim-Life wrote: Lance845 wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:If it only works when 2 sides are identical then someone please explain how/why it works so well for the Warmahordes community.
Low model count smaller scale game with rules that work.
You need to take into account ...
No i dont. Chess has way more tactical planning and intense thinking then 40k. Just because 40k is a tactical vacuum and wmh has actual tactical game play doesnt mean that competitive players on a clock cant plan their moves several turns in advance with contingencies for what their opponent may do.
118333
Post by: Cryogenicman
The argument that a horde army player deserves more time than his opponent is such a silly one, I'm surprised it keeps cropping up.
Imagine going to a tournament that has a 2.5 hour time limit for games. You bring your horde army. You know that when YOU play your army it takes 1.75 hours to move and roll everything, rather than 1.25. ALAS! your first opponent is all infantry guard, and your second is all Orc boys, your third is a foot-slogging Necron list. Suddenly it seems as though YOU are the slow player causing every game to end on turn 3. Could it be that YOU are the reason we would want to have chess clocks? And would it shock us to learn that you don't like them?
IF there is a problem, it lies squarely with the total time allotted to play the game. And I agree that perhaps it should be more like 3 or 3.5 hours to allow armies with more models more time. But to claim that you DERSERVE more time than your opponent because of the army you voluntarily brought to the event is ridiculous. When an event advertises its format, you will know if you are capable of participating with your army. If not, you should choose a different one, or refrain from participating.
By far the easiest solution is to let every player have half the total time, and to enforce it. I'm open to any solution that does that. Chess clocks are fun and easy to learn and use. They don't work perfectly but they are still effective. I am entitled to be able to play as much of the game as you are. You don't deserve more time than me. Perhaps I play a list with less models precisely because i'm a slower player and like not to be so rushed? What right do you have to take the bulk of the time in our game? How is that equitable?
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Lance845 wrote: Sim-Life wrote: Lance845 wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:If it only works when 2 sides are identical then someone please explain how/why it works so well for the Warmahordes community.
Low model count smaller scale game with rules that work.
You need to take into account ...
No i dont. Chess has way more tactical planning and intense thinking then 40k. Just because 40k is a tactical vacuum and wmh has actual tactical game play doesnt mean that competitive players on a clock cant plan their moves several turns in advance with contingencies for what their opponent may do.
Except thats not true. You don't know what the dice will do and its hard to think about your turn in advance while your opponent is constantly changing the shape of the game board.
Comparing chess to 40k (or any wargame really) is a false equivelence anyway. Maybe if white got to move all its pieces before black did you'd have a point of comparison. Or if pawns got could take models directly in front of them when within 2 squares if the king. Or if rooks could pick up pawns and push them two squares diectly away and the queen can make all the bishops move vertically and horizontally once per game.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Cryogenicman wrote:The argument that a horde army player deserves more time than his opponent is such a silly one, I'm surprised it keeps cropping up.
Imagine going to a tournament that has a 2.5 hour time limit for games. You bring your horde army. You know that when YOU play your army it takes 1.75 hours to move and roll everything, rather than 1.25. ALAS! your first opponent is all infantry guard, and your second is all Orc boys, your third is a foot-slogging Necron list. Suddenly it seems as though YOU are the slow player causing every game to end on turn 3. Could it be that YOU are the reason we would want to have chess clocks? And would it shock us to learn that you don't like them?
IF there is a problem, it lies squarely with the total time allotted to play the game. And I agree that perhaps it should be more like 3 or 3.5 hours to allow armies with more models more time. But to claim that you DERSERVE more time than your opponent because of the army you voluntarily brought to the event is ridiculous. When an event advertises its format, you will know if you are capable of participating with your army. If not, you should choose a different one, or refrain from participating.
By far the easiest solution is to let every player have half the total time, and to enforce it. I'm open to any solution that does that. Chess clocks are fun and easy to learn and use. They don't work perfectly but they are still effective. I am entitled to be able to play as much of the game as you are. You don't deserve more time than me. Perhaps I play a list with less models precisely because i'm a slower player and like not to be so rushed? What right do you have to take the bulk of the time in our game? How is that equitable?
Right, great points, So what you are saying is that events with these clocks should just exclude Ork armies right now until our codex comes out because horde is literally the only way to play and have a chance at victory. Even the Gargantuan squiggoth list still had over 100 models.
So again, great idea in theory, crap in practice because some of us have to take ridiculous numbers in order to be competitive. NOW on the other hand, I'll be happy to sign up for Time clocks if you convince GW to unfeth the other 4/5ths of our index/codex so I can actually start playing with the rest of my army that has been collecting dust since 8th dropped.
93221
Post by: Lance845
You're comparing the wrong things.
You see what the enemy does. You react. A chess piece moves you react and try to predict how your move will make them act.
If they move all their pieces then you have more time to plan and narrow your plans as the new state of the board takes shape. Unless you are litterally staring at the floor during your opponents turn you should be planning your next moves.
40258
Post by: dkoz
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.
So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.
If your argument is that the rules make 40K hard to play in a reasonable time then the problem won't be solved by any means until the rules get fixed. So to all you TOs just pack up your events and wait for GW to fix everything.
How about a little personal responsibility? Learn the rules for your army and the general rules for the game. If you're unsure about the resolution of a rule contact the TO in advance. If you move slowly then practice. After that most things should take care of themselves.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
You can't honestly be expecting people to accept accountability for their choices can you?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
Now, why does that matter? If your army cannot complete the game in the time limit then it deserves to be penalised. But this way players who bring armies which could complete the game don't lose out just because someone else can't.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.
So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.
If your argument is that the rules make 40K hard to play in a reasonable time then the problem won't be solved by any means until the rules get fixed. So to all you TOs just pack up your events and wait for GW to fix everything.
How about a little personal responsibility? Learn the rules for your army and the general rules for the game. If you're unsure about the resolution of a rule contact the TO in advance. If you move slowly then practice. After that most things should take care of themselves.
You're comparing apples and strawmen there.
77728
Post by: dosiere
SemperMortis wrote:Cryogenicman wrote:The argument that a horde army player deserves more time than his opponent is such a silly one, I'm surprised it keeps cropping up.
Imagine going to a tournament that has a 2.5 hour time limit for games. You bring your horde army. You know that when YOU play your army it takes 1.75 hours to move and roll everything, rather than 1.25. ALAS! your first opponent is all infantry guard, and your second is all Orc boys, your third is a foot-slogging Necron list. Suddenly it seems as though YOU are the slow player causing every game to end on turn 3. Could it be that YOU are the reason we would want to have chess clocks? And would it shock us to learn that you don't like them?
IF there is a problem, it lies squarely with the total time allotted to play the game. And I agree that perhaps it should be more like 3 or 3.5 hours to allow armies with more models more time. But to claim that you DERSERVE more time than your opponent because of the army you voluntarily brought to the event is ridiculous. When an event advertises its format, you will know if you are capable of participating with your army. If not, you should choose a different one, or refrain from participating.
By far the easiest solution is to let every player have half the total time, and to enforce it. I'm open to any solution that does that. Chess clocks are fun and easy to learn and use. They don't work perfectly but they are still effective. I am entitled to be able to play as much of the game as you are. You don't deserve more time than me. Perhaps I play a list with less models precisely because i'm a slower player and like not to be so rushed? What right do you have to take the bulk of the time in our game? How is that equitable?
Right, great points, So what you are saying is that events with these clocks should just exclude Ork armies right now until our codex comes out because horde is literally the only way to play and have a chance at victory. Even the Gargantuan squiggoth list still had over 100 models.
So again, great idea in theory, crap in practice because some of us have to take ridiculous numbers in order to be competitive. NOW on the other hand, I'll be happy to sign up for Time clocks if you convince GW to unfeth the other 4/5ths of our index/codex so I can actually start playing with the rest of my army that has been collecting dust since 8th dropped.
Conversely, what about the other player who realizes he's playing against a horde army and has to accept that he only gets to play half of the total turns of the game? That's not fair either.
Tournaments have a time limit. They just do, and it's not going to change.
If you want to bring an army that takes forever to get through a turn to a timed event, that's on you. You either need to find a way to speed it up, or bring a different army.
That's rough, I know. I wish it wasn't this way. I wish 40k had a system that moved fast enough or that tournaments had a more sane point limit for the time allotted.
I agree 40K is not set up for chess clocks. It works fine in other games (Warmachine and KoW being the two rough equivalents I can think of), but that's because both of this games are much better suited for it. 40K is far too complicated, with too many phases, way too much dice rolling, and with too much back and forth between players in any one player turn to be really suitable for chess clocks let alone organized play in general.
But, the reality right now is not OK either. Lacking the ability to rewrite the rules, and apparently unwilling to just accept that the point limit needs to go way down, organized play is shifting the problem to the players to simply play faster. I guess we'll see how well it works.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Remember, the issue is not "learn the rules for your army". In most cases the problem is deliberately playing slow. Will chess clocks fix that? Maybe, but I think there also needs to be harsh penalties for it. Most people can tell when they are specifically being gamed by slow play and just someone taking a bit longer than normal.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
 Daedalus81 wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.
So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.
If your argument is that the rules make 40K hard to play in a reasonable time then the problem won't be solved by any means until the rules get fixed. So to all you TOs just pack up your events and wait for GW to fix everything.
How about a little personal responsibility? Learn the rules for your army and the general rules for the game. If you're unsure about the resolution of a rule contact the TO in advance. If you move slowly then practice. After that most things should take care of themselves.
You're comparing apples and strawmen there.
I don't see how. Many posters above keep saying that because chess has fewer pieces it is suitable for a game governed by timer rules. I'm just showing that fewer pieces doesn't mean less time for play.
The logical fallacy seems to be that because a player brings more models to the table than his opponent that he is entitled to/needs more time than his opponent. If this is the case it leads to problems when both players bring large numbers of models to the table. It also becomes a problem as both players lose models during the course of the game. Do you readjust clock usage as the model ratio changes? What happens when the person stating with the fewer models becomes the person with the larger amount of models? Does he get time back? Of course not, but that's the logical way to evenly divide the time allotment.
There can be no dispute that in an event there has to be a time limit on how long a game has to be played. The question seems to be how to ensure that each player has the same opportunity to participate as his opponent. The only method that has been suggested is a chess clock. I'd be open to other suggestions.
29836
Post by: Elbows
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.
102655
Post by: SemperMortis
Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
I own 1 army, Orkz. What build should I play instead of Horde that will be competitive and give me a chance to win? None? Ohh thats right, its not me bringing a annoying army because I want to be TFG its because GW did such a piss poor job designing my Army that the only competitive way to play is with a horde. When I play at tournaments I RUSH! I specifically ask opponents are you ok with me moving en mass rather then measuring every single model, I do everything in my power to SPEED the game up. The one thing I can not do though is not bring 100s of models and expect to have any kind of chance at winning. So I get you don't care about others, that is fine and is your right, just know that most Ork players don't want to be stuck into a horde play style, I miss my Speed Freakz and my Wagon Rush army.
29836
Post by: Elbows
Wayniac wrote: Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.
Tournaments "are" completely different from "Base 40K" though, that's why I don't really understand the issue here. 40K was not designed as a tournament game. The fact that the players keep trying to cram it into one doesn't really help things, so how can anyone be surprised when issues arise?
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
SemperMortis wrote: Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
I own 1 army, Orkz. What build should I play instead of Horde that will be competitive and give me a chance to win? None? Ohh thats right, its not me bringing a annoying army because I want to be TFG its because GW did such a piss poor job designing my Army that the only competitive way to play is with a horde. When I play at tournaments I RUSH! I specifically ask opponents are you ok with me moving en mass rather then measuring every single model, I do everything in my power to SPEED the game up. The one thing I can not do though is not bring 100s of models and expect to have any kind of chance at winning. So I get you don't care about others, that is fine and is your right, just know that most Ork players don't want to be stuck into a horde play style, I miss my Speed Freakz and my Wagon Rush army.
You're bringing your army that takes a long time to play to a timed event. Why do you think that means the other player should have increased time pressure on him because of your army selection?
29660
Post by: argonak
 A Town Called Malus wrote:SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
Now, why does that matter? If your army cannot complete the game in the time limit then it deserves to be penalised. But this way players who bring armies which could complete the game don't lose out just because someone else can't.
You want to penalize people for playing legal 40k thematic armies.
Why don’t we just lower the points for the armies? Sure that may prevent some low point cost armies from bringing all their toys, but if their units are expensive they deserve to be penalized. /s
34164
Post by: Tamwulf
Not a fan.
You think there are timing shenanigans now? Add a clock and you will be amazed at what you see. As a WM/H player, I hate the chess clock. I hate what it did to the game.
It dramatically affects your army list. Horde lists? Gone. Anything that takes a long time to resolve- gone. Someone above posted about line of sight and disputing it by clicking over the clock- you better believe there will be players that do exactly that.
What's being proposed is adding another facet to the game that it was not designed for.
It works like this:
Attacker on clock
Rolls hits and wounds
"Your unit takes this many wounds."
Switches clock to opponent
Defender rolls saves and removes casualties on his time
Switches clock back to attacker.
Click back:
"That die was cocked, please reroll it"
"How many dice did you just roll? You didn't count them off"
"You picked the dice up too fast for me to verify what you rolled"
"Did you factor in the -1 to hit from heavy weapons?"
Can you imagine what kind of game you would have I did that during every attack phase? What it would be like if I asked random questions about your army and clicked the clock over to you for an answer? If you did that during every phase? How do you think the Judge would handle it? Being called over all the time because your opponent keeps clocking over to you? Is that poor sportsmanship? Or is that using the rules?
The chess clock is the single worst thing to ever happen to WM/H, and it would be the same for Warhammer.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
The people that would do what you are suggesting are the same people who do other grey area/illegal/annoying things in the current system. There is no way to solve that problem short of banning them from events.
The purpose of the clock is to ensure that each side gets the same amount of time during a timed event. I know that people complain that their opponent took 1 1/2 hours of their 2 hour game and they still didn't finish the game. This will at least address that issue.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 Tamwulf wrote:
The chess clock is the single worst thing to ever happen to WM/H, and it would be the same for Warhammer.
Yet almost everyone in the community uses it and of the (many) complaints you jear about WMH it's never about the death clock. So you're probably in a minority there.
57098
Post by: carlos13th
I think it has potentially to unfairly punish horde armies and push the meta towards lower model count forces due to it taking less time to choose the actions of and move 20 models compared to 200. However if the time limit is long enough I don't see the issue. Could even work out something where you get a small time bonus for every x number of models above say 50.
In general though having something to keep the game moving and stop people staling and stop games running for hours and hours sounds like a positive.
40258
Post by: dkoz
SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
We can agree that it takes more time to move 200 models than it does to move 20 but now that we no longer have to worry about template weapons the time consuming positioning is less important in competitive games. 200 models may not be able to be moved as fast as 20 but they can be moved quick enough to complete a game in 1.5 hours.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Wait so if I'm a ork player, and find i can't play to finish cause im a naturally a slow player, so i swap over to a Custodes army, you still going to screw me over by taking my time for some reason?
117719
Post by: Sunny Side Up
It's stupid.
(Almost) every chess move is identical. You move one game piece. That's it. 99.999999999% of what the chess clock is there for is track time for thinking. Hell, I've seen people who hit the chess clock just before they actually move their piece. The time for physical moving the game piece isn't really what matters.
In 40K, people in tournaments are rarely just standing there thinking for half an hour (if they do, fair enough, get a chess clock). The vast majority of time is logistics: measurements, dice rolls, etc.. and a lot of it is done by both players in either players turns (so what if I just think about 30 minutes on whether or not I use a defensive stratagem to react to your deep strike or you shooting at my units?). It just doesn't translate well to the clock that isn't designed for that kind of game.
118333
Post by: Cryogenicman
The "I deserve more time than you" argument still persists and must be put down for any progress to be made. This is the first step.The underlying assumption here is that we want all games to complete through turn 6.
It is as obvious as the nose on your face that if a horde army who needs more than half the time matches up with another horde army who also needs more than half the time, you won't complete the game. This is basically the nail in the coffin for the "I deserve more time than you" argument. For those of you who still labor under the assumption that it can still work if we make it really complicated, consider this: If we have some sort of "how-much-time-you-actually-deserve" comparative calculation, And you match up with an army smaller than yours, then you would get more time (yay!) But if you match up with an army larger than yours (totally possible btw) then you would get less than half the total time. And if you can play the game in the shorter amount of time, you can play with that much time in ALL cases. If you simply cannot do it, then your army, or speed of play, was incompatible with the tournament format. (For which you would blame the format, and vote with your feet, supporting tournaments that provide enough time for all players.)
This is to say nothing of the practical problems that would be created in a large tournament by trying to calculate exactly how much time each player should get (Which by the way would still amusingly require some way of measuring that time) and then trying to enforce a different standard on each table.
When you are preparing to go to a tournament you must do so by being ready to play 6 turns in half the time or less. That is a requirement for preparation. If you need more than half the time in the game, it can easily lead to the unacceptable situation where the game is not completed, which is unfair to your opponent.
If for some reason you don't want all games to go through turn 6 then you are a part of the problem.
Stated again: There is no good reason for another player to deserve more time than his opponent IN A TOURNAMENT. If you disagree, please try to explain.
59141
Post by: Elemental
Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?
66539
Post by: greyknight12
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.
So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.
Or, so much for the idea that chess clocks enable faster, more competitive play.
At the beginning of 8th, it was arbitrarily decided that we’d do 2000 points in 2.5 hours (7th was 1850 in 2.5ish). We can all acknowledge that the game and meta has changed with the introduction of codecies, but we can’t acknowledge that an initial guess on game size/length made when everyone had an Index might have been wrong?
I’m not against chess clocks, IF we can make sure the game is the right size and length first. Competitive chess gets 6 hours. My problem is with a tournament organizer (in this case the biggest one) saying the best solution is “you all need to be reminded to play our game faster”.
118333
Post by: Cryogenicman
 Elemental wrote:Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?
I've played with clocks, and I found it to be fun and effective. However, I don't think many people will find my opinion very helpful. I'd rather argue in their support based on their intrinsic merit.
94958
Post by: secretForge
I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
secretForge wrote:I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.
94958
Post by: secretForge
Sim-Life wrote:secretForge wrote:I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.
Exactly, which means that there is an additional barrier to entry for people. Which is not something I like.
116040
Post by: NurglesR0T
Sim-Life wrote:secretForge wrote:I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.
Exactly. If someone brought a chess clock into a store for a pickup game and wanted to use it I can see them being left alone very quickly.
Outside of the US, ITC type missions are rare so I doubt this will effect me in any way. (not to say that ITC is not played, but it seems like its more accepted universally in the States) Automatically Appended Next Post: secretForge wrote: Sim-Life wrote:secretForge wrote:I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.
Exactly, which means that there is an additional barrier to entry for people. Which is not something I like.
I don't see it as a barrier to entry. If you wanted to sign up for any tournament you would need to download the mission pack and learn the rules etc that the tournament would be using. You'd do the same with this.
(for the record, I still think clocks are a terrible idea for 40k and just as open to abuse as any other shenanigans, TFG's would implement.)
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Elbows wrote:Wayniac wrote: Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.
Tournaments "are" completely different from "Base 40K" though, that's why I don't really understand the issue here. 40K was not designed as a tournament game. The fact that the players keep trying to cram it into one doesn't really help things, so how can anyone be surprised when issues arise?
I think GW should come up with a tournament ruleset so those of us who don't play in them don't have to deal with all the BS they breed.
there should be a divide between the two. I have no interest in competitive play and hate when I'm playing a pick up game against someone practicing for a tourney.
I really like the idea of PL for fun and points for competitive. I'm not going to cheese and like my army pretty much staying the same.
40258
Post by: dkoz
I don't think the issue is that 40K wasn't designed as a tournament game so much at that non-competitive players keep trying to impose their desire for a non-competitive seen on everyone. I like a more narrative/fluff style game more often then not but I always ensure I talk to my opponents before hand to decide what kind of game we're going to have. Now if chess clocks help keep games moving faster and I can't see how they won't it only good for competitive play.
73016
Post by: auticus
Elemental wrote:Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?
I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
But your experience doesn't count. It doesn't conform with the view that clocks can't work in 40K. Therefore it's merely anecdotal.
73016
Post by: auticus
Thats because those people don't want to use clocks and will disregard anything that says otherwise lol.
113112
Post by: Reemule
secretForge wrote:I have two concerns here.
1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.
2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.
Just what social aspects are you worried about losing?
3750
Post by: Wayniac
auticus wrote: Elemental wrote:Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?
I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.
With all due respect though, you should know that one person's experience doesn't exactly mean much. I am skeptical about the clock just because of the potential for abuse and the potential to rush. I just played a game last night against Orks with my Death Guard/Nurgle Daemon list and both of us had quite a few models (I had 2x20 poxwalkers and 1x30 plaguebearer blobs as the main portion, he had masses of boyz as is tradition) and moving them was super annoying; I could only imagine how bad it would be if I was being timed to move everything.
I get the reason behind chess clocks, but I think it will encourage sloppy play for 40k. You already rarely measure each model to check coherency and whatnot (at least, everyone I play with does), as long as it "looks good enough" it tends to be accepted. I am most curious though if this helps fix the "horde meta" and if that is secretly a reason for wanting to push it.
What I also find very peculiar is that you don't see any of these issues with AOS. There have been no accusations of slow play (at least not that I can tell), no talk of using a clock, none of the problems that come up with 40k. Why is this, I wonder?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Peregrine wrote:
The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.
And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to " 40k game night" at the local game store.
91362
Post by: DCannon4Life
It's only the first turn, or first two turns, that are highly problematic. Solution, if you feel one is necessary, is to put a timer (not a clock per se) on the first two turns, say 25 minutes each. When your timer runs out, your turn is over. The rest of the game plays as normal. A potential consequence (in addition to games getting into turns 3+), could be that Alpha Strikes would be blunted. One of the reasons Alpha Strikes are so powerful is that players get to do 'everything'; move & bring in reserves, psychic phase, shooting phase, and assault. If you only have 25 minutes, you would need to play with amazing efficiency to get the most out of each of your first turn phases.
73016
Post by: auticus
Wayniac wrote: auticus wrote: Elemental wrote:Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?
I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.
With all due respect though, you should know that one person's experience doesn't exactly mean much. I am skeptical about the clock just because of the potential for abuse and the potential to rush. I just played a game last night against Orks with my Death Guard/Nurgle Daemon list and both of us had quite a few models (I had 2x20 poxwalkers and 1x30 plaguebearer blobs as the main portion, he had masses of boyz as is tradition) and moving them was super annoying; I could only imagine how bad it would be if I was being timed to move everything.
I get the reason behind chess clocks, but I think it will encourage sloppy play for 40k. You already rarely measure each model to check coherency and whatnot (at least, everyone I play with does), as long as it "looks good enough" it tends to be accepted. I am most curious though if this helps fix the "horde meta" and if that is secretly a reason for wanting to push it.
What I also find very peculiar is that you don't see any of these issues with AOS. There have been no accusations of slow play (at least not that I can tell), no talk of using a clock, none of the problems that come up with 40k. Why is this, I wonder?
Slow play is indeed a thing in AOS as well depending on the type of scenarios being used. You may not hear a lot about it because AOS tournament play in the states is a rare thing (indeed AOS iin general in the states is a rare thing). If the scenario is about points though slow-play does come creeping in.
And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to "40k game night" at the local game store.
This is very true.
113112
Post by: Reemule
I think you discussed the cut between the two ideas though already.
If you and your mates are just goofing off playing an Apoc game with all Saturday before you… go do that.
I think the real issue for people is that if Tournaments start to require Timeclocks (and they will I think) then how long does it pass till they are expected to be used in every game… as people are generally locked into a cycle of prepping for the next tourney I find.
This is a valid fear, and perhaps the only one I respect in the Chess clock debate. But there are some mitigations.
Play with the clock anyway. Believe it or not there are a big bunch of people that don’t mind having a tight fast paced game to enjoy. Most of us have wife/kids/work the next day. Finishing a game in the allotted time isn’t a bad experience. Kibitz on facebook about the game later.
Another is clocks don’t have to be double sided. If someone is adamant they don’t want to play, I can set it up and use it to track my side and my time elapsed. This allows me to get my practice in, while satisfying both sides.
And the clock doesn’t have to kill your fun. If you’re playing and having a good time, and the clock dings, keep playing if it’s a casual game. Play it out, see what happens. I’ve even done this at tourneys when we had some extra time.
The clock is just a tool like a movement template or a print out of your army list. It’s there to make the game better. It is going to change the meta. That is unavoidable. But it’s going to be a good change, and you don’t have to view it as a bad change.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
DCannon4Life wrote:It's only the first turn, or first two turns, that are highly problematic. Solution, if you feel one is necessary, is to put a timer (not a clock per se) on the first two turns, say 25 minutes each. When your timer runs out, your turn is over. The rest of the game plays as normal. A potential consequence (in addition to games getting into turns 3+), could be that Alpha Strikes would be blunted. One of the reasons Alpha Strikes are so powerful is that players get to do 'everything'; move & bring in reserves, psychic phase, shooting phase, and assault. If you only have 25 minutes, you would need to play with amazing efficiency to get the most out of each of your first turn phases.
Correction: the first turn is the critical one if you're talking about two players making a good-faith effort to finish the game but struggling to get everything done fast enough. It is not the most problematic one if you're talking about deliberately slow playing to stall for time and win the game. You normally don't see slow play happening early in the game for the same reason that you don't see sports teams trying to run out the clock as soon as the game begins: at the start of the game you don't know if, at the end of the game, you're going to be the player with a lead trying to protect it until the clock expires or the player at a disadvantage scrambling to score enough to make a comeback before time runs out. You don't start stalling until you see that you're in a situation where it will benefit you to waste clock time instead of hurting you, so that makes clocking the late turns just as important, if not more so, as the first turn.
Also, setting the clock so short that "you don't have time to finish everything" is a deliberate and frequent occurrence is a really bad idea. It's immensely frustrating to run out of time, creates massive balance issues between armies that take different amounts of time to resolve their alpha strikes, and guarantees that clock arguments will happen every game because even tiny amounts of wasted time can have a huge penalty. Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, let me get this straight: your proposed solution to hating the experience of playing with clocks is "deal with it, play with the clock anyway"?
Another is clocks don’t have to be double sided. If someone is adamant they don’t want to play, I can set it up and use it to track my side and my time elapsed. This allows me to get my practice in, while satisfying both sides.
Even if only one clock is running it still damages the social experience. The clocked player is forced to focus 100% on efficient play, so the un-clocked player isn't going to have any social activity from them.
If you’re playing and having a good time, and the clock dings, keep playing if it’s a casual game.
What's the point in using a clock if you're just going to ignore it? If you're willing to ignore the time limit and keep playing then just skip the pointless clock entirely.
Play it out, see what happens. I’ve even done this at tourneys when we had some extra time.
I can't imagine this ever happening. If the clock runs out in my favor the game is over, I'm taking my win. I'm not going to keep playing and risk turning a win into a loss. At most I might accept that we record the outcome as a win for me, and keep playing just for fun. But even then I'd probably rather take the extra time to rest and prepare for the next game.
111337
Post by: AaronWilson
This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Peregrine, I had a response and decided to kill it. I don't think your making sense. You talk about how the social aspect is all fun, but if a clock dings your killing the game to keep your win.
The clock is coming. Its too nice for the tournament scene. It makes things so much better for a T.O. that your going to see them.
All you can control is how you deal with them being here.
Good luck.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
Use movement trays for early turn movement. I do.
34164
Post by: Tamwulf
 AaronWilson wrote:This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.
If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?
111337
Post by: AaronWilson
Tamwulf wrote: AaronWilson wrote:This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.
If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?
To ensure people that are slow playing on purpose are punished and nothing more. As I said, 99% of people who are going out to a event wouldn't try and "game" the clock like all these ridiculous situations that have been put across.
Great example - someone said about people trying to use LoS issues to burn down a clock. Here's what would happen in nearly every other situation -
Player A - Can I see this model
Player B - Yes / no.
Done.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
ITC needs to focus on a better scoring system first. Chess clocks are a reaction to people slow playing to game the current scoring system. If you were truly punished for not finishing a game, then the TFGs of the competitive world are certainly not going to slow play. I hate the idea of chess clocks. I don't look forward to them, but I'm not worried about using them. I do think they will be an unwelcome distraction.
I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.
Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Tamwulf wrote: AaronWilson wrote:This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.
If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?
I actually think they do a fantastic job of politely demonstrating to players that they're slower than they think they are. I rarely run into a true 'slow player' who's doing it intentionally and more often run into people who just naturally play slower (which in a timed event is frustrating). I do play a large horde army so time management is very important to me and making sure I get my fair share is also very important. Ultimately I've played with Chess Clocks for a few months now (just as a matter of speeding up my own play) and I've not had a negative experience with them. They've moed me from getting 3 turns in 2.5 hours to getting 5 in the same time frame. Automatically Appended Next Post: deviantduck wrote:ITC needs to focus on a better scoring system first. Chess clocks are a reaction to people slow playing to game the current scoring system. If you were truly punished for not finishing a game, then the TFGs of the competitive world are certainly not going to slow play. I hate the idea of chess clocks. I don't look forward to them, but I'm not worried about using them. I do think they will be an unwelcome distraction.
I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.
Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.
Baseball is moving more and more towards time limits in a variety of ways. Most of that is because of the financial impact of 4+ hour games but they are doing things consistently to speed up the game.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
deviantduck wrote:I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.
Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.
I'm sorry I don't see Peregrine's issue. I presume it goes something on the lines of one player constantly questioning lines of sight. This issue is easy to solve. Call a judge over, it's blatantly obvious that the other player is stalling and/or obfuscating for no good reason and the judge should warn/DQ them for it. That is not a clock issue, it's a TFG issue (and could be done with or without a clock present).
As to baseball they now have a clock on time between pitches and how long you have for conferences on the mound and MLB has instructed umpires not to grant time out to a batter any time they ask for it.
Things change. Either adapt, adopt or, perish.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Farseer_V2 wrote:SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
Use movement trays for early turn movement. I do.
Yes movement trays are useful and do help but I dot even think they're that necessary. No you don't want to cheat by moving to far but after you move the 1st few models the rest can just pile in fairly quickly behind.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
dkoz wrote: Yes movement trays are useful and do help but I dot even think they're that necessary. No you don't want to cheat by moving to far but after you move the 1st few models the rest can just pile in fairly quickly behind.
Also true, I fortunately have access to a 3D printer so I just knocked a few out and I use them for quick set up and deployment. Most of the time I'll take 10 and actually stretch them out for zoning purpose and just place the other 2 trays behind the unit.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote: Peregrine wrote:
The idea of playing a game while hanging out and talking, having a snack, etc. Chess clocks force you to dedicate your attention 100% to the game and playing as efficiently as possible, and any time you aren't on the clock you're carefully watching to make sure that your opponent doesn't put you back on the clock when they shouldn't, and constantly ready to jump in and execute your own actions as fast as possible once they legitimately put you back on the clock. Sure, the social factor isn't as important in a timed tournament, but it sure makes a difference if chess clocks become the norm outside of those tournaments.
And, let's face it: If chess clocks become the "tournament standard" thanks to ITC, you'll see chess clocks everywhere from LVO prep games to " 40k game night" at the local game store.
I played at a local tournament a couple weeks ago. I was really annoyed how my opponent didn't pay attention to the things I was doing and was casually conversing with others or browsing his phone occasionally. At least give me the courtesy of your attention so that I can complete my turn.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Leo_the_Rat wrote: deviantduck wrote:I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.
Also, it's like putting a timer on a baseball game. We have a game that is based on rounds and being forced to adhere to a time schedule to try and force those rounds in when sometimes it's just not possible.
The LOS issue is covered by the when you call a judge over you pause the clock. Also judges will be able to see what games might be a little more contentious by how much time is still on the clock and stay a little closer and even encourage the players to move it along a little.
90463
Post by: Zingraff
I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.
If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
 Zingraff wrote:I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.
If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.
Of course the clock can be adjusted to do that but why should it?
Its not about giving extra minutes to the player with more models - it's about taking time from the other player to give to the player with more models.
113112
Post by: Reemule
deviantduck wrote:
I do like how not a single chess clock supporter had a single reply to Peregrine's LOS clock issue. I guess because there isn't one? The best part is that's one example of many. There are too many interactions that require back and forth and abstract exchanges that can be exploited.
I didn't answer it because its not an issue. He asks, I shine the laser, make my roll. If he contests, I call the judge on my time. Judge makes the call. If it happens again, I ask the judge to stay and if I can't flip the clock to his time when he asks for this clarification. Next time it happens, I flip the clock to his time, and shine the laser for him, ask him to call the judge if he isn't happy with this.
I think the real question is... are the clocks a good defense against jerks? Absolutely not. That is why no one is saying clocks replace judges.
I've been playing wargames for 25 years. I think I've met maybe 3 or 4 players that fall into this category. They tend to weed themselves from the game rather quickly. Its not like this game is anonymous.
So I get the idea is that your searching for the issue that clock proponents come back and say Can't be done, and then it came be trumped long and loud, well it can't even deal with Whatever narrow edge case...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zingraff wrote:I'm not opposed to chess clocks in general, but in 40k, where you often encounter asymmetrical forces, a chess clock would be unfairly disadvantageous to the player with the materially largest force, such as IG or Orks.
If you had a clock which could be adjusted to allow the player with the largest army more time than his opponent, I would be all for chess clocks. You could develop an easy formula to determine how many extra minutes you get per model above a certain threshold.
This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?
What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?
No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.
90463
Post by: Zingraff
From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.
I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.
I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:
1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Zingraff wrote:From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.
I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.
I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:
1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.
OR! You just learn to play your horde faster, skip unimportant actions, pre-plan phases, use game aides more effectively, etc.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Zingraff wrote:From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.
I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.
I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:
1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.
How many models does it take to trigger "asymetrical"? If I have 1 more model than my opponent do I get more time than him? How about 10? 20? You are choosing to field a large model count army. Why should I have to give up time to compensate you for your choice. If I have an elite army does that mean that I'm automatically getting to go first and/or choose which side of the table I get? What is your penalty for choosing a large army? Oh, maybe it's that you have less time per model to do things.
90463
Post by: Zingraff
Reemule wrote:This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?
What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?
No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.
Yes! Slower players should always be punished! 
Why are you a "slower player"? If you've entered a tournament, you should be expected to be able to carry out the game with some degree of finesse and efficiency. Playing slowly on purpose is seriously disrespectful to your opponent(s), and one of the worst habits you can exhibit in any miniature or board game.
Either way, that's not what I was describing at all! If you have 30 dudes and I have 90, and we both spend X amount of time moving our game pieces, then you will spend 30X to my 90X number of minutes doing that. It's really very simple, and just one example of why a numerically larger force will take more time to play.
Also, I will not stop suggesting my idea! There's no such thing as 110%. If both armies are abnormally large, then the time allotted to their game will most likely be divided evenly between them, and they will probably find themselves running out of time.
118333
Post by: Cryogenicman
@ Zingraff
Some people just have bad ideas and we can only be glad they're not in charge of anything.
I think we've pointed out exactly why that won't work if you bother to go back a page or two and read.
If you can magically play in half the time against a mirror match, then you can do it every game. if you can't complete a game against a mirror match then you should not have participated in the event with that army. Maybe it's on you or maybe it's on the TO for making rounds too short. But you cannot reasonably expect more time than your opponent.
Thankfully it seems that TO's will be dividing time equally.
And hey! with that extra time you gain from the player with less models finishing a bit faster than you, you can get your socialization on. Win Win.
90463
Post by: Zingraff
Leo_the_Rat wrote:How many models does it take to trigger "asymetrical"? If I have 1 more model than my opponent do I get more time than him? How about 10? 20? You are choosing to field a large model count army. Why should I have to give up time to compensate you for your choice. If I have an elite army does that mean that I'm automatically getting to go first and/or choose which side of the table I get? What is your penalty for choosing a large army? Oh, maybe it's that you have less time per model to do things.
You could count the number of models; infantry, vehicles, weapon teams, etc. Vehicles might count 2-3 times. Add modifiers for Orks and Tyranids, because they need to move a lot. This will help you assess the expected amount of time needed to play that particular list adequately.
Bear in mind, I wrote "generous threshold". If for example each game is set to take 160 minutes, then both players would normally have 80 minutes each. If one army is significantly numerically larger than the other, he could get perhaps as much as 90 minutes, and his opponents would have his time reduced to 70 minutes. You wouldn't really notice having your time reduced by 10 minutes because of the way 40k is designed with defensive dice rolls taking place during your opponent's turn, and it would relieve your opponent of a lot of unnecessary pressure.
However, the majority of "horde" faction army shouldn't receive more than 5 extra minutes, so you're looking at 85/75 minutes on average.
The obvious penalty for bringing a numerically large army to a tournament or event, should always be the risk of running out of time. I'm on board with the chess clock, as long as it doesn't punish certain factions.
7684
Post by: Rune Stonegrinder
I am unfamiliar with what happen at LVO, I assume people were slow playing to prevent a new turn that will harm them.
This is dumb its only going cause more issues than it will solve.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Zingraff wrote:Reemule wrote:This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?
What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?
No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.
Yes! Slower players should always be punished!
Why are you a "slower player"? If you've entered a tournament, you should be expected to be able to carry out the game with some degree of finesse and efficiency. Playing slowly on purpose is seriously disrespectful to your opponent(s), and one of the worst habits you can exhibit in any miniature or board game.
Either way, that's not what I was describing at all! If you have 30 dudes and I have 90, and we both spend X amount of time moving our game pieces, then you will spend 30X to my 90X number of minutes doing that. It's really very simple, and just one example of why a numerically larger force will take more time to play.
Also, I will not stop suggesting my idea! There's no such thing as 110%. If both armies are abnormally large, then the time allotted to their game will most likely be divided evenly between them, and they will probably find themselves running out of time.
Congrats on your trolling. I won't feed you any longer.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Tamwulf wrote: AaronWilson wrote:This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.
If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?
Because to many games are not finishing on time and even someone who has no intention at all to slowplay will notice that they play faster when the clock exists to remind them of their time.
Stopping slowplay is just a big added benefit, but the real goal is simply to help games reach their natural conclusion. Automatically Appended Next Post: Zingraff wrote:From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.
I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.
I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:
1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.
We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
According to Zingraff it's only fair if the larger army gets more time than the smaller army (in terms of model count). Since larger armies take more time to do things like move, shoot and/or, melee.
It doesn't matter that they also probably have an advantage of more weapons, attacks and/or, wounds. Also more screening of major models and the opponent needing more time to decide target priority (wait that last thing isn't important to his P.O.V.).
Nope, all that matters is the disadvantage you have by playing a larger army.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Ordana wrote:
We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?
Only when people honestly answer this question is when can we move forward.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Daedalus81 wrote: Ordana wrote:
We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?
Only when people honestly answer this question is when can we move forward.
Actually, it's even worse than that.
Why does one player deserve to have some of the other player's time taken away and given to them instead?
If it was "extra" time as some people have disingenuously suggested that might be reasonable (albeit impractical) but it's not.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/ LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.
I played in the 1997 Canadian Grand Tournament (2nd Ed, 1500 points). Running out of time was simply unheard of back then. I think that there are simply too many models now at 2000 points for the 2.5 to 3 hr competitive format. There may also be some incentives for folks to play slow in ITC tournaments? Perhaps the organizers could study those incentives and find an more elegant solution than chess clocks?
Having said all that, I cannot understand why somebody would expect to get to use more time than the other player if time is a limited commodity. You know its a time-limited format and you chose your list. Perhaps horde players worried about chess clocks have already been counting on taking more time than their opponents? Otherwise they shouldn't be worried. 
26738
Post by: silashand
Cryogenicman wrote:Insularum wrote:In principle I'm against the use of player clocks as a direct control over game length, as it creates a built in advantage to low model count armies that has nothing to do with player skill or the absence/presence of intentional slow play.
The thing is, chess clocks don't create an advantage for low model count armies. They just limit each player to half of the available time. The real constraint is the overall time limit, determined by the tournament format, which has nothing to do with how that time is measured. If you are unable to play 6 turns in half the available time, you are bringing the wrong army to that event. Or perhaps you need more practice on how to play faster.
Can you really stand on an argument where you claim to deserve more than half the available time? Just imagine saying it out loud, or hearing it: "I deserve more time than you because ________". And if you had a mirror matchup, what then? Do you both deserve more than half of the available time?
I totally get it if people think that the allotted time is too short to play in. but let's direct that criticism to the time limits established for an event, or to a players particular ability. Chess clocks don't have anything to do with it.
This. I will not play in a competitive 40K event again unless they use chess clocks. I have been slow played one too many times, the last by an opponent who monopolized time during the game such that I didn't even get my turn 4, and he still used up the vast majority of time. In a two hour game I got roughly 30 minutes of play time. Tell me how that was equitable? If you can't play your army in half the allotted time, then don't bring it to the event. Don't like that? Too bad.
auticus wrote:I played a 200+ model count IG army with chess clocks in play and I did just fine.
The reason for chess clocks is purely to stop intentional slow play.
It shouldn't matter if horde armies need more of the chess clock. IF I have to choose between horde players having to get a little faster vs the rampant douchebaggery of intentional slow play that is a regular thing, I'll choose the chess clock every time.
My point exactly.
40258
Post by: dkoz
I don't see how giving people equal time isn't fair, in all competitive events I'm aware of each side gets the same amount of time.
113112
Post by: Reemule
One thing that I’ve not heard discussed in the cost. Cheapest ones I’ve seen are in the $20 range. When the local warmachine started into Chess clocks, we ran 3 tourneys with $10 entry fees to purchase 10 clocks. And many players bought their own.
Something thing like that is a factor. But as I already own 2 clocks, it’s not a big deal I think.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
dkoz wrote:I don't see how giving people equal time isn't fair, in all competitive events I'm aware of each side gets the same amount of time.
It 100% is fair and I say that as a horde player. I picked my army knowing I'd get 75~ minutes of a 2.5 hour game. It is incumbent upon me to either be able to play that army in that time frame or to choose a different army. I honestly think a thing people are missing here is this is about tournaments, not your local. At your local no one wants to punish you for for playing a horde army and taking more time but at a tournament the time limit is the time limit, you have to be able to function within it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Reemule wrote:One thing that I’ve not heard discussed in the cost. Cheapest ones I’ve seen are in the $20 range. When the local warmachine started into Chess clocks, we ran 3 tourneys with $10 entry fees to purchase 10 clocks. And many players bought their own.
Something thing like that is a factor. But as I already own 2 clocks, it’s not a big deal I think.
We've talked about it and yeah we just plan to bump the cost of a few events to cover our club having a pool of available ones (and of course I'm sure people will pick up their own as well).
40258
Post by: dkoz
There are also several free chess clock apps that are good. If you know the majority of you normal players have smart phones you wouldn't even have to buy that many right away.
119009
Post by: BWGCannonball
Chess clocks (or Death Clocks as sometimes noted) are going to be a great addition for time management for a Tournament environment.
As previously stated, each player should have the same amount of time in a game. Many have mentioned that large armies shouldn't be penalized, however small armies shouldn't be penalized either to have to wait hours at a time for the other player to get through -their- phase because that's the army they wanted to play. The opponent with the smaller army didn't make you choose a horde list, it's the list you wanted to play.
Ontop of that, I too am a horde Guard player that's able to get my times in check. It just takes planning. I understand not wanting to feel rushed, which is fine for a non-competitive environment. However, in a tournament setting a player should be knowledgeable enough for their own armies to be able to move quicker through turns and not waste other peoples' time and patience. It is honestly mind-numbing to sit and watch someone contemplate their every minute decision while mowing through your units.
107281
Post by: LunarSol
TangoTwoBravo wrote:I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/ LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.
I've actually found it to be the opposite. Passing the clock between players familiar with the clock has a certain formality to it that actually a sort of well mannered "after you" moment where a player locks in their decision to pass on something optional by shipping the clock back. Someone passes me the time, asking if I want to do... whatever, and I say no thank you and flip it back. Honestly, I've played chess clock games that are among the most "pinkies out" affair this side of a Tzeentch mirror match.
The main advantage of chess clock systems is simply that they largely keep the responsibility of time management isolated to the player affected. I can play a large model count army if I want, but if I do its my responsibility to play that army faster. It also grants the freedom to determine how I accomplish this by playing the first turn positioning game faster or simply knowing my stats better to resolve rolls quickly.
I look at it this way. If I clock out, it has a big impact on my game, but the impact is to me and the responsibility and capability of adjusting to improve is entirely on me. If a game ends on time and goes to tie breakers... there might not be anything I could have done to improve. Worse yet, I might win and be rewarded for not keeping up with the rest of the players and being respectful of their time. The big big reason chess clocks work is that despite having a larger potential impact on the game at the end, they create a game that rewards the exact same play that wins your everyday untimed game.... assuming you can complete an untimed game in the window provided by a tournament of course.
In general I like chess clocks because I have all my time up front and can freely distribute it across my turns as I see fit. It feels more organic and closest to the way games play casually. Ultimately it just says, learn to get your game done; which is the real goal of any timer system anyway.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
I only wish Fantasy Tournaments had implemented this rule back when it existed! I only recently got back into 40k, but between my experience in both 40k tourneys (admitedly limited) and fantasy (extensive and slow play was very much an issue in that game too, no matter the edition), I can say that in general slow play has much less to do with the army and much more to do with the player. horde armies are not an excuse. I have seen some players that played massive lists with a lot of complex and intricate movement tactics involved who never failed to finish a game, while I have seen armies of under 40 models in a 2.5k fantasy tourney struggle to get past turn 3.
It is almost always the player, whether intentional or not, who is the issue.
It is about:
A. knowing the games rules
B. knowing your army's rules
C. Having a working knowledge of the other armies in the game (this very much comes with D)
D. Practice
E. Being prepared (IE having right amount of dice, movement trays, etc etc).
F. Time management (Stop overthinking dumb things) this one especially applies to top players. Always know your priorities based on the length of the game and how much time you need to finish.
That is all. Chess Clocks help to require this combination of knowledge, skill and practice. They should be required of anyone hoping to win a tourney. I have never seen someone or their opponent not finish a game in 2.5 hours who didn't fall into one of these categories (or intentionally slow play it), in any tabletop game I have played. I have never seen it happen because they just had too many dice to roll, never. If your casual or new, it is just a new part of the experience that you can learn from and easily adapt to. For the tourney player, if you run out of time you have failed in an important aspect of this game, its not bias against your horde, figure out what ate up your time and fix it for the next tourney. I always take pride at a tourney, win or lose, if I finish all of my games early. It almost always means my opponent and I played an efficient and argument free game, and best part it means I get to watch some of the other games before the next round.
113969
Post by: TangoTwoBravo
 LunarSol wrote:TangoTwoBravo wrote:I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/ LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.
I've actually found it to be the opposite. Passing the clock between players familiar with the clock has a certain formality to it that actually a sort of well mannered "after you" moment where a player locks in their decision to pass on something optional by shipping the clock back. Someone passes me the time, asking if I want to do... whatever, and I say no thank you and flip it back. Honestly, I've played chess clock games that are among the most "pinkies out" affair this side of a Tzeentch mirror match.
The main advantage of chess clock systems is simply that they largely keep the responsibility of time management isolated to the player affected. I can play a large model count army if I want, but if I do its my responsibility to play that army faster. It also grants the freedom to determine how I accomplish this by playing the first turn positioning game faster or simply knowing my stats better to resolve rolls quickly.
I look at it this way. If I clock out, it has a big impact on my game, but the impact is to me and the responsibility and capability of adjusting to improve is entirely on me. If a game ends on time and goes to tie breakers... there might not be anything I could have done to improve. Worse yet, I might win and be rewarded for not keeping up with the rest of the players and being respectful of their time. The big big reason chess clocks work is that despite having a larger potential impact on the game at the end, they create a game that rewards the exact same play that wins your everyday untimed game.... assuming you can complete an untimed game in the window provided by a tournament of course.
In general I like chess clocks because I have all my time up front and can freely distribute it across my turns as I see fit. It feels more organic and closest to the way games play casually. Ultimately it just says, learn to get your game done; which is the real goal of any timer system anyway.
That's encouraging to hear. I suppose I should try a chess clock out a few times before hitting the panic button! I have not had a timing out problem in local tourneys yet, but I know a few guys only got one and a half turns done at our last one. A chess clock probably couldn't have hurt their game experience and might have helped.
60684
Post by: Drager
Maybe the problem is more an ITC thing? That format seems to play slower and have needles extra complication with no great upside. I hardly ever play it though as it's not a common tournament format here, thankfully.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Anyone arguing that they deserve more time for play a horde army is part of the reason im so in favor of chess clocks (i play guard with mass infantry, played an all goblin army in WHFB and am planning on playing tyranids next so i have always played horde). Just because i choose to bring more models then you in no way means i have more of a right to monopolize the set time at a tournament. I was the main practice partner for my friend who went to LVO and we never didn't make it past turn 5 in a game and i can honestly say the majority of my turns were faster. If you know your units stats and are proactively thinking about what you want to accomplish in your turn during there turn you should be able to fit an entire game length in no matter the size of your army.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.
These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.
A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.
I do not support this implementation.
6775
Post by: 9breaker
It has been used in other games (like PP and their death clock), and it becomes part of the rules for some competitive formats in those games. If a tournament you sign up for explicitly states that they are using a means to measure your play time, and it may affect the outcome of the tournament, then you should design a list based on the rules given and applied to everyone. If you consciously bring a massive horde army to a timed tournament, then you are self-imposing a handicap to yourself. If you are skilled enough of a player, then you should be able to play around it, or allow tools to aid in faster play (movement trays).
There are ways to tweak the rules. Perhaps awarding points based on the difference in time played, rather than losing if your time runs out. If you play (for example) 20 minutes less than your opponent, then you are awarded "X" extra points, and every 10 minutes beyond that, an extra "Y" points. This would award players for faster play. If two players bring an equally sized army, and we are seeing these huge discrepancies, then the faster player is rewarded.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.
These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.
A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.
I do not support this implementation.
The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.
The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.
It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.
40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.
A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.
These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.
A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.
I do not support this implementation.
The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.
That's just not true, 2.5 hours is nothing. If you take 30 minutes to accomplish all pregame activities, that leaves you two hours for 5 turns. All you do with clocks is force people to skip certain actions.
Can you please explain how ending at turn 4 is somehow an artificial conclusion that doesn't reflect the games design, yet forcing one player to skip activating a huge chunk of his force is not?
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.
The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.
It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.
40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.
A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.
These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.
A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.
I do not support this implementation.
The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.
That's just not true, 2.5 hours is nothing. If you take 30 minutes to accomplish all pregame activities, that leaves you two hours for 5 turns. All you do with clocks is force people to skip certain actions.
Can you please explain how ending at turn 4 is somehow an artificial conclusion that doesn't reflect the games design, yet forcing one player to skip activating a huge chunk of his force is not?
Firstly your entire assumption is wrong.
You are assuming that
>2.5 hour is not enough time to finish a game of 40k without skipping steps
This is 100% false as i helped my friend practice for LVO and out of the 8-10 timed games we played only one ended on turn 5 because we didnt finish and it was because we were talking to much about the super bowl party we were going to attend that night.
The fact is that 2.5 hours is plenty of time to finish the game if both players know that stats for there units and aren't sitting there strategizing too long (this is your own fault if you cannot make decisions quick enough and that's on you not your opponent). Not playing to the natural conclusion of the game cheats certain armies especial those that aren't gun lines because they often cannot bring the true strength of there army to bear until turns 2-3 so you are cheating them out of optimal turns by ending the game early. If you are really incapable of playing your army quick enough then it is on you to either
A. bring an army you can manage
B. forfit your later turns because of your slow play
C. simply dont play in tournaments with a set amount of time
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Your post doesn't address the core question I raised, which is how your view of 40k is some how better than mine, wherein games sometimes end before turn 5. I don't agree with the premise that 40k needs to go turn 5 in every game, and frankly I don't see why it should ever go past turn 5. Assuming you can always get 5 turns because you helped someone practice for the LVO... come on man. You may as well say, "I did this thing once therefore it has become the standard."
Things shake out quite a bit different in an actual event. There are discussions around rules, stat profiles, line of sight, measurements, ranges, the list goes on. People don't always play by the rules (intentionally or unintentionally) and auditing that takes time.
Lastly you haven't made a case that chess clocks will actually increase the number of turns. People getting equal time in a perfect world doesn't mean games go to turn 5. If the goal is an equal number of turns, I do not believe the chess clock accomplishes this. Although it does give people an opportunity to be TFG and game the system.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
TFGs don't need the clock as an excuse to game the system. They already do that, it's why they're TFGs in the first place.
The clock merely ensures that each player gets the same amount of time to play their army. It's no different from each player getting the same amount of points. If people make bad decisions in either instance then they should suffer the appropriate consequences. What the penalty should be for clock violations is a separate matter.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Your post doesn't address the core question I raised, which is how your view of 40k is some how better than mine, wherein games sometimes end before turn 5. I don't agree with the premise that 40k needs to go turn 5 in every game, and frankly I don't see why it should ever go past turn 5. Assuming you can always get 5 turns because you helped someone practice for the LVO... come on man. You may as well say, "I did this thing once therefore it has become the standard."
Things shake out quite a bit different in an actual event. There are discussions around rules, stat profiles, line of sight, measurements, ranges, the list goes on. People don't always play by the rules (intentionally or unintentionally) and auditing that takes time.
Lastly you haven't made a case that chess clocks will actually increase the number of turns. People getting equal time in a perfect world doesn't mean games go to turn 5. If the goal is an equal number of turns, I do not believe the chess clock accomplishes this. Although it does give people an opportunity to be TFG and game the system.
You either have very bad reading comprehension or are intentionally trying to take what I said out of context. Obviously not every round of warhammer goes to turn 5-6 you can obviously be tabled turn 2 or crippled so badly hat you concead defeat. Much of the length of a game in turns is decided by matchup and if an army has the staying power to make it the full distance. What I mean by “warhammer is not made to be played in 3-4 turns” is that he rules dictate that the game does not end until an army is completely destroyed, an objective is reached, a player conceads defeat or the game reaches the specified number of turns. So when you are playing slowly and have to end a game before one of those conditions are met you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Game length turn wise should always reach its natural conclusion in a tournament so you can see who really won the game. Just ending a game on turn 3 arbitrarily because you played the game too slowely is cheating your opponent out of a proper game.
Your inability to finish the game to the natural conclusion is the exact need for the chess clock because ending a game because you are too slow and not because you met a victory condition is not fair to your opponent. I am also well aware of how tournaments work and of all the ones I’ve ever played in I only had a single game that ended because of time and not playing out the full length and that was because my opponent showed up with an army he had never played and spent half of OUR time to play he game looking up rules. It was the least fun I have ever had in an event and something I hope never happens again.
A chess clock is no different then a point limit in a game 2000 points ensures both players have an equal playing field for the game. Chess clocks ensures that they both have equal time to try to complete their objective.when you take more then half the time you are using up more then your equal share of a resource that your opponent has the right too.
6775
Post by: 9breaker
Marmatag wrote:If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.
The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.
It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.
40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.
A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem.
Your assumption is that people's lists would not get adjusted with time resource in mind. They used it in Privateer press games, and it has worked for years. Players (at least the good ones) will redesigned lists to play to the rules of the tournament. You can bring a diverse army list, but understand that you are playing to a clock and adjust your list accordingly, so the player is punishing themselves to gain a list advantage. Its their responsibility to manage that balance and show they are a player worth their salt.
Its not a TO's job to design a tournament ruleset that fits all lists. Its the player's job to bring a list that can perform well in the rules that are fairly applied to everyone.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Sim-Life wrote:If you KNOW theres a time constraint at an event and you still choose to play a horde then have some accountability rather than whinging and demanding more time because you made a difficult choice.
Anyway, I play horde nids all the time an never have a problem with games lasting longer than usual.
Except for many armies it's not CHOICE to bring horde but decision spoon fed by GW because anything other than that is throwing money into garbage coming into tournament with 0 chance of actually even drawing game let alone avoiding anything but getting roflstomped. Automatically Appended Next Post: SemperMortis wrote:dkoz wrote:I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.
Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.
And it's not even moving that takes btw longer. It's the bazillion dices you need to roll with bazillion rerolls. Which models tend to shoot more? 200 models than 20? No 20 model army tends to roll more than 10x dices... Automatically Appended Next Post: Elbows wrote:I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.
No. Onus is on tournament organizers to ensure tournament works for all armies. That or just make note no ork etc horde armies are allowed to bring. Or if allow dont' take money if the tournament organizers make house rules that effectively ban those armies. Otherwise they are just greedy taking money while banning their armies.
If they can't provide enough time for game then drop the point cost. THAT is basic requirement.
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
109034
Post by: Slipspace
AdmiralHalsey wrote:If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
I don't know why this has to keep being stated, but the above is only a problem if the time allocated to the game is insufficient in the first place. If that is the case then somebody is already being put at a disadvantage because either the horde player can't complete his games in time, or takes too much of the time available in the game for themselves, leaving their opponent with less time than they need. Chess clocks aren't a magic bullet and are only one part of a potential solution, which would also involve analysing whether the time allocated is sufficient for the points being played. What chess clocks do is shift the responsibility to the player who is more likely to use up more time.
Over the past few days I've been thinking back to my own tournament games and I've realised that not once have I failed to finish a game of WH or 40k in time at a tournament and this is playing with and against a variety of armies from highly elite to massive hordes to armies with a lot of complicated synergies. Other games at the same tournaments did not finish on time. I've also been TO for a WH tournament (quite a while ago now) and invariably the players who went to time were the ones who weren't fully concentrated on the game. I'm sure there are some outlier armies with huge numbers of models that might struggle to finish a game in the time allotted but my experience tells me 2 suitably motivated players can get games finished in a reasonable time regardless of which armies are in use. I think chess clocks might help with that motivation for players that need it and that's certainly been my experience watching games of WM/H being played.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
AdmiralHalsey wrote:If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
A time limit isn't being introduced - it's always been in place for tournament games.
If you can't play your army in half of that time limit then you are penalising yourself, your opponent or both. Chess clocks just mean that you're only penalising yourself and not your opponent for not being able to play your army in half of the time limit.
As for this stuff about points, all tournament formats modify the core rules to some extent (even if it is just time limits and fixed army lists) which will always favour certain armies to some extent. You build to optimise within those rules for the event.
114523
Post by: Purifying Tempest
Of all of the unbalanced things in WH40K, the community picks on probably the most neutral aspect of it to pick on: time.
I have been subjected to intentional slow play in a multitude of games, outside of 40K, for the sheer sake of drawing the natural conclusion into a state where they can claim "well, we will never know, so dice roll or coin flip".
In a game, both players are given a pool of time by the TO to complete their match. Normally, letting them split the time between them as they wish is sufficient, but there are players who are willing to game that contract to secure advantage. To some people, not losing is more important than winning cleanly.
Since there appears to be a fair amount of that going on, enough to taint high level tournament results, the judges have decided to split the time for the players instead of leaving that between them. The one who is "slow" playing, well, time will solve that problem now, not arbitrary accusations of who took longer.
I think the issue is more indicative of either the games being too large for the allotted time, or the rounds are just simply too short for the intention.
Funny thing is... time doesn't care how many Ork Boyz you brought to the tabletop. It isn't watching and giving you courtesy time because you want to measure and move every individual conscript you brought in the 300 conscript list. If you think that time is being unfair because you have to move your 200 Tyrannids while your opponent only has to move his three Imperial Knights... just imagine how BORING of a game it would be if you were allowed to play in your context: He stands there for 100 minutes while getting only 20 to interact with his models. That's the hyperbole of the argument of saying clocks are unfair to horde players. They're only unfair because you all got so used to being unfair to the people across the table from you.
The community was unable to police itself, thus a rule must be put in place to police the community.
Blame slow players, blame people gaming a system that rewards for stall tactics, blame horde armies, blame GW for making the game take too long (I find this argument hilarious in an edition of 3-4 turn blitz armies), or blame TOs for not being able to balance size vs time... but don't blame time. A minute is a minute, and your minutes are every bit as valuable as mine... so let's just share them.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Instead of applying a broken system (chess clocks) to fix a broken system (tournaments in their current state), why not do the obvious thing instead: play at a lower point level. Play at 1500 points, or 1000 points, or whatever it takes to finish games in time even if you have a horde army. And then once it's expected that every game finishes within the time limit you can have judges DQ individual players for obvious stalling and abuse of the time limit, you don't need a whole clock system to handle the cases where players aren't being TFG.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Let's say we lower the point cost. It still doesn't answer a fundamental, to me, question of why should one player be entitled to more time than the other when playing a game of 40K?
Clocks don't penalize anyone. The players penalize themselves just like they do with poor list building. If you don't know how to play your army within the constraints of the game then why should you be OK infringing on my prerogative? Suppose I was planning on using more than half of the clock to make my army work what do we do then? It's obvious that we won't finish the game within the given overall time limit. Should we have a TO watch the whole game and then make a decision as to who was slower or just DQ one or both players for not being able to finish the game?
BTW How is it that TFGs only appear when there is a clock involved?
73016
Post by: auticus
When I was involved in 40k tournaments, 1500 points was standard, and armies had about 30-40 models on average.
Slow play was still a thing.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Let's say we lower the point cost. It still doesn't answer a fundamental, to me, question of why should one player be entitled to more time than the other when playing a game of 40K?
It doesn't need to, because even with a horde player taking more time than an elite player the game is still finished within the time limit.
BTW How is it that TFGs only appear when there is a clock involved?
They don't. Who ever said that they did?
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
You're bootstrapping your own argument. You don't need to use a clock because everyone will finish on time. Everyone will finish on time if they're given all the time they need. So, as long as the hordes player has a time advantage then everything is OK. What do you do when 2 hordes players are at the same table? Who gets the more time the player with the bigger horde or should they just flip a coin/roll off?
You seem to think that if you set a long enough time limit then it doesn't matter who uses how much time. There are 2 problems with that viewpoint.
1) There is the base inequity of one player getting to use more resources than the other and,
2) Events need to be finished by a set time. They don't have the luxury of giving everyone enough time to finish. They have to make an arbitrary decision as to both time and point limits.
You only bring up TFG as an argument against a clock. You tend to ignore TFG when any other argument is made for not using a clock. I can only presume that you think that having a clock causes a person to become TFG. I tend to think that TFGs will always be around regardless of which rules are in play, that's what makes a TFG a TFG.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Leo_the_Rat wrote:You're bootstrapping your own argument. You don't need to use a clock because everyone will finish on time. Everyone will finish on time if they're given all the time they need.
That's not bootstrapping, it's just good tournament design. Everyone will finish on time because you set the time limit long enough that any reasonable game, including one between two horde players, will take less than that amount of time to finish. You don't need a clock because the time limit is set such that everyone is already finishing, and the clocks would never run out.
What do you do when 2 hordes players are at the same table?
The game finishes closer to the time limit than a game between two elite players. It's unfortunate that the horde players don't get to take a lunch break by finishing an hour early, but their game still finishes.
1) There is the base inequity of one player getting to use more resources than the other and,
That "inequality" is irrelevant. The game finishes, no finite resource is used up. It doesn't matter if it takes me 10x as long you to play my half of the game as long as the game still finishes. Giving you some of my time would not give you any benefit because you already have sufficient time.
2) Events need to be finished by a set time. They don't have the luxury of giving everyone enough time to finish. They have to make an arbitrary decision as to both time and point limits.
And I never said the event is run with open-ended rounds. Ensuring game completion is done by setting a ratio of time to points that allows any reasonable game to finish. Maybe that means playing 3-hour rounds at 1000 points, but if so then that's what has to be done.
You only bring up TFG as an argument against a clock. You tend to ignore TFG when any other argument is made for not using a clock. I can only presume that you think that having a clock causes a person to become TFG. I tend to think that TFGs will always be around regardless of which rules are in play, that's what makes a TFG a TFG.
No, you are completely missing the point. TFG will always be TFG. The point is that clocks are redundant in a properly-designed tournament game between reasonable players, and are only necessary if you have TFGs slow playing to exploit the time limit. But TFGs will also exploit a chess clock (as I have explained over and over again every time this comes up), so introducing chess clocks makes extra work and frustration for the reasonable players while doing little, if anything, to stop TFGs.
40258
Post by: dkoz
AdmiralHalsey wrote:If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
Except if you know your armies rules and the games rules halfway decently it won't take you your entire half of he allotted time to play your army regardless it size. If people with 200+ model IG armies can finish on time so can anyone else, this isn't Occupy 40K or some socialist/communist game your not entitled to someone else time just because of you decisions.
46809
Post by: von Hohenstein
Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
 von Hohenstein wrote:Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.
How will that stop people from DELIBERATLY playing slowly?
107281
Post by: LunarSol
Ultimately, an event needs to have a timer because players lose focus without it. I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team. Even if there was a low enough point limit and enough time to get everything done, you still want round limits. If most players can finish in 3 hours but you have one that can't in 4-5; its miserable for most of your players to have an hour or two of waiting between rounds. Timers are a courtesy to everyone at the event; not just the players who need to wrap it up.
AdmiralHalsey wrote:If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
Your reward for armies with too much stuff on the table to play in a single game is to give them more points to buy more stuff?
40258
Post by: dkoz
von Hohenstein wrote:Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.
The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though. Many of the TOs that survey and collect data from their players have a tone of date to prove players don't want tournaments w/lower points levels. So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
LunarSol wrote:I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team.
And that is best handled as the unusual circumstance that it is: the TO tells them to speed it up or get disqualified. You don't need a whole chess clock system to handle extreme outliers. Automatically Appended Next Post: dkoz wrote:The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though.
The majority of players isn't realistic. They want 3000 point games that finish in 15 minutes, and their desires are not going to happen. Reducing the point level is the only viable option and people just need to accept that.
So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.
Because the equal time rule does punish people. It gives extra work and frustration to everyone, and gives TFGs new opportunities to break the system to their advantage.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Peregrine wrote: LunarSol wrote:I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team.
And that is best handled as the unusual circumstance that it is: the TO tells them to speed it up or get disqualified. You don't need a whole chess clock system to handle extreme outliers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dkoz wrote:The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though.
The majority of players isn't realistic. They want 3000 point games that finish in 15 minutes, and their desires are not going to happen. Reducing the point level is the only viable option and people just need to accept that.
So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.
Because the equal time rule does punish people. It gives extra work and frustration to everyone, and gives TFGs new opportunities to break the system to their advantage.
Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dkoz wrote:Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.
They're an imposition because they're extra work to deal with. 40k has enough tedious slogging through resolving actions as it is, we don't need to add screwing around with keeping track of the clock to the pile.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Peregrine wrote:dkoz wrote:Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.
They're an imposition because they're extra work to deal with. 40k has enough tedious slogging through resolving actions as it is, we don't need to add screwing around with keeping track of the clock to the pile.
I'd say the bigger imposition is the stress everyone feels as time nears the end and they've one gotten in two turns because one player toke 1.5hrs to set up and now holds several objectives because they've only just gotten to a position where you can engage them. Once you've given chess clocks a legitimate & fair try they are great and no real imposition.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
It would be less of a stress for me by playing with chess clocks. That way I know how much time I have and how much time my opponent has. It's easy for me to know how much time is left in the round without having to consult a watch and try to remember what time we started.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dkoz wrote:I'd say the bigger imposition is the stress everyone feels as time nears the end and they've one gotten in two turns because one player toke 1.5hrs to set up and now holds several objectives because they've only just gotten to a position where you can engage them. Once you've given chess clocks a legitimate & fair try they are great and no real imposition.
Yeah, that situation of "my opponent was just DQed for blatant slow play, should I get lunch or just hang around watching my friend's game" sure is stressful. Extreme outliers like that can be dealt with by the TO without adding a whole clock system.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.
At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Leo_the_Rat wrote:How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.
At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.
No legitimate setup time would ever reach 1.5 hours. Nor would you wait until 1.5 hours into the game to call a TO over to resolve the situation. The TO would be watching the game long before 1.5 hours had passed, and if TFG continued to slow play the TO would disqualify them.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I wasn't referring to set up. I mean in actual game time. Say we're at the top of 4 and only have 20 minutes left (2 hours gone). My opponent takes, what I feel, is too long to move his models. This is the case throughout the game. I think that he has used 75 of the 120 minutes played. I call over a TO and complain. What's the TO supposed to do? What should I have done, if anything, before hand?
40258
Post by: dkoz
Peregrine wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.
At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.
No legitimate setup time would ever reach 1.5 hours. Nor would you wait until 1.5 hours into the game to call a TO over to resolve the situation. The TO would be watching the game long before 1.5 hours had passed, and if TFG continued to slow play the TO would disqualify them.
I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent? Yes people agree that 1.5 hrs is nuts but what about 1hr, 45mins, or even 30mins? A TO can only come in after the fact to punish the offender a chess clock keeps both players honest and isn't real imposition on the players. Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.
113112
Post by: Reemule
AdmiralHalsey wrote:If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?
I've BOLDED the part of your post that makes no sense.
The time limit has been in place for decades. You go to a tourney you had a time limit. Its not being introduced. Its not new. it was made as a way to try to deal with the rampant problems on getting a tourney done in a reasonable time.
Now with that said, the chess clock is just there to make sure there is a reasonable distribution of the amount of time available between the two players.
I've ignored the rest of your post as your primary assumption was wrong, so chances are the rest wasn't right.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dkoz wrote:I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent?
The point where you look at your opponent and they are clearly slow playing beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the only way to get to such an absurdly long setup time. At a proper ratio of points to time limit any attempt at slow play that can give any meaningful advantage is going to be very obvious.
Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.
Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Purifying Tempest wrote: Snipped alot of the post so its just the point I'm addressing.
I think the issue is more indicative of either the games being too large for the allotted time, or the rounds are just simply too short for the intention.
Your missing the point. Chess clocks are a push to work in the framework we currently have.
You should start a new thread advocating what you think should be the new tourney structure... I have no idea what that would look like, play 1 game each day for 3 days so everyone doesn't have to hurry I guess? either way, get your idea out there, get people to agree its a good idea, and to implement it widely and I guess we will see.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.
Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
Actually games between 2 reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish within the time allotted by the TOs have no need for a cheeks cloak as they will finish a game within the time limits. Chess clocks ensure that time doesn't need to be waisted calling over a judge to try and make a opinion based decision on if someone is slowplaying or not. Also the sarcasm about stabbing your self in the face is a strawman argument with no actual bearing because a chess clock costs you nothing they're free if you have a smart phone and > $20 on Amazon if you can't afford that maybe a tournament isn't what you should be waisting money on.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
Peregrine wrote:dkoz wrote:I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent?
The point where you look at your opponent and they are clearly slow playing beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the only way to get to such an absurdly long setup time. At a proper ratio of points to time limit any attempt at slow play that can give any meaningful advantage is going to be very obvious.
Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.
Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
You literally don't answer anything with your response to that first question. You give no objective measure for which to identify the time to call the TO and the time the TO should dq your opponent. What on earth does "at a proper ratio of points to time limit" mean? What is that ratio, how do you objectively determine it, how on earth do you prove to a TO that your opponent has reached that point without a timer, and that you played no roll in them getting to that point? Your answer is not an answer, it only adds additional layers of questions. This is the entire point of a Chess Clock, despite your repeated vague assertions to the contrary, there is no objective way to determine slow play for a TO unless it is of the most egregious and rare variety. The Chess Clock is the best and most reasonable solution I have seen so far to implement that takes the subjective and makes it objective.
The second part of your post about stabbing yourself in the face is entirely fallacious and thus no rebuttal is required.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Peregrine wrote:
Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
I agree with this.
Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.
So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...
When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.
6775
Post by: 9breaker
So if the main gripe from players with horde armies is moving around their units, what's the appetite for using movement trays that would facilitate moving large numbers of units quickly? It's been used in WHFB for decades.
Would this make it more palatable to introduce chess clocks? That would give them no excuse for slow play, since you can move a tray of 30 orks faster than moving 10 individual space marines. If they refuse, then it shows their intention is to use slow play to their advantage.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Reemule wrote: Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I would think that just the basic idea of fairness would imply that each person gets to use equal resources within the context of the game. That is that each person is given the same parameters to play a game to its conclusion. Both players know coming into the event the maximum points their army is allowed to be and how long each round is going to be.
Just because I choose to bring a smaller army doesn't mean that I'm conceding my time to you. Maybe I need longer to think about how/where I'm going to move or I want to make sure that everything I do is within the rules or I want to check that I'm not missing some special rule(s) on my models. Or I just feel that I might need more time to play in general.
You are no more entitled to take my time than I am to bring extra models to the table.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Marmatag wrote:Reemule wrote: Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
I disagree with your A/B premise. And also your idea that someone should due to army choice receive either less or more time at a event to be the active player.
I think there are plenty of none malicious players who just happen to play very slow. While I don't think that 40K 8th edition is a very complex game, there are people who either aren't practiced enough, or what ever.
I also think that there are people who have decided they want more time, so they do play smaller count armies to decide to give themselves that time.
Your entirely discounting them.
You place some weight on army model count as deciding who should receive time. If I design a force that is going to be very efficient in turns 4 and 5 to win a game, shouldn't I be given the time to use them?
6775
Post by: 9breaker
Marmatag wrote:
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
What if you can use movement trays to facilitate movement. If you are given tools to help you move around your units, then moving a unit of 30 orks on a movement tray would not take that much longer than an IK.
Clocks have been demonstrated to work effectively in other competitive scenes for tabletop wargames. There is no reason to suggest it can't work here.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
Marmatag wrote:Reemule wrote: Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
a. It is much harder to game a chess clock, and much easier to prove cheating with the correct clock ruleset. This is a very misleading argument. Nothing is perfect. The idea is to make it as difficult as possible, and when it happens to make it as easy as possible to prove. There are degrees here, nothing is totally black and white. A chess clock is far harder to game and much easier to prove slowplay with than without one, the fact that it is still technically possible does not remove its relevance. All rules can be broken and stretched, the point is to disincentive those who would do so. Someone will always have the incentive, but the goal is to limit the number of people who do. The most egregious offenders are not the reason why such a large percentage of tournament players don't finish their game. As horrible as they are, they are so few and far between they are not the issue here.
b. Because it is built into the rules? Because the game is balanced around a full 5+ turn game? This is not a casual game with your pal. Sure I play my friend, we take a little too long and we need to go home, all good no issue. This happens at table 52 probably no issue either. But at the end of the day a tournament requires a set of expectations and game standards be met, one of those standards is the length (both in time and in # of turns) of the game. It doesn't matter what you think of that concept it is a tenant of 40k, it matters to the integrity of a competitive game. You clearly don't seem to care about the competitive aspect of the game, which is fine, but we are talking about tournaments, which by nature feature a competitive aspect. This is a piece of that, regardless of the reasons you go to a tournament.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?
Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair
Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.
If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.
A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.
Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.
If this game was truly 100% i-go-you-go, then it would be far easier to measure time properly, but it isn't. Since it can't accurately be measured, i can't agree that it is a requirement for a fair game.
Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases. You could make the case that this alters the value of old school. I am 100% on board with refining the secondaries in the first place, there are quite a few "auto-take" secondaries and a few "never take" as well.
So this falls apart pretty quickly. You can't measure time properly in the first place, and equal time doesn't really imply equal opportunity, which is what i believe what you're after.
My definition of a fair game:
A game wherein both players get 4 full turns with equal opportunity to act throughout the game.
107281
Post by: LunarSol
Marmatag wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
I agree with this.
Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.
So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...
When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.
If someone ships the clock to me when they haven't bothered to provide me with the information needed to complete my portion of the game I promise you I will ship the clock right back. Most of your examples of how to abuse the clock seem to be under the assumption that your opponent is the only person capable of switching it over.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
Marmatag wrote:Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?
Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair
Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.
If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.
A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.
Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.
If this game was truly 100% i-go-you-go, then it would be far easier to measure time properly, but it isn't. Since it can't accurately be measured, i can't agree that it is a requirement for a fair game.
Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases.
So this falls apart pretty quickly. You can't measure time properly in the first place, and equal time doesn't really imply equal opportunity, which is what i believe what you're after.
For starters I think your premise about having the time you need is flawed. In an ideal world both players should be given the time they need. Great, awesome, but time is not an unlimited resource. No Tournament can function properly with more then 3 hours per round (3 hours is pushing it and can be very hard to pull off) 2.5 hours is usually more realistic. If both players could consistently conclude all of their turns in those necessary time constraints in Tournaments we would not be having the discussion we are. Which brings us to, okay so if we can't just allow each player to naturally conclude their game, how do we divy up time? Is it in direct relation to model count? Number of shots fired per round? The precision of movement necessary to that army? The complexity of the armies rules? The players personal speed? I am a particularly fast player. I practice a game a lot before I go to a tourney, I generally have all rules memorized and I am decisive (sometimes for ill) when making decisions. That means that rarely do I take more then 30 minutes to complete 5-6 game turns after set up when I am prepared, regardless of the army I am using (for the sake of this discussion I will humor you the misconceptions that hordes take a massive amount of time to play). So in theory if we have 2 and a half hours and lets just say it takes me 40 minutes to complete set up and all of my turns, would I care if my opponent then took an hour and 50 minutes for his actions? No, not really, but here in lies the rub. How on earth does a tourney plan for that. How do we guarantee he has that much time? What if I take an hour for my turn, and he still needs almost a full 2 hours for his? Oh but I only have 40 models to his 150 so that is okay? How do we objectively decide that so you know before the tournament has even started how much time you will have each and every round to complete your turns? It is impossible.
This is where the chess clock and equitable turn length comes into play. Does a Knight list need an hour and 15 minutes to set up and play his turns? No, he doesn't. But guess what if you enter a tournament KNOWING EXACTLY how much time you need to do everything you need to do in a game, and you are going to need more time than the tournament can logistically provide, why on earth are you bringing that army? Either you need to alter your list to fit the confines of the venue, or you need to put in some real work to increase your play efficiency. If you are a casual player, who cares? Go, have fun, throw some dice and if you run out, well you and your opponent can have a good laugh as you try to figure out what would have happened if you guys had had the time to finish, and he likely wins oh well. Time management and game knowledge are an aspect of the hobby whether you like it or not. They are no less important then anything else. If you don't know your book, shame on you, if you don't have enough dice organized properly, shame on you, if you hate movement trays and don't bring them, it is up to you to make up the time lost moving each individual model. It is all about managing expectations and ensuring the integrity of the game and that of the tourney results is maintained. As long as everyone knows what they are in for, it is their responsibility to be prepared for it. The second you throw in the unknown, that is when feelings are hurt, that is when people leave angry, that is when games are ruined, and that is when tourney's fail.
EDIT: Also, when you feel an apropriate turn it end is irrelevant. If your solution to this problem is that all games should end at the close of turn 4 great. That is not the position you have spent most of this thread arguing from, instead just saying it doesn't matter if you finish the game (It does, and always will to many). Your tournament will have managed that expectation, and those players who's armies that thrive in the end game, which you say don't exist will need to adjust accordingly. That is a comp you can introduce as a TO. But the game as written, and those tournaments who choose to play to the game length as written must do everything in their power to make the game length as advertised, or you will get a festival of disappointment and woe at the end of it as I have seen so often in both the days of Warhammer fantasy and now with 40k.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Reemule wrote: Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
Your argument itself shows the need for chess clocks. There's a reason why there are rules in 40k for everything and now frequent FAQs on rules. Your definition of "common sense" for how much time you get to move your army may or may not be the same as your opponent.
Think of it for army balance one player brings 1000 orks to a tourney the other player brings 5 custodians. The ork player says it is fair just read the lore of what happened to orks with a greater number advantage in lore. The Imperium player points out that it's obviously not equal. The solution is to assign points to all models and give players an equal amount of points. This obviously cant account for player skill or just plain luck but it give an equal playing field to play on.
So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game for your ork army and the Imperium player thinks he deserves 2 hours of the 3 hour game because he really likes to think out deployment "orks don't need to strategize just line up and run at the enemy". Both players are entitled to there own opinion but you solve the problem by giving each player exactly half and having rules for how and when time is passed back and forth.
arguing you deserve more time is just as laughable for you walking up to the table and pulling out another 1000 points claiming your army is subjectively harder to play.
110517
Post by: Primark G
I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Asmodios wrote:
So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game
This thread, in a nutshell.
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
 Primark G wrote:I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.
There were more games than just the finals that had issues. I saw more than a few during my games (though thankfully didn't experience it myself).
77728
Post by: dosiere
@marmatag : if the goal is not to get to the end of the game (ie turn 5or 6 or whatever that is for a mission) then I’d agree chess clocks don’t make much sense. Considering the outcome of the game can be very different if it ends on turn 3or turn 6 though, I believe it matters. It’s particularly an issue in games that are scored at the end of every round for objectives or if objectives can change during the game.
My own experience is that I want my games to go to their actual conclusion, and not end on turn 3just becuase we’re out of time. I also don’t want every game of 40k to take 4hours to play even if there isn’t a clock running.
I’m still a little bewildered that they don’t just cut down the point limit, but as long as we’re trying to fit a 2k game into a 2.5hour time slot, I think chess clocks are the lesser of two evils here. The situation right now is not good IMO, with 1player hogging all the time in a game (intentionally or not) and games often ending on a very early turn count of 3 or 4. Some don’t get past turn 2.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
Making misleading, oversimplified, or downright fallacious approximations of other people's arguments appears to be this thread, in a nutshell.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.
For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.
Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.
The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Marmatag wrote:Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?
Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair
Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.
If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.
A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.
Unfortunately events may not have all the time a player needs thus the time constraint in the first place. Your second point goes to the "No harm, no foul" ideal. The problem is that neither player can say how long he'll need for any given game. TOs can't go around adjusting everyones time to suit their needs. Therefore, an arbitrary time limit is given to each player.
Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.
This should be clarified by the TO before the start of events. Each TO will have a different preference for how players handle their clock vis-a-vis a dispute. Some will say that the person making the challenge should be using their clock time to get the TO other TOs may say that the players should pause the clock and then get him. When another player wishes to take an action then he should hit the clock over to himself and take his action. At the resolution of his action he hits the clock back to his opponent. Obviously there can be special circumstances but that should be the general rule.
Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases. You could make the case that this alters the value of old school. I am 100% on board with refining the secondaries in the first place, there are quite a few "auto-take" secondaries and a few "never take" as well.
Whether a game is "over" by turn 4 or not the rules say to play to 5+. Just because you've never seen a comeback doesn't mean that it can't happen. Also sometimes the game can be close and maybe that extra turn can get you that extra point that you need.
40258
Post by: dkoz
Marmatag wrote:Reemule wrote: Marmatag wrote: There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].
Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?
Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.
Are you still willing to short him time?
Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.
Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.
The whole idea of chess clocks is either
(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another
(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.
Sorry but this isn't socialist Venezuela you don't get to take time from some just be cause the have more of it. Both players agreed to play in a tournament w/a time limit on the game so they are both only entitled to half the time. Just because you have a larger army doesn't mean you need more time. I've seen plenty of 200+ model armies complete games in their allotted time of 1.5hrs without having to rush to an extent that would make the game unenjoyable. People are only entitled to an equal opportunity not an equal outcome if you choose to play a larger army and not practice with the time constraints that's your choice.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Obviously, you don't have an actual reply. The point is your argument has no firm line in the sand. Exactly what percentage of time does an ork player deserve? does it change based on the army he's playing? what about his army comp? At what exact point does someone cross from "orks take longer to play" to "thats intentional slow play". unless you can come out with an official formula that every TO could walk over and say yes or no to if someone slow played then a chess clock is the only way to fairly distribute time per game. Just saying "obviously the ork deserves more time" just doesn't cut it.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Marmatag wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.
I agree with this.
Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.
So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...
When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.
These actions are a hell of a lot more opaque than slow play.
113190
Post by: tripchimeras
Marmatag wrote:Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.
For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.
Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.
The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.
I don't have the new clock rules in front of me, but I don't think this has changed at all. If it has it is easily fixed by altering the rules for the chess clocks, as these rules are not dictated by GW but by the tournament organizer, hiccups like this are easily fixed. And again the "But it is still technically possible argument!" does not nullify the justification for an action. Very few things in life are completely unabuseable, saying something has no value just because it is not perfect is a ridiculous statement. It is fairly apparent chess clocks would reduce slow play. Notice the key word here "reduce". That does not mean impossible to abuse. Just that it will improve upon the problem. All of you're arguments here appear to be based on extremes, and oversimplifications. The goal of this change is not to eliminate the extreme, but alter the norm. Very different.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Marmatag wrote:Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.
For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.
Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.
The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.
So you build an army with the idea you’re going to go play a tourney and not roll dice?
And then doing the actual rolls is him slow playing you?
I’m starting to get the idea you might be the guy the clock is going to protect me against….
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Actually no.
I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.
There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.
And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).
113112
Post by: Reemule
Marmatag wrote:Actually no.
I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.
There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.
And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).
A fair tournament game is where both players have a equal chance at winning, within the rules laid out by the game and the tournament organizers.
What is your definition?
40258
Post by: dkoz
Marmatag wrote:Actually no.
I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.
There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.
And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).
We seem to be unable to agree because some people seem to think their owed more time than their opponent because of their army choice. It's completely mind blowing that some think becaus the have more models their owed more time. Sure you already have the advantage of having more models and a larger footprint but sure let's give you more time as well. Your going to a tournament where the TOs are creating as equal a footing as possible within the games design for the players, your owed no more time than another play just because of the size of your army.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
I don't feel i'm owed more time. Both players are owed equal opportunity. That's all.
I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time.
I can unnecessarily force you to use your time. This will be fairly easy.
This encourages bad faith play between otherwise good people. Currently I make an effort to play as fast as humanly possible, and already skip a fair bit of rolling, or allow my opponent to skip theirs.
And if you guys think time is spent in the movement phase, you're crazy. Even with 150+ models this is an incredibly short phase for me.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Primark G wrote:I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.
Aren't FLG currently playtesting for GW? I'm sure that comes with a lot of benefits for FLG.
When an event they're in charge of (and that GW supports/endorses) very publically displays what could be described as the ultimate example of TFGness (and easily the worst aspect of the hobby) I can imagine GW would be less than pleased by having their community represented by people who display unsporting behaviour. Remember they sell this game as a friendly roll dice with your mates game, not a cut throat game where abuse of the rules to the detriment of your opponents fun is the order of the day.
I don't blame FLG for trying to force the tournament community into behaving better. It's nit a community I'd ever want to be a part of because it fosters some horrible aspect of the game. But if I was FLGI'd want to keep those GW perks they're getting as well, so I don't blame them.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Marmatag wrote:I can unnecessarily force you to use your time. This will be fairly easy.
This encourages bad faith play between otherwise good people. Currently I make an effort to play as fast as humanly possible, and already skip a fair bit of rolling, or allow my opponent to skip theirs.
Why would you become TFG just because there is a clock on the table? Why would a clock turn good people into bad faith players? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they will do everything they can to get rid of clocks. Why? I understand if you feel that clocks aren't necessary but to actively subvert a rule is beyond my understanding.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Why would you become TFG just because there is a clock on the table? Why would a clock turn good people into bad faith players? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they will do everything they can to get rid of clocks. Why? I understand if you feel that clocks aren't necessary but to actively subvert a rule is beyond my understanding.
I'll use them in good faith. However, you can bet I'll be slapping that timer the split-second I have to wait for my opponent's actions for anything at all, every save, every tape measurement, every time he asks a question about my list, ev-er-y-thing.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:Leo_the_Rat wrote:Why would you become TFG just because there is a clock on the table? Why would a clock turn good people into bad faith players? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they will do everything they can to get rid of clocks. Why? I understand if you feel that clocks aren't necessary but to actively subvert a rule is beyond my understanding.
I'll use them in good faith. However, you can bet I'll be slapping that timer the split-second I have to wait for my opponent's actions for anything at all, every save, every tape measurement, every time he asks a question about my list, ev-er-y-thing.
As long as you are doing it at the correct times according to the clock rules you are actually playing it right. Looks like the clock would already be hurrying you up..... so working as intended?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Asmodios wrote:As long as you are doing it at the correct times according to the clock rules you are actually playing it right. Looks like the clock would already be hurrying you up..... so working as intended?
I tend not to get hit by time limits anyways, at least at the last few tournaments. We'll see with the new list, it has a few more models to move. I would definitely make the use of the clock an exercise in pedantry though, for sure.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:I don't feel i'm owed more time. Both players are owed equal opportunity. That's all.
I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time.
I can unnecessarily force you to use your time. This will be fairly easy.
This encourages bad faith play between otherwise good people. Currently I make an effort to play as fast as humanly possible, and already skip a fair bit of rolling, or allow my opponent to skip theirs.
And if you guys think time is spent in the movement phase, you're crazy. Even with 150+ models this is an incredibly short phase for me.
I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time
>I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time
I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time
>I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time
I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time
yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Per the ITC rules:
Any major rule dispute results in a paused time scenario. The time is to remain paused until a formal judge is called to the table and resolves the dispute.
There are no specific rules for 40K. There are the ITC optional rules for using a clock. Those rules do not say how to handle minor disputes. I would say that if your opponent keeps starting disputes call a TO. Otherwise be an adult about it and play like you normally would.
I really don't see the need for people to look for a way to cause trouble. If you're worried about it then call the TO. If you run into one of these people then it's not the clock that's the problem.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
The person's whose time is is, unless the other person calls the judge first, in that case as they called the judge the time should be shipped to them.
When a judge arrives he pauses the clock.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
read the ITC rules.... people have already pointed out this is not an issue. Not to mention you could easily add a rule for any hypothetical you come up with. Meanwhile, with no clock and no rules, it is impossible to say exactly where slow play starts and end and what is reasonable and what is not.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Reemule wrote:The person's whose time is is, unless the other person calls the judge first, in that case as they called the judge the time should be shipped to them.
When a judge arrives he pauses the clock.
That's circular logic. "If there's a LOS dispute the person whose time it is is the person whose time it is." How exactly do you determine whose time it is for purposes of determining whose clock should run for LOS checks? You can't do it by whose turn it is because whose clock is running and whose turn it is are two entirely separate things, and your clock often runs on your opponent's turn. Are you honestly arguing for a situation where I can demand a LOS check in the middle of you rolling your saves (with your clock running) to run additional time off your clock?
And no, a judge is not the answer. If a judge can come in and rule "this is slow play" then they can make that same ruling without the clock. Clocks only add anything if they allow you to remove the judge.
PS: if you think having to spend clock time to call a judge is a good idea, well, welcome to spending all of your clock time calling for judges when I make outrageous rules claims and force you to burn clock time disproving them (or just let me get away with having guardsmen that hit on a 2+).
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Peregrine wrote:Reemule wrote:The person's whose time is is, unless the other person calls the judge first, in that case as they called the judge the time should be shipped to them.
When a judge arrives he pauses the clock.
That's circular logic. "If there's a LOS dispute the person whose time it is is the person whose time it is." How exactly do you determine whose time it is for purposes of determining whose clock should run for LOS checks? You can't do it by whose turn it is because whose clock is running and whose turn it is are two entirely separate things, and your clock often runs on your opponent's turn. Are you honestly arguing for a situation where I can demand a LOS check in the middle of you rolling your saves (with your clock running) to run additional time off your clock?
He is saying that whoever challenges the LoS is the person who's time is run while waiting for the judge (assuming you don't play the ITC way which is to pause the time all together while the judge makes his decision).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Marmatag wrote:Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
Exactly. And you can be sure that I'm going to make you count those dice very carefully, and question your count at every step of the process. Automatically Appended Next Post: Farseer_V2 wrote:He is saying that whoever challenges the LoS is the person who's time is run while waiting for the judge
Ok, great. My unit has LOS through this solid wall. Would you like to let my units shoot through walls, or would you like to burn clock time to argue about LOS? Keep in mind that I'm going to argue very stubbornly, and should be able to waste at least a few minutes of your clock time on each LOS check.
(assuming you don't play the ITC way which is to pause the time all together while the judge makes his decision).
Awesome. So if I need more time to think about a decision I can just create a minor rules dispute and call a judge, giving me plenty of time to think it over while I wait for the judge to finish whatever they're doing and come give a ruling. Too bad the clock is now pointless, as having non-trivial amounts of time where neither clock is running means that setting a total of X minutes on the two clocks no longer ensures that your round will finish in X minutes. At that point why bother with the clocks?
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Peregrine wrote:Reemule wrote:The person's whose time is is, unless the other person calls the judge first, in that case as they called the judge the time should be shipped to them.
When a judge arrives he pauses the clock.
That's circular logic. "If there's a LOS dispute the person whose time it is is the person whose time it is." How exactly do you determine whose time it is for purposes of determining whose clock should run for LOS checks? You can't do it by whose turn it is because whose clock is running and whose turn it is are two entirely separate things, and your clock often runs on your opponent's turn. Are you honestly arguing for a situation where I can demand a LOS check in the middle of you rolling your saves (with your clock running) to run additional time off your clock?
And no, a judge is not the answer. If a judge can come in and rule "this is slow play" then they can make that same ruling without the clock. Clocks only add anything if they allow you to remove the judge.
PS: if you think having to spend clock time to call a judge is a good idea, well, welcome to spending all of your clock time calling for judges when I make outrageous rules claims and force you to burn clock time disproving them (or just let me get away with having guardsmen that hit on a 2+).
Once again read the ITC rules. If there is a dispute you stop the clock completely and call over a TO if this happens repeatedly "it becomes obvious someone is clearly arguing something over and over just to get the clock to stop" they will send a TO over to your table to keep an eye on or punish someone appropriately.
Once again nobody is saying that its impossible to mess with a clock system but it makes it incredibly hard to abuse and give TO an exact time log and rule sheat to go off of.
Once again please answer my question of if you don't have a clock.
1. How much time does each player get
2. when exactly does someone begin slow playing vs simply being diligent
3. What qualifies an army to get more time
4. What percentage more models do you need to receive more time
5. do codexes with more rules get more time
the list is literally never-ending because every answer to every question is subjective and changes based on somebody's personal feelings about the fairness of time allotted. The clock solves this by saying "each player gets exactly half the time and here are a list of rules".
113007
Post by: Farseer_V2
Fair enough, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying the post you were questioning. Ultimately I'm smart to enough to avoiding a discussion where one side has no interested in having its ideas challenged.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote: Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"
110517
Post by: Primark G
Farseer_V2 wrote: Primark G wrote:I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.
There were more games than just the finals that had issues. I saw more than a few during my games (though thankfully didn't experience it myself).
But those two were really really bad. And do you think a clock would have really made a difference in those games you saw? If they would ban that would clean up everything really fast.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote: Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"
When you declare your shots in this manner, only That Guy wouldn't pull the model. Clocks encourage That Guy behavior in this specific scenario. I pull models all the time in tournaments, and people do the same for me. And you'll notice i never said breaking the rules. Stop arguing in bad faith.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Asmodios wrote:Once again read the ITC rules. If there is a dispute you stop the clock completely and call over a TO if this happens repeatedly "it becomes obvious someone is clearly arguing something over and over just to get the clock to stop" they will send a TO over to your table to keep an eye on or punish someone appropriately.
IOW, "when our system breaks we'll just issue the arbitrary judge ruling we could have issued without the extra hassle of the clock system".
The clock solves this by saying "each player gets exactly half the time and here are a list of rules".
It doesn't solve anything at all, because you're addressing a point I'm not making. I am in full agreement with the idea that, if your TO is stupid enough to have a 3000 point tournament with 30 minute rounds, each player should have 15 minutes of that time. My objection to clocks is that they are functionally broken in 40k. If the clock system is "working" it is only because neither player is trying to be TFG, and the clock system is redundant. But when TFG appears the clock system adds nothing. You still have to make arbitrary judge rulings based on subjective ideas about what is "too much", and if you can make the required rulings to keep TFG from abusing the clock system you can just make those rulings without the clocks. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asmodios wrote:So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"
That single guardsman has "win the lottery" level odds of surviving in that situation. There is zero purpose in actually rolling the dice, other than wasting clock time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Farseer_V2 wrote:Fair enough, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying the post you were questioning. Ultimately I'm smart to enough to avoiding a discussion where one side has no interested in having its ideas challenged.
Do not confuse "not interested in having their ideas challenged" with "not impressed with the poor quality of the attempted challenges".
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote: Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time
We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?
Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"
When you declare your shots in this manner, only That Guy wouldn't pull the model. Clocks encourage That Guy behavior in this specific scenario. I pull models all the time in tournaments, and people do the same for me.
Not at all if im playing a tournament i want to roll every dice and not because im TFG but because i want to play to the actual outcome. Ive played enough years to watch statistically improbable things happen. A couple weeks ago i made something like 8 straight 5 up saves on a guardsman and he ended up giving me the one 1 victory point i won by so yes im going to ask you to roll out your wounds on me. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:Once again read the ITC rules. If there is a dispute you stop the clock completely and call over a TO if this happens repeatedly "it becomes obvious someone is clearly arguing something over and over just to get the clock to stop" they will send a TO over to your table to keep an eye on or punish someone appropriately.
IOW, "when our system breaks we'll just issue the arbitrary judge ruling we could have issued without the extra hassle of the clock system".
The clock solves this by saying "each player gets exactly half the time and here are a list of rules".
It doesn't solve anything at all, because you're addressing a point I'm not making. I am in full agreement with the idea that, if your TO is stupid enough to have a 3000 point tournament with 30 minute rounds, each player should have 15 minutes of that time. My objection to clocks is that they are functionally broken in 40k. If the clock system is "working" it is only because neither player is trying to be TFG, and the clock system is redundant. But when TFG appears the clock system adds nothing. You still have to make arbitrary judge rulings based on subjective ideas about what is "too much", and if you can make the required rulings to keep TFG from abusing the clock system you can just make those rulings without the clocks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"
That single guardsman has "win the lottery" level odds of surviving in that situation. There is zero purpose in actually rolling the dice, other than wasting clock time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Farseer_V2 wrote:Fair enough, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying the post you were questioning. Ultimately I'm smart to enough to avoiding a discussion where one side has no interested in having its ideas challenged.
Do not confuse "not interested in having their ideas challenged" with "not impressed with the poor quality of the attempted challenges".
1. Yes the only time a TO is supposed to be called is when something cannot be solved within the normal rule book or a rule needs to be inforced by someone with a position of power. That is their role now and will continue to be their role
2.Yes, the clock system does solve the issue because now there is a set of rules you can hold up show a TO and he either broke them or didn't. He also now is using half the time or he is not. The clock gives the player a tool to show a TO when TFG trys to game the system while also removing one of the easiest ways of gaming it now which is to simply waste time.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
50 Termagant devourer shots versus 1 living Guardsmen.
Each shot as a ~20% chance to kill him.
The odds of him surviving 50 shots are roughly 1/50,000.
The scenario you illustrated is about 2000 times more likely. The fact that you think they're comparable? Come on.
And this is why clocks wouldn't work. The majority of time spent in games is spent on dice rolling, not movement. Thank you for proving why clocks wouldn't work, and would encourage TFG behavior. I will make you waste 5 minutes on attempting to kill that Guardsmen when it is already a foregone conclusion.
For reference a comparable number of saves is ~27. Taking 27 saves on your 5+ guardsmen and getting all 5s and 6s is comparably likely.
(4/6)^x = 1/50000 => x = - ln(50000)/ln(4/6); x=26.68
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Asmodios wrote:Not at all if im playing a tournament i want to roll every dice and not because im TFG but because i want to play to the actual outcome. Ive played enough years to watch statistically improbable things happen. A couple weeks ago i made something like 8 straight 5 up saves on a guardsman and he ended up giving me the one 1 victory point i won by so yes im going to ask you to roll out your wounds on me.
You have a 0.01% chance of a guardsmen surviving 50 lasgun shots from other guardsmen, and that's the best-case scenario. Against 50 space marine bolter shots it's less than .0001%, so small a number that the probability calculator I'm using considers it too small to calculate. IOW, the chances of that guardsman surviving the space marine attack are less than your chances of being murdered by a gun this year (assuming the US flag by your name is accurate). There is zero purpose to rolling those dice besides wasting time. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asmodios wrote:1. Yes the only time a TO is supposed to be called is when something cannot be solved within the normal rule book or a rule needs to be inforced by someone with a position of power. That is their role now and will continue to be their role
Oh, ok, so as long as it's a problem we can't solve with the normal rulebook we don't call a judge?
2.Yes, the clock system does solve the issue because now there is a set of rules you can hold up show a TO and he either broke them or didn't. He also now is using half the time or he is not. The clock gives the player a tool to show a TO when TFG trys to game the system while also removing one of the easiest ways of gaming it now which is to simply waste time.
Except it doesn't do that at all. Clock defenders keep giving answers of "the judge makes a subjective ruling based on their opinion of the situation" to various clock problems I mention. If the TO has to make a subjective ruling about what is "too much" then you don't have a set of rules that give an objective answer, you have a pretense of objectivity that lets you convince yourself that the ruling in your favor was something more than the TO's personal opinion.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:50 Termagant devourer shots versus 1 living Guardsmen.
Each shot as a ~20% chance to kill him.
The odds of him surviving 50 shots are roughly 1/50,000.
The scenario you illustrated is about 2000 times more likely. The fact that you think they're comparable? Come on.
And this is why clocks wouldn't work. The majority of time spent in games is spent on dice rolling, not movement. Thank you for proving why clocks wouldn't work, and would encourage TFG behavior.
Once again you cannot fault a player for wanting to roll dice in a dice game. If you watch the ITC stream they also encourage you to use the GW official dice app if you need to save time. But i have never said to someone "hey statistically your x unit should die please remove them from the table before i roll". If they want to remove their own model that is fine but i fully expect to roll every shot im taking every game and its on me to make sure i have the time to do that. You expecting people to simply take off what models you tell them to is laughable and is some of the worst TFG behavior I've ever heard of
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.
40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.
And WTF seriously, you're telling me if i force you to roll 30 saves on your 1 guardsmen, you're going to take the time to roll all 30? Give me a BREAK
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Peregrine wrote:Asmodios wrote:Not at all if im playing a tournament i want to roll every dice and not because im TFG but because i want to play to the actual outcome. Ive played enough years to watch statistically improbable things happen. A couple weeks ago i made something like 8 straight 5 up saves on a guardsman and he ended up giving me the one 1 victory point i won by so yes im going to ask you to roll out your wounds on me.
You have a 0.01% chance of a guardsmen surviving 50 lasgun shots from other guardsmen, and that's the best-case scenario. Against 50 space marine bolter shots it's less than .0001%, so small a number that the probability calculator I'm using considers it too small to calculate. IOW, the chances of that guardsman surviving the space marine attack are less than your chances of being murdered by a gun this year (assuming the US flag by your name is accurate). There is zero purpose to rolling those dice besides wasting time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:1. Yes the only time a TO is supposed to be called is when something cannot be solved within the normal rule book or a rule needs to be inforced by someone with a position of power. That is their role now and will continue to be their role
Oh, ok, so as long as it's a problem we can't solve with the normal rulebook we don't call a judge?
2.Yes, the clock system does solve the issue because now there is a set of rules you can hold up show a TO and he either broke them or didn't. He also now is using half the time or he is not. The clock gives the player a tool to show a TO when TFG trys to game the system while also removing one of the easiest ways of gaming it now which is to simply waste time.
Except it doesn't do that at all. Clock defenders keep giving answers of "the judge makes a subjective ruling based on their opinion of the situation" to various clock problems I mention. If the TO has to make a subjective ruling about what is "too much" then you don't have a set of rules that give an objective answer, you have a pretense of objectivity that lets you convince yourself that the ruling in your favor was something more than the TO's personal opinion.
the TO is never making a subjective call about the time? the clock shows the exact time. You call over the judge if the person is not following the correct rules for the time. Calling a TO is allowed and within the rules. If the TO (only subjective thing that goes into this and does not involve the actual amount of time played) feels you are calling a TO too often then he will watch the game to make sure you simply aren't saying "hur dur my unit can see you through that wall (your example)" just to stop the clock and go past the allotted amount of time in the rules. See with the clock the issue of TFG is being taken care of during the game so the player being abused has a course of action. The previous system had no course of action except filling out a complaint form after you already lost the game and your chance at winning the tournament.
I think most players would like the cheater to get caught cheating in the act instead of making it to the next roud of the tournament because of their actions
118014
Post by: meleti
Marmatag wrote:Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.
40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.
I much prefer dice, but if my 30 devilgaunts rerolling 1s are firing on a 5 man Scout squad for some God-forsaken reason, I wouldn't mind using a dice app to save everyone a lot of time.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.
40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.
And WTF seriously, you're telling me if i force you to roll 30 saves on your 1 guardsmen, you're going to take the time to roll all 30? Give me a BREAK
Yeah i would just roll groups of 5 till i fail should take about 2 seconds.
And hold on your now complaining about someone using a dice app to save time but have no issues telling your opponents what models they should remove before rolling? Its like ever post you find a new way to be TFG you are the exact person in a tournament that's the reason we need things like chess clocks. looking for every opportunity to f over your opponent and are the reason we need a strict set of rules and cant go on good faith alone
108023
Post by: Marmatag
 meleti wrote: Marmatag wrote:Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.
40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.
I much prefer dice, but if my 30 devilgaunts rerolling 1s are firing on a 5 man Scout squad for some God-forsaken reason, I wouldn't mind using a dice app to save everyone a lot of time.
Or just ask your opponent if he wants you to roll. Most people are reasonable and would say "no, that's okay, i'll just pull them." I've played with a lot of competitive players over a lot of tournaments just this year. The good players will just pull the models, because time is more valuable than rolling meaningless dice. Which is why chess clocks won't work. They give you a way to force someone to spend time when it is meaningless to do so.
118014
Post by: meleti
Marmatag wrote: meleti wrote: Marmatag wrote:Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.
40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.
I much prefer dice, but if my 30 devilgaunts rerolling 1s are firing on a 5 man Scout squad for some God-forsaken reason, I wouldn't mind using a dice app to save everyone a lot of time.
Or just ask your opponent if he wants you to roll. Most people are reasonable and would say "no, that's okay, i'll just pull them." I've played with a lot of competitive players over a lot of tournaments just this year. The good players will just pull the models, because time is more valuable than rolling meaningless dice. Which is why chess clocks won't work. They give you a way to force someone to spend time when it is meaningless to do so.
Yeah pulling them is also an option, but I'd feel weird doing that in a competitive game with a timer because you're definitely supposed to roll to hit/wound/save so you're actually giving someone an unfair advantage there, time-wise. Whereas if dice apps are permissible, that's a fast method that doesn't actually provide an unfair advantage (again, assuming the TOs allow them). Just something to think about.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Peregrine wrote: Marmatag wrote:Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.
Exactly. And you can be sure that I'm going to make you count those dice very carefully, and question your count at every step of the process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Farseer_V2 wrote:He is saying that whoever challenges the LoS is the person who's time is run while waiting for the judge
Ok, great. My unit has LOS through this solid wall. Would you like to let my units shoot through walls, or would you like to burn clock time to argue about LOS? Keep in mind that I'm going to argue very stubbornly, and should be able to waste at least a few minutes of your clock time on each LOS check.
(assuming you don't play the ITC way which is to pause the time all together while the judge makes his decision).
Awesome. So if I need more time to think about a decision I can just create a minor rules dispute and call a judge, giving me plenty of time to think it over while I wait for the judge to finish whatever they're doing and come give a ruling. Too bad the clock is now pointless, as having non-trivial amounts of time where neither clock is running means that setting a total of X minutes on the two clocks no longer ensures that your round will finish in X minutes. At that point why bother with the clocks?
So, your hatred for clocks makes you become TFG in such an obvious way that the judge is going to slap you silly with the rulebook before DQ'ing you and throwing you out of the event.
I'm sure no one will miss you.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
meleti wrote: I'd feel weird doing that in a competitive game with a timer because you're definitely supposed to roll to hit/wound/save so you're actually giving someone an unfair advantage there, time-wise.
This is just one reason why I don't want chess clocks. Friendly play becomes a bad decision. The irony is things like this speed the game up, so we get through *more* turns.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Asmodios wrote:The previous system had no course of action except filling out a complaint form after you already lost the game and your chance at winning the tournament.
And here's where your whole argument falls apart. In a tournament with a reasonable pairing of point limit and round time the level of slow play required to end the game significantly early is going to be very obvious to everyone involved, and if your opponent starts doing it you call a judge over immediately. Either your opponent starts playing at a reasonable pace and you finish the game, or they are penalized for slow play. That's how MTG handles slow play, you don't wait until after the tournament to resolve it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote:So, your hatred for clocks makes you become TFG in such an obvious way that the judge is going to slap you silly with the rulebook before DQ'ing you and throwing you out of the event.
I'm sure no one will miss you.
Nice rule #1 violation there. You do understand that these are statements made from the hypothetical TFG's point of view, using the general 'I' and 'you', right? That they aren't actions I personally intend to do (mostly because I will probably never attend an event with chess clocks)?
And yes, TFG would get DQed in that situation. But they could already be DQed for being TFG without the clock system.
|
|
