Never forget that GW and Frontline gaming are both retailers first and foremost, and have a vested interest in larger games.
2K is an arbitrary number decided on because the people who won tournaments with undercosted Eldar or free transports at 1850 in 7th felt like their armies got smaller. 1850 before that was pushed because it was the optimum points value for TauDar to function at. But even before then at 1999+1, slow-playing wasn’t really an issue...not even in the convoluted psychic-summoning deathstar days of 7th. Up until now, chess clocks haven’t gained any traction. But now they are, and I think it’s for 3 reasons:
1. Games are taking longer because people are unfamiliar with the game. We don’t instinctively know what weapons and unit profiles are anymore, so our opponents look it up. Deployment takes longer, and precision deepstrike adds time to both deployment and deepstrike. Clocks try to make you play faster.
2. Slow play (and other cheating) is now more visible. Whether by internet anecdotes or video stream, people see when it happens, which leads to...
3. People are fed up with celebrity 40K. We’re tired of watching “the GT winners” cheat at the top tables, and the TOs do nothing about it over and over again.
My personal opinion? ITC panicked after the LVO incident. The TOs are too much in bed with the guys who win their events to actually sanction them (read the “Tony’s a great guy!” posts after LVO), so they invented this narrative of “everyone slowplays!” which got extrapolated from “everyone plays slow”. Cause then it’s not so bad if poor Tony does it, right?
Unless you believe that at least 25% of tournament goers are cheating, then chess clocks to stop said cheating aren’t the only answer. There are a lot of other possible solutions that should also be considered and implemented alongside chess clocks.
One thing that nobody has brought up is the crazy amount of issues you would run into if you attempted to give armies time based on how many models you bring
Firstly for this argument, we have to accept the simple reality that we cannot have 0 time limits. Tournaments would stop existing as you could not properly plan out a decent event as every shop/ venue has to close and nobody is going to show up to an event where you might fly to vegas and play 6 games but you might also only play 1 if a couple tables match up horde v horde with slow players and you end up waiting for 2 days for round 1 to finish. If you want no time limits that's what playing at home is for, there's nothing wrong with it and that's where i play the majority of my games.
Now onto the issues you would face if you tried to give armies time based on the model count.
1. Are we going to do it simply based on model count?
2. What if you have more transports so your models' aren't actually on the table?
3. What if you deep strike a large portion, are we going to adjust the time until they make it onto the field?
4. What if you lose half your army turn 1, are you still entitled to your full time or do we divide it up now that you have fewer models?
5. So What exactly is the formula? Like I said is it just models what about attack profiles and the number of shots?
6. What happens if someone brings 5 nights against 200 orks? Do we give the person with the orks 40x as much time? in a 3 hour game, this would leave the night player 4.5 minutes... is that fair?
7. Do we allow timing your opponent out to become a valid strategy?
8. How do we ensure that the player with more models is getting the correct amount of time? do we need a clock to ensure knight players aren't slow playing?
9. Do we calculate the time each match based on our formula? do we have to cut down round time to do this, especially if the formula is complicated?
Primark G wrote: Some are trying to make a big deal about clocks but truly they are sorely needed. The LVO semifinal proves this.
The LVO semifinal proves that top players are very capable of WAAC behavior. The universal need for chess clocks comes from a large portion of the other 99.9% of games not finishing within time (supposedly). So the answer to “we need people to play our missions at our points value faster” is forcing a harder time limit, according to ITC.
Maybe just play with less points ? 1500 instead of 2000 or 1200 instead of 1500.
I remember when it was 1500 and then when it was 1850. Of course I play almost only 2000 pts, but I have no time constraint with my friends
godardc wrote: Maybe just play with less points ? 1500 instead of 2000 or 1200 instead of 1500.
I remember when it was 1500 and then when it was 1850. Of course I play almost only 2000 pts, but I have no time constraint with my friends
The FLG guys have polled players on the option of reducing points before, and have found that it's an extremely unpopular solution. There's merit to the idea, but FLG kinda needs to find solutions that won't cause many of their most frequent players to pack up their toys and game elsewhere because, y'know, they're a business that needs to make money.
tneva82 wrote: Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running
Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.
No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.
Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions
Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.
Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.
You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.
Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.
I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.
tneva82 wrote: Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running
Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.
No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.
Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions
Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.
Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.
You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.
Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.
I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.
Git gud
"Git gud" isn't a blanket term that allows you to act like an arse.
tneva82 wrote: Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running
Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.
No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.
Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions
Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.
Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.
You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.
Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.
I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.
Git gud
As long as you are being reasonable with your rolling and giving your opponent a chance to see it there isn't any problem.
One thing that I do is pick out the failures and remove them. My opponent typically helps me spot any in a large pool of dice. Once all of the failures are removed I state "That many hits / wounds / etc" as a quick final confirmation with my opponent that there is only successful rolls left, then I pick up the dice and roll the next lot. If the person you are playing against isn't engaging with you then I agree, it isn't your responsibility to ensure that they see the results.
tneva82 wrote: Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running
Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.
No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.
Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions
Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.
Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.
You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.
Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.
I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.
Git gud
As long as you are being reasonable with your rolling and giving your opponent a chance to see it there isn't any problem.
One thing that I do is pick out the failures and remove them. My opponent typically helps me spot any in a large pool of dice. Once all of the failures are removed I state "That many hits / wounds / etc" as a quick final confirmation with my opponent that there is only successful rolls left, then I pick up the dice and roll the next lot. If the person you are playing against isn't engaging with you then I agree, it isn't your responsibility to ensure that they see the results.
Picking failed dices one by one and asking for final confirmation from the opponent before proceeding to the next roll is the only sensible solution.
If you don't do because you want to save time, then i would call you out on that.
Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.
It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.
Except those apps are not nearly as random as you may think.
I use different dice for tracking wounds, ones that don't look like the ones I usually roll. And have one for every multi wound model.
I even have a pair of d3s, 6 sided with 2 ones, 2 twos, and 2 threes. Eliminates the 'round up/round down' dispute, and halving a d6.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.
It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.
I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?
helgrenze wrote: Except those apps are not nearly as random as you may think.
This. Probabilities aren't the same as a physical dice. In any case I want my phone as far away from the tabletop as possible. I don't play Warhammer so I can look at a screen.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.
It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.
I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?
I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?
You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.
It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.
I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?
I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?
You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.
Complaining that the rules aren't being adjusted to suit your list is much more "doing this competitive thing wrong" than wanting to use fancy dice.
Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models? I think something as strict as a chess clock doesn’t account well for the asymmetrical system of 40k.
I play Warhammer fantasy, currently a mononurgle list with 4 blocks of daemonic tar and a Greater Daemon. My turns are very fast, because I have hardly any chaff, low unit count as no shooting. I certainly wouldn’t get annoyed at a wood elf player taking longer turns than me, because between more intricate movement and shooting phase he realistically needs to take longer. I don’t think the chess clock is good for the game, since the amount of slow players it would speed up probably doesn’t equate to the amount of stress and bad blood this would cause in other games.
Top tables? Money on the line? Sure. Stress is part of the bargain. But keep it away from my chill middle tables please.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?
With movement trays, depending on the variety used, moving 100 models on them should be roughly equivalent or potentially faster than moving 10 individual models. Playing aids can help circumvent the "basic natural laws of physics" quite handily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models?
I can play a 130 model army faster than most people can play small, elite armies so yes it is quite possible and comes down to player skill, focus on constantly advancing the game state, using basic play aids and other such factors that are totally within the purview of the individual players. So no a Guard or any other player should not have unlimited time in an event format with a time restriction. If the individual player cannot play the army at that speed they very much have the option to bring something that they can play at an appropriate speed or if they cannot play at an appropriate pace in a timed environment they can always decline to participate until they are able to do so.
The main problem seems to be the horde players who simply can't grasp the fact that when there's a timed event any extra time they get is stolen from their opponent. The logistics of moving more models should never be a factor in splitting time. They chose to bring a list that wasn't appropriate for them at that event. Anything that points that out to them, like a clock saying they're running out of time is seen as a personal attack whether they realise it or not. They're invested in their army and want to play it so they refuse to realise what they're doing is the same as a child throwing a tantrum because their parents are saying that they have to give their little brother the same amount of time they've had on the xbox. "But I'm playing skyrim and he's only playing street fighter, so I should get an hour to his half an hour" no, you knew you had half an hour yet chose to play skyrim. Doesn't matter what army you're playing or what army your opponent plays. You both knew the same rules, had access to the same units, you both get the same time. You practice and adapt to be able to play horde armies under the conditions you knew you were playing or you play something else. They need to realise they're acting like children throwing a tantrum because their favourite toy soldiers take too long for them to play with so they should get to steal their opponent's time. You're not losing time that was yours to begin with. They're just saying no you can't steal your opponent's time anymore. The time allotted per game is finite, any extra time one player gets is stolen from the other player.
I wonder... if I were to come to an event with an army that I'm not familiar with and had to keep looking up my rules to know what I'm doing, would I then be entitled to more time than my opponent who knows their rules and can therefore make their decisions more quickly? I clearly need the extra time more than my opponent.
IronBrand wrote: The main problem seems to be the horde players who simply can't grasp the fact that when there's a timed event any extra time they get is stolen from their opponent. The logistics of moving more models should never be a factor in splitting time. .
A.
That is circular logic/reasoning. You cannot judge what is "fair" or not for a possible houserule regarding time to play on the assumption that this houserule already exists.
The game of Warhammer 40K from all the way back in the 80s wasn't developed with the idea or notion that people should use exactly the same time to play the game. That is why there are lists with different model counts. If the game had been developed with the rule/requirement of "both players need to use the same time" in mind, it almost certainly wouldn't have as widely divergent model counts or possibly it would use other mechanics, such as equal amounts of activations, independent of models or it would have a requirement for movement trays.
But the idea that "you get the exact same time as your opponent doesn't exist in any rulebook from Rogue Trader to 8th. the game simply wasn't written with that design goal or concept in mind.
If you chose to CHANGE the game to an equal-time requirement, you need to also account for all the knock-on effects and changes this will cause in a game whose basic mechanics aren't designed for it. Thus if a tournament introduces the house rule of fixed and equal time, it would probably be well-advised to also make changes to make the now fundamentally changed game work better with that requirement ... eg. setting a limit on model counts or a limit on how many phases of the game you can play to limit the asymmetries that exist in the game but inevitably also cause asymmetries in game-time used because that's how 40K was designed.
B.
If you consider moving more models (at equal time per model) "stealing time", the same would also apply to dice and a technical check, be it a clock or a dice app, appears to be an acceptable change to make the game work better competitively.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.
It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.
I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?
I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?
You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.
I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems like when preparing for the event, the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics of moving 100 things... was yourself.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?
With movement trays, depending on the variety used, moving 100 models on them should be roughly equivalent or potentially faster than moving 10 individual models. Playing aids can help circumvent the "basic natural laws of physics" quite handily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models?
I can play a 130 model army faster than most people can play small, elite armies so yes it is quite possible and comes down to player skill, focus on constantly advancing the game state, using basic play aids and other such factors that are totally within the purview of the individual players. So no a Guard or any other player should not have unlimited time in an event format with a time restriction. If the individual player cannot play the army at that speed they very much have the option to bring something that they can play at an appropriate speed or if they cannot play at an appropriate pace in a timed environment they can always decline to participate until they are able to do so.
Any argument that contains the words "practice" "get experience" "Get better" does not really reflect what 40K is.
95% of the players do not "practice" 40K, they "play" 40K. They do not "Get better" they are happy just playing at the same level once per month.
40K events, ITC or not, are NOT competitive events for 95% of the partecipants, they are events where you spend a full day playing with loads of players from near and far.
Now, i'm not saying that you should be alloted more time because you play more models, they are not even directly related.
If you say that you have to "practice" if you want to bring your list to a tournament though, or you skip that event, means being completely out of contact with the reality of what are 40K events.
I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics in moving 100 things when preparing for the event... was yourself.
Again, you're conflating preparation for a tournament and discussion whether a new house rule makes sense in the first place.
If a football tournament requires all players to play on stilts, it probably makes sense to prepare walking, running and kicking on stilts if I wanna participate.
However, when discussing whether or not it actually makes sense that football tournaments should require players to use stilts, the justification for "football tournaments should require stilts, because if you disagree, you should've simply prepared" doesn't fly. That's a tautology.
The pros and cons of introducing stilts must be discussed independent of the assumption that it is already implemented.
Football is a game not designed to be played on stilts. 40K is a game not designed to be played on equal time. Both can obviously be changed to meet that requirement, and if that is the case, players will need to prepare accordingly, obviously. But that is not the discussion here.
The discussion is a) whether the proposed house rule can be implemented for the game and b) if knock-on changes are required to make that house rule work for a game not designed for it.
If football is to be played on stilts, it'll probably make sense to also increase the size of the ball, possibly change the pitch, change the size of the goal and possibly the number of players.
If 40K is to be played on equal and fixed time, it probably makes sense to set fixed upper limits for the model counts, simplify time-intensive aspects of the game like the close combat phase or speed things up with dice apps to track dice rolls and avoid disputes over dice that were (re-)rolled to fast in order to meet the time requirements.
I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics in moving 100 things when preparing for the event... was yourself.
Again, you're conflating preparation for a tournament and discussion whether a new house rule makes sense in the first place.
If a football tournament requires all players to play on stilts, it probably makes sense to prepare walking, running and kicking on stilts if I wanna participate.
However, when discussing whether or not it actually makes sense that football tournaments should require players to use stilts, the justification for "football tournaments should require stilts, because if you disagree, you should've simply prepared" doesn't fly. That's a tautology.
The pros and cons of introducing stilts must be discussed independent of the assumption that it is already implemented.
Football is a game not designed to be played on stilts. 40K is a game not designed to be played on equal time. Both can obviously be changed to meet that requirement, and if that is the case, players will need to prepare accordingly, obviously. But that is not the discussion here.
The discussion is a) whether the proposed house rule can be implemented for the game and b) if knock-on changes are required to make that house rule work for a game not designed for it.
If football is to be played on stilts, it'll probably make sense to also increase the size of the ball, possibly change the pitch, change the size of the goal and possibly the number of players.
If 40K is to be played on equal and fixed time, it probably makes sense to set fixed upper limits for the model counts, simplify time-intensive aspects of the game like the close combat phase or speed things up with dice apps to track dice rolls and avoid disputes over dice that were (re-)rolled to fast in order to meet the time requirements.
This pseudo-intellectual gak lol.
Your example doesn't even work, considering this game is played with stilts (dice) to begin with, and thats what you are asking for removed.
There isn't even any need for a badly translated metaphor here, because we know exactly what we are talking about without needing to compare it to something less relevant like a sports game, but if you were going to do this, a more accurate representation would be some game that has been played on stilts to begin with, being given a time limit because some people took too long to actually put on and remove their stilts thus causing their opponents to be at a disadvantage somehow in this game, and then you demanding that everyone stop playing with stilts because your chosen style of play requires more removing and equipping the stilts than others and the time limit has made it unfair. Even then it's a different situation because you are asking to digitize the dice. Exactly why are you trying to make this dumb gak example again? It doesn't make you look intelligent lol it just makes it look like you have no real argument and need to rely on this nonsense
Anyway I don't really give a damn about the dice being real or not, I was mostly just joking, I don't even have custom dice, it does seem like a silly answer and more as though you are reaching to find some hopeless technical situation where this rule will fail. I'm betting it doesn't happen. Peace
Your example doesn't even work, considering this game is played with stilts (dice) to begin with, and thats what you are asking for removed.
There isn't even any need for a badly translated metaphor here, because we know exactly what we are talking about without needing to compare it to something less relevant like a sports game, but if you were going to do this, a more accurate representation would be some game that has been played on stilts to begin with, being given a time limit because some people took too long to actually put on and remove their stilts thus causing their opponents to be at a disadvantage somehow in this game, and then you demanding that everyone stop playing with stilts because your chosen style of play requires more removing and equipping the stilts than others and the time limit has made it unfair. Even then it's a different situation because you are asking to digitize the dice. Exactly why are you trying to make this dumb gak example again? It doesn't make you look intelligent lol it just makes it look like you have no real argument and need to rely on this nonsense
Anyway I don't really give a damn about the dice being real or not, I was mostly just joking, I don't even have custom dice, it does seem like a silly answer and more as though you are reaching to find some hopeless technical situation where this rule will fail. I'm betting it doesn't happen. Peace
I am not a fan of dice apps. Just an idea I posted of something that could work against the influx of chess-clock-cheaters that use the time pressure to fast-roll dice.
And to stick with your comparison, the game has not been played with a chess clock nor was there ever a fixed or equal time requirement, to my knowledge (but, if you can show me a rule to that end in some current or prev. ed. rulebook, I'd love to see it). If you introduce these requirements, they'll change the game (which is why people want to introduce them, right?), but there are bad changes along with the good. I am confident the good will outweigh the bad, but what's the problem with anticipating and hopefully preventing some of the less-than-good knock-on-effects of adding chess clocks to the game?
Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.
Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.
IronBrand wrote: Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.
Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.
Exactly this.
This post basically counters almost every argument made in this thread so far, as well as all the arguments that are going to be made afterwards completely ignoring this.
I think I'm done with this joke of a thread. ITC ain't gonna slow down for the snowflakes, let's keep it moving.
IronBrand wrote: Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.
Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.
Sure it is. 40K has armies of vastly different sizes and model counts, and they've always used different amounts of time to play. If Games Workshop had designed the game to be played with equal time-allotments for both players, the core rules would be different (and would state the fact that you have equal time).
The requirement that 200 Orks should take exactly the same time to play as 4 Imperial Knights is a NEW houserule to the game that didn't exist before, and like all rules-changes, it changes the game. The argument that an individual Ork players "should know" and "prepare accordingly" makes sense at the individual level, but not at the general level of whether or not the game as it was designed can accommodate that change.
IronBrand wrote: Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other.
If the differences in armies was correspondingly extreme (e.g. 1 shooty FW Titan against a huge model-count nid-army playing extensively across all phases of the game), of course games of 40K were meant to be loopsided in this way. There certainly was no requirement or even the idea that the time should be split half-half.
IronBrand wrote: Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.
Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.
Sure it is. 40K has armies of vastly different sizes and model counts, and they've always used different amounts of time to play. If Games Workshop had designed the game to be played with equal time-allotments for both players, the core rules would be different (and would state the fact that you have equal time).
The requirement that 200 Orks should take exactly the same time to play as 4 Imperial Knights is a NEW houserule to the game that didn't exist before, and like all rules-changes, it changes the game. The argument that an individual Ork players "should know" and "prepare accordingly" makes sense at the individual level, but not at the general level of whether or not the game as it was designed can accommodate that change.
But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.
helgrenze wrote: Except those apps are not nearly as random as you may think.
This. Probabilities aren't the same as a physical dice. In any case I want my phone as far away from the tabletop as possible. I don't play Warhammer so I can look at a screen.
Actually, the probabilities on the GW official dice app are most likely more accurate the physical dice you are rolling (especially if you are using any GW dice with large cut out emblems for some numbers). The dice engine is actually the same type they use in casino digital games in Vegas. Its a full on physics engine that simulates the rolling of actual dice (not the super cool but poorly weighted GW dice). The fact is that this is an official GW product and if you don't want to use it that's fine but anyone that's consistently rolling over 20 dice should definitely pick it up because its a massive time saver
Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?
But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.
We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?
Well, again, ITC could change that if they wanted to and were serious about their "competitive, clocked 40K", merging saves and such into the hit rolls, etc.. to avoid back-and-forth. It'd probably take a bit more work though.
But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.
We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.
So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?
But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.
We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.
So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?
No, I am not saying ITC games are games of 40K. But neither is ITC a game built from scratch. They reference the GW rules and use many (though clearly not all) of the 40K rules as a basis. So they are to a degree subject to the limits, strengths and weakenesses of 40K as far as they use those rules.
And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.
But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.
We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.
So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?
No, I am not saying ITC games are games of 40K. But neither is ITC a game built from scratch. They reference the GW rules and use many (though clearly not all) of the 40K rules as a basis. So they are to a degree subject to the limits, strengths and weakenesses of 40K as far as they use those rules.
You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.
You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.
And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.
You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.
And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.
Where does it say you get exactly half the time?
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
That doesn't make sense.
ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.
Crimson wrote: Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?
ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
That doesn't make sense.
ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.
No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.
Crimson wrote: Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?
ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though
Yeah, that's too little time. Make it four hours, two hours for each player, and switch the clock between the player turns. That should be enough time to reasonably finish the game, and the clock would help to catch any obviously intentional slow play.
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
That doesn't make sense.
ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.
Just out of curiosity (because nobody responded to my post with the issues of nonequal time) what should we use to determine how much time a player does get in a round? If we have conceded the point that tournaments have to have a time limit (lets be real no tournament would last more then a year without time limits to keep the tournament organized) then what exact metric should we use to determine how much time a player should get? Is it reasonable for someone with 250 models to have a 2 hour turn in a 2.5 hour game? This is what i think is the biggest divider in understanding between the two groups. Equal time is a simple metric to understand just take the time and divide it in half, but unequal time is more abstract and nobody has shown exactly what is fair and what is not.
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
That doesn't make sense.
ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.
No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.
There is no intent for 40K to be played with equal time, or they would've designed a game that meets that. Since the laws of physics dictate that moving 100 things takes more time than 10 things and GW made a game that allows people to field 100 things against 10 things (as opposed to chess, say), that's not a consideration. Also, GW tournaments use neither chess clocks nor equal time. If that would be GW's intent, why doesn't Warhammer World 10 feet from the Game Designers' office play that way?
There is no clarification in ITC's house rules on chess clocks and equal time. That's just their own thing. Of course, they can do whatever they want with their own events, but that doesn't mean people can discuss the pros and cons of whatever they cook up. That's what discussion boards are for.
If ITC decides that all games of 40K must be played in bunny costumes, that's their right, just like their chess clock rules. But it's not a clarification of GW intent and I am free to discuss whether it's a good or bad decision.
What a lot of people think will happen to kinda-slow-billy with clocks introduced:
“Man, I guess even though I just came to the event for fun because I never have time to play otherwise, I’ll have to schedule some practice games before the next one and like flash-card-study my codex so I can play fast enough to finish the round.”
What I think will happen:
“Man, it’s super stressful trying to play so fast that I can barely think, can’t possibly double check my book, and also deal with a clock. I’m really not having fun like this. I guess I’ll just stop attending until they work out a better point limit/time limit combination.”
I don’t really have a problem with clocks, in fact I like some of their advantages, but I think the common 2k/2.5 hour combo is too tight to begin with. I’d prefer not to see several events that have worked up their playerbase over several years shrink back down.
Crimson wrote: Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?
ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though
Yeah, that's too little time. Make it four hours, two hours for each player, and switch the clock between the player turns. That should be enough time to reasonably finish the game, and the clock would help to catch any obviously intentional slow play.
I think the rounds being longer is a fair point. The issue is people are voting with there wallets and people would rather go to events that get 3 round in instead of 2. If people really feel this way they need to start hosting tournaments with 4-hour rounds and begin supporting those tournaments.
Sunny Side Up wrote:
The requirement that 200 Orks should take exactly the same time to play as 4 Imperial Knights is a NEW houserule to the game that didn't exist before
And it doesn't exist now. So long as you can finish your OWN army within the time frame provided, it doesn't matter how long your opponent takes. He might be finished 5 times faster than you if he's rushing as well, doesn't matter if he has spare time on his clock, you are Not penalized for that, and you've been given enough time to play a game of 40k. If you cant move your Orks in that time than tough gak, you're literally replicating the exact situation that this rule was designed to stop.
niv-mizzet wrote: What a lot of people think will happen to kinda-slow-billy with clocks introduced:
“Man, I guess even though I just came to the event for fun because I never have time to play otherwise, I’ll have to schedule some practice games before the next one and like flash-card-study my codex so I can play fast enough to finish the round.”
What I think will happen:
“Man, it’s super stressful trying to play so fast that I can barely think, can’t possibly double check my book, and also deal with a clock. I’m really not having fun like this. I guess I’ll just stop attending until they work out a better point limit/time limit combination.”
I don’t really have a problem with clocks, in fact I like some of their advantages, but I think the common 2k/2.5 hour combo is too tight to begin with. I’d prefer not to see several events that have worked up their player base over several years shrink back down.
right now chess clocks are only being introduced for top tables day 2. I highly doubt billy is going to be able to make it that far if he only plays events for fun and doesn't really play outside of the tournament. honestly, though I'm a casual player and I have no issue playing 2.5 hour games (my group made this rule a long time ago so we could get in 2 games on our gaming night). I don't "practice" for speed or anything like that but i do know my army and my units and when you dont have to look up rules you can get through a game in 2.5 hours while drinking easily. In case your wondering I often have over 150 infantry to move around.
You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.
That doesn't make sense.
ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.
No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.
There is no intent for 40K to be played with equal time, or they would've designed a game that meets that. Since the laws of physics dictate that moving 100 things takes more time than 10 things and GW made a game that allows people to field 100 things against 10 things (as opposed to chess, say), that's not a consideration. Also, GW tournaments use neither chess clocks nor equal time. If that would be GW's intent, why doesn't Warhammer World 10 feet from the Game Designers' office play that way?
There is no clarification in ITC's house rules on chess clocks and equal time. That's just their own thing. Of course, they can do whatever they want with their own events, but that doesn't mean people can discuss the pros and cons of whatever they cook up. That's what discussion boards are for.
If ITC decides that all games of 40K must be played on bunny costumes, that's their right, just like their chess clock rules. But it's not a clarification of GW intent and I am free to discuss whether it's a good or bad decision.
A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need. The purpose of a standard game is to have fun.
A tournament game is intended to determine who is best suited at winning that tournament. On that day under the chosen conditions. If the army a player brings is not suitable for the tournament they're entering that is entirely on them. The conditions of a tournament should never be changed to please a player who decided they could just ignore the conditions of a tournament when building a list. It's the same as not giving a player who comes with an army consisting purely of tactical marines some special rule because they're at a disadvantage. If a player handicaps themself with their list then it is 100% on them and if they complain about it to a judge or TO they should politely tell them they chose their list, if they don't like the rules they agreed to they're free to leave.
The intentions of GW have literally nothing to do with what ITC chooses to do with their events. I never said the ITC chess clock rules are a clarification of GW's intent. They are a clarification of the intent of round time being split evenly between players. That is ITC's intent. Adding a chess clock is effectively errata to say "Hey, some of you guys have been abusing the time given for you games. Stop that, both players have an equal right to the time in the round."
It's a amazing how many silly argument are being tossed around on the thread. It's like people can's see a few simple truths :
1. Tournament games have to have time limits: In a perfect world, we could have a week long 5 round tournament with 1 game a day, but this isn't professional tennis. This is people coming together in leisure time to have some fun and compete. You just can't have all the time you want to play a game. Just the other weekend, 3 friends and I got together and paired off for games. My game was done from deployment to concession in 2 hours. The other game dragged on for 7 hours. We literally could have played another game waiting for that game to end. That is just not an option in a one day, three round tournament. As for longer time per round, that's a matter of what the players and venues will support. Do you want to be a a tournament from 7 AM to 10:30 PM to allow for 1 hour registration, three 4-hour rounds, a 1 hour lunch & dinner breaks, and 30 minute awards ceremony?
2. The Fairest Way to divide Available Game Time is evenly: It's not perfect. Some armies take longer to play than others and I'm not even talking about the extreme of 4 Knights versus 200 Orcs. Even with a relatively even number of models in the army, some armies move faster than others. Some armies have faster Psychic Phases than others (some don't even have Psychic Phases at all). Some shoot faster than others, even within the same faction. Some take longer in Close Combat while others avoid it. Some just scoop models off the table, while others have layers of damage resistance. There is just no way to simply say, "I have more models so I deserve more time". Besides, if you need more than half the time to play your army, what happens when you run up against another player who also needs more than half the time to play their army?
3. Adding Limitations or Special Scenerios Means Your not playing 40K: This BS. If you have not substantially changed the rules provided by GW, you are playing Warhammer 40,000. Custom Scenarios, Detachment Limits, and Time Constraints don't magically make the game a different game. You are still pulling out the same rulebook, Codexes, and Indexes as when you are playing in your garage using Open Play rules and the Open War deck.
A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.
Again, not true.
You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.
There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..
Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.
Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.
Again, if ITC wants to change it, they can do whatever they please. But a) it's not a standard feature of 40K or "GW's intent" (if anything, GW reducing points for their Grand Tournament is arguably the only hint we have at GW's own "intent" of how to approach this, assuming the change was to address time issues) and b) can be considered a "bad idea" for many of the reasons mentioned above. You can disagree with them, but claiming ITC is just doing "GW intent" and "the game is meant to always get to turn 5/6 with equal time for both players" is clearly wrong..
If anything, regular ITC players with an interest in a good game should be the most critical of ITC piling on bureaucratic rules nilly willy for feeble reasons, rather than going full scientology on everything the ITC puts out and everyone who dares not praise their decisions without questions.
A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.
Again, not true.
You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.
There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..
Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.
Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.
Again, if ITC wants to change it, they can do whatever they please. But a) it's not a standard feature of 40K or "GW's intent" (if anything, GW reducing points for their Grand Tournament is arguably the only hint we have at GW's own "intent" of how to approach this, assuming the change was to address time issues) and b) can be considered a "bad idea" for many of the reasons mentioned above. You can disagree with them, but claiming ITC is just doing "GW intent" and "the game is meant to always get to turn 5/6 with equal time for both players" is clearly wrong..
If anything, regular ITC players with an interest in a good game should be the most critical of ITC piling on bureaucratic rules nilly willy for feeble reasons, rather than going full scientology on everything the ITC puts out and everyone who dares not praise their decisions without questions.
How many times do I have to reiterate I never said ITC introducing clocks has anything to do with GW's intent. You refuse to listen and just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if it somehow changes the words I've said. ITC introducing chess clocks is to do with ITC's intent of the limited time being split evenly between players. The only fair way to ever do it.
I personally do not care what rules or time limits ITC chooses to implement. As long as anyone entering has access to those rules and equal time it is fair. If they make a rule that bringing an imperial guard army gets you an instant DQ, that is fair. The only thing that matters is the rules are available and any resources, such as time are split evenly.
Like I said earlier if they ever implement a rule that more models gives you more time competitive people will only play the maximum number of models. There are way too many factors for anything other than an equal split to ever be fair.
How many times do I have to reiterate I never said ITC introducing clocks has anything to do with GW's intent. You refuse to listen and just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if it somehow changes the words I've said. .
I clearly quoted the factually wrong statements in your previous posts to which I responded in each of my responses. That's what the quote-function on dakka is there for. I did not quote or respond to the parts of your posts relating to your personal preferences.
For the last one, you made a partially incorrect statement about "standard games of 40K", not ITC, and this is what I responded to.
I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.
ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.
Blndmage wrote: I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.
ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.
This is true for many tournaments, no major tournaments uses GW rules to the fullest, they all alter them in some way.
Blndmage wrote: I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.
ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.
This is true for many tournaments, no major tournaments uses GW rules to the fullest, they all alter them in some way.
True, but it's the degree of alteration I have an issue with, esp ially if GW is looking at tournaments for balance and rules issues. You can't balance your rules around a heavily modded system and expect the base game to run just fine.
A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.
Again, not true.
You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.
There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..
Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.
Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.
I can't tell if you're just being obtuse here, simply haven't understood what IronBrand said or are just determined to try to prove yourself right by automatically disagreeing with anyone who's ever argued against you. His whole point was that standard 40k doesn't have a time limit and doesn't say anything about how long a game should last. It takes as long as it takes. This doesn't mean players get equal time - he literally stated that in the text you quoted so I don't know how you missed it. This is not in dispute, by anyone. What you seem to be failing to grasp is that tournament 40k (whether that's ITC, ETC, a GWGT or a local tournament in your FLGS) needs to set a time limit to function. That's the context this discussion is taking place in, so if your only response is "40k shouldn't have a time limit attached" you need to find another thread because the basis of this topic is tournament 40k, which by its very nature requires a time limit.
Tournaments require time limits. This isn't in dispute. Slow play is a tactic that most people equate with TFG behaviour and that disadvantages one player over another. Dividing the time equally between players does not necessarily make things completely fair but nobody ever said it does. What it does is make sure a player isn't disadvantaged by factors outside of his control (in this case a slow-playing opponent). This is, by definition, a fairer approach than we previously had. Note, that doesn't mean it's 100% fair.
How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.
So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?
helgrenze wrote: A issue that I haven't seen brought up as yet....
How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.
So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?
"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."
So my immediate guess is that in most cases that game will just spill over 5 min or so into the break. If that's not an option the TO will decide whos time it comes out of and my guess is the person who was on the wrong end of the rules dispute gets their time eaten into.
helgrenze wrote: A issue that I haven't seen brought up as yet....
How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.
So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?
In other games that use chess clocks, the only time a clock is ever paused is when there's a rules dispute that requires a judge. At that point the judge makes a ruling and they should do so as quickly as possible while still giving the situation the required amount of consideration. This means these stoppages are pretty rare and the extra time they add on should be very small in practice.
helgrenze wrote: A issue that I haven't seen brought up as yet....
How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.
So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?
There is normally some sort of break between rounds. It is unlikely a game will have so many disputes that require a judge that this time is not sufficient.
And if it is then the judge probably has bigger issues to deal with then a game going over time.
niv-mizzet wrote: What a lot of people think will happen to kinda-slow-billy with clocks introduced:
“Man, I guess even though I just came to the event for fun because I never have time to play otherwise, I’ll have to schedule some practice games before the next one and like flash-card-study my codex so I can play fast enough to finish the round.”
What I think will happen:
“Man, it’s super stressful trying to play so fast that I can barely think, can’t possibly double check my book, and also deal with a clock. I’m really not having fun like this. I guess I’ll just stop attending until they work out a better point limit/time limit combination.”
I don’t really have a problem with clocks, in fact I like some of their advantages, but I think the common 2k/2.5 hour combo is too tight to begin with. I’d prefer not to see several events that have worked up their playerbase over several years shrink back down.
Nope. More people will start playing when they figure out they get to play rather than watch billy tryy to sort out if he should attack 2 times with the power sword and 3 with the bolter gantlet, or 3 with the power sword, and 2 with the guantoet for 20 minutes.
Yeah. Coming to play and taking 1 hour to do something that should have taken 20 minutes is dumb.
If anything, regular ITC players with an interest in a good game should be the most critical of ITC piling on bureaucratic rules nilly willy for feeble reasons, rather than going full scientology on everything the ITC puts out and everyone who dares not praise their decisions without questions.
Chess clocks is simply a way for TO's to shift responsibility for punishing the intentional mismanagement of time for advantage from themselves ( where it SHOULD rest) to the players/clock. TO's don't want to actually penalize offenders because it cost them money from their pocket. If you started banning some of these players I think you would be surprised how quickly this would clean itself up.
Fear of punishment only works on people who aren't going to commit the crime anyway. If it did work than there would be a smaller prison population then we do in this country.
Draconian punishments are really for the enjoyment of the mob.
Crimson Devil wrote: Fear of punishment only works on people who aren't going to commit the crime anyway. If it did work than there would be a smaller prison population then we do in this country.
Draconian punishments are really for the enjoyment of the mob.
Waaaaaaaaaay, apples and Cadillacs, but you are entitled to your opinion. I would argue that if the punishment out weighs the benefit, your concept doesn't hold up. If I chop the hand off a thief, bet he won't do it again... Pretty much guaranteed he won't do it more than twice.
I don't see the issue people are having with Horde style armies.
If I were to drop 200 models across the table, set up within 4 inches of my table edge covering it from one side to the other, My first two turns would be minimal. Some random shooting.
My opponent is going to waste two to three turns moving his units toward mine.
By my turn three, I might have 60 minutes or more left to make all my assaults and moves while they may have less than half of that.
Then it's on my opponant to sweat the clock, with a dwindling number of models to fight with.
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
Part of the problem is 8th edition has a ton of re-rolls. Re-rolls are "streamlined" in the sense that they are easy to grasp and understand (I'm within 6" of Model X, so I pick up every '1' on a d6 and re-roll it isn't very difficult) but it is incredibly time consuming. Think about it this way:
1) My Daemonettes in a unit of 20 have 61 attacks in CC. If I am near a Daemon Prince, I re-roll 1s, and if the Masque is near my target, I get +1 to hit. Quick maffs (which still takes X amount of a fraction of a second) tells me that I roll 61 dice, 2+s hit, re-rolling ones.
2) So I count 61 dice, perhaps counting by fives plus one (so 12 groups of 5 plus 1). Setting aside the need for potentially being unable to hold that many dice in a single batch, I roll all 61 dice, scoring about 10 1s. I have to carefully scan 61 dice, whip out the 1s, making sure I get every last one out of 61 potential 1s, then roll those 10 again.
3) Now that I have scored my ~59 hits, I can move on to Wound. But I am near a Herald, so I am +1 strength, adding another bit of maffs for 1/10th of a nanosecond (still time). So I'm looking for 4s, against a tactical squad.
4) I roll 59 dice, and I have to scour all 59 to sort the hits from the wounds. Then, because I am Daemonettes, I have to scan the remaining ~30 wounds to see how many of them are 6's, because those have AP -4 instead of AP -1. You can overlap this step a bit, but it's important to make sure that both you and your opponent understand what is going on.
Each step of that process doesn't take terribly long, but that does mean I have to scan the dice several times, pick them up and roll them, in some cases, 3 times. Each step of the way, I have to wait for and resolve any input from my opponent (because rolling that many dice I recognize my opponent's need to identify them is also paramount, as well as giving him the opportunity to play any stratagems that may reduce my Attacks or force me to re-roll to wound or something), and the whole time I am doing a bit of mental gymnastics in my head (alright, I have +1 to hit, but only +1 Strength rather than +1 to wound, which is different, and I get to re-roll 1s to hit, which in this case is every roll to hit, but I don't get to re-roll to wound at all...).
All of this takes time, and is why I think it's impossible to play horde armies fast. You can skip certain steps (the longest steps, I find, are all the ones that involve the opponent), but that's TFG behavior. Declaring that there are 20 Daemonettes in range to swing, and then your opponent saying "are you sure" can drag another 25-30 seconds off the clock where you meticulously check the position of every single daemonette with a tape-measure. Sure it can be on his clock, but the point is that it takes time from someone to check all 20 Daemonettes. Then? You have to wait for your opponent to look at 61 dice as well, and you have to count them yourself. It's... not really a my skill thing so much as my opponent's skill, and that's why I dislike chess clocks. Because either I have to remember to switch it every time he says "are you sure all 20 daemonettes are within an inch or within an inch of a model that is within an inch?" and I have to bend over the table, possibly walking all the way around the entire length to his side of the board, to check every single model with a tape measure. Do that 3 times for all my squads of 20, and that's 1.5 minutes, already about a tenth of the entire length I am allowed to play for the turn, and I've not even rolled my 183 dice yet. God forbid he challenges me on a measurement of what an "inch" is, because then that could add a whole 'nother 30 seconds of discussion, jostling with tape measures, and possibly knocking models about. The only options are for 1) me to let him browbeat me with time, and my "inch" is gradually shrunk to half an inch or so because I don't have time to teach him how long an inch is, 2) me to swap the clock to his time, inadvertently browbeating him with the same thing (I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong), or 3) just declare, roll, pick up, etc. without giving him time to interrupt. But that's uncouth, at best.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
Part of the problem is 8th edition has a ton of re-rolls. Re-rolls are "streamlined" in the sense that they are easy to grasp and understand (I'm within 6" of Model X, so I pick up every '1' on a d6 and re-roll it isn't very difficult) but it is incredibly time consuming. Think about it this way:
1) My Daemonettes in a unit of 20 have 61 attacks in CC. If I am near a Daemon Prince, I re-roll 1s, and if the Masque is near my target, I get +1 to hit. Quick maffs (which still takes X amount of a fraction of a second) tells me that I roll 61 dice, 2+s hit, re-rolling ones.
2) So I count 61 dice, perhaps counting by fives plus one (so 12 groups of 5 plus 1). Setting aside the need for potentially being unable to hold that many dice in a single batch, I roll all 61 dice, scoring about 10 1s. I have to carefully scan 61 dice, whip out the 1s, making sure I get every last one out of 61 potential 1s, then roll those 10 again.
3) Now that I have scored my ~59 hits, I can move on to Wound. But I am near a Herald, so I am +1 strength, adding another bit of maffs for 1/10th of a nanosecond (still time). So I'm looking for 4s, against a tactical squad.
4) I roll 59 dice, and I have to scour all 59 to sort the hits from the wounds. Then, because I am Daemonettes, I have to scan the remaining ~30 wounds to see how many of them are 6's, because those have AP -4 instead of AP -1. You can overlap this step a bit, but it's important to make sure that both you and your opponent understand what is going on.
Each step of that process doesn't take terribly long, but that does mean I have to scan the dice several times, pick them up and roll them, in some cases, 3 times. Each step of the way, I have to wait for and resolve any input from my opponent (because rolling that many dice I recognize my opponent's need to identify them is also paramount, as well as giving him the opportunity to play any stratagems that may reduce my Attacks or force me to re-roll to wound or something), and the whole time I am doing a bit of mental gymnastics in my head (alright, I have +1 to hit, but only +1 Strength rather than +1 to wound, which is different, and I get to re-roll 1s to hit, which in this case is every roll to hit, but I don't get to re-roll to wound at all...).
All of this takes time, and is why I think it's impossible to play horde armies fast. You can skip certain steps (the longest steps, I find, are all the ones that involve the opponent), but that's TFG behavior. Declaring that there are 20 Daemonettes in range to swing, and then your opponent saying "are you sure" can drag another 25-30 seconds off the clock where you meticulously check the position of every single daemonette with a tape-measure. Sure it can be on his clock, but the point is that it takes time from someone to check all 20 Daemonettes. Then? You have to wait for your opponent to look at 61 dice as well, and you have to count them yourself. It's... not really a my skill thing so much as my opponent's skill, and that's why I dislike chess clocks. Because either I have to remember to switch it every time he says "are you sure all 20 daemonettes are within an inch or within an inch of a model that is within an inch?" and I have to bend over the table, possibly walking all the way around the entire length to his side of the board, to check every single model with a tape measure. Do that 3 times for all my squads of 20, and that's 1.5 minutes, already about a tenth of the entire length I am allowed to play for the turn, and I've not even rolled my 183 dice yet. God forbid he challenges me on a measurement of what an "inch" is, because then that could add a whole 'nother 30 seconds of discussion, jostling with tape measures, and possibly knocking models about. The only options are for 1) me to let him browbeat me with time, and my "inch" is gradually shrunk to half an inch or so because I don't have time to teach him how long an inch is, 2) me to swap the clock to his time, inadvertently browbeating him with the same thing (I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong), or 3) just declare, roll, pick up, etc. without giving him time to interrupt. But that's uncouth, at best.
With regards to whether things are in combat range or not using a combat gauge is the easiest way to speed it up. Use the 1" side and the issue of parallax error from reading a tape measure at different angles is somewhat mitigated. Slide it over above the unit at a reasonable pace, if the gauge meets the base it's in. No worrying about if it's just under or over the 1" mark.
With regards to combat math, that should never be an issue if a player knows their army. Do the math on your opponent's turn when you're deciding what you'll do on yours. You should know what you need to roll before you ever get to combat. With rolling a lot of dice the only way to mitigate that is to find what size batches give you the best efficiency. For example roll in batches of 10, have your opponent verify the 10 you just rolled as you roll your next batch of 10. It's not hard to come up with strategies to optimise your usage of time. Roll 10, roll 10 while your opponent checks the previous 10, set aside the two from the previous batch that need rerolls, roll your next 10, etc. doing the rerolls in batches of 10 after the regular rolls.
So, I think we everyone does accept that a standard game of 40k does not have a time limit, because it doesn’t need one. It is usually played between a couple of mates over a few hours until the end of the game.
Tournaments, ITC or not, unfortunately don’t have the luxury of an open-ended time limit. Take the event I’m going to in a couple of weeks as an example.
Schedule below.
Spoiler:
Saturday
8:30 Doors Open
9:00 Briefing
9:30 Game 1
12:30 Dice Down
12:30 Lunch and Painting Competition
13:30 Game 2
16:30 Dice Down
17:00 Game 3
20:00 Dice Down
Sunday
9:00 Doors Open
10:00 Game 4
13:00 Dice Down
13:00 Lunch and Best Army Competition
14:00 Game 5
17:00 Dice Down
17:30 Awards
18:00 Event Ends
As you can see, each game as a 3-hour time limit, and a day 1 total expected day length of 11.5 hours. As much as a 4-hour game time would help certain armies play more to their potential, finishing day 1 at 23:00 really just isn’t that practical. Not for the event, the players, the staff or the venue. In Jan, this event ran 6 games, with 4 on day one. Needless to say the opinion of everyone involved was that the 4th game just wasn’t worth it, or fun for the vast majority of the people involved. Other people and events might have a different opinion, but it certainly started to feel more like a chore. (and I was one of the people most happy about the addition of the 6th game)
In events, I think it is important to give everyone as much of a level playing field BEFORE the event as possible. Understanding you have 1.5 hours of time per game does this (along with all the other limits – like point limit, detachment limits etc). As much as a “moving” time split is potentially more “fair”, what do you do when you only have 3 hours but 1 army requires 2 hours to play and the other requires 1.5 hours to play? At this point you are penalising both players as you don’t physically have enough time for each army to be played to its “potential”. What happens if I kill 1/3 of a horde players’ models turn 1 before they get a turn? Do I then get an increase in the time I’m allowed to use, while they get a decrease because they clearly no longer need all the additional time awarded to them before the game began? There are so many issues surrounding how to split time it is not even worth trying to create an initial guideline for it.
Games of 40k are rarely truly balanced affairs, even without the restriction of a time limit. This is especially noticeable at events. Armies taken at events usually fall into the whole rock-paper-scissors theory. The moment a Knight list comes up against a list built purely to kill multiple T8 targets then it is going to struggle. The moment 200 boyz comes up against a high rate of fire, screened, gunline, it’s going to struggle etc etc. This is probably one of the biggest aspects of ETC.
People need to take a step back and accept that chess clocks are a trial approach to cut down on the large potential of getting slow played – deliberate or undeliberate. If it turns out it isn’t working as expected I’m sure it’ll get changed.
At the London Grand Tournament, there was a game on the table next to me on game 1 that was the epitome of slow play. Orkz vs SoB, Custodes and Assassins. My game (Thousand Sons vs Ultramarines) finished naturally with time to spare on turn 5, before the Ork player managed to complete his 2nd turn. Chess clocks will completely stop that from happening ever again.
Tournaments will always be about having to adapt to the given situations and rules pack. It might be harsh, but, if a player can’t or won’t, adapt to that given situation, then they are going to have a hard time competing at that event. If the player doesn’t want to play to said rules pack, then they are free to not attend and contact the TO to discuss why they aren’t going and provide any suggestions they might have.
But, as we all know, most people complaining about the situation will do nothing but complain about it, rather than step forward and say “I’m not attending your event because of… and here are some of the ideas I have about making your event fairer.” Arguing here on Dakka about it isn’t going to change anything. The onus is 100% on the players of the events to;
A.) Go to the events (multiple) and test the methods, and,
B.) Provide feedback on the methods to the TO and/or ITC.
Without doing the above, no one is qualified to provide reasoned arguments for either side of the debate. One event with a single list is not enough either. You have to prove you are trying different things and getting the same result first. Until this is done ITC can’t turn around and say chess clocks are a success or failure. If 100 people say they played multiple events with horde armies and never had enough time due to the clock, then it’d be taken notice of. But, if another 100 say they’ve had no problems running their horde list, then that’ll also be taken account of and the question then becomes “why can some do it, but others can’t?”
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
1) No real hordes
2) Overrun and wipeout from losing combat
3) Armies are on a basic level the same so everyone understands what everything does.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...
...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.
I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.
There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...
...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.
I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.
There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.
if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...
...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.
I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.
There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.
if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.
No your not the only one. Weapon stats on one side, unit stats on the other. I know most of them by heart but its nice to be able to quickly reference when your not 100% sure.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...
...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.
I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.
There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.
if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.
As you know, in competitive play you need to know your opponents rules as well.
And people don't always have a clear knowledge of rules, even the top-tier players get stuff wrong. And it creates rules disputes. I played a game with a well known player recently and we had a rules dispute (obviously a very friendly game, not a bad dispute, just a disagreement). For speed of play i deferred to him, because he's the pro player, but i was actually right.
Ultimately where chess clocks will fall apart in 40k is when you call a judge. The time lost there can be significant. Especially if you're expecting 5-6 turns. 15 minutes waiting for a judge to resolve an issue means you're stopping after turn 4.
Consider:
Games are 2.5 hours, or 150 minutes.
5 minutes each for deployment, warlord traits, pre-game powers, going over lists, setting up objectives, etc. Total 10 minutes.
Turn1 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn2 for both players, 35 minutes total. (17.5 minutes each)
Turn3 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn4 for both players, 25 minutes total. (12.5 minutes each)
This leaves us with 20 minutes to spare. Normally that might be enough to get through turns 5 and 6. But, if you spend 15 minutes waiting on a judge, you cannot start round 5.
I think my time estimates are very, very fast. For instance it takes me about 20 minutes for turns 1 and 2 until my swarm starts getting thinned.
The point is you have a situation where there is no time inequity, and the game will end with both players having time left on their clocks. If you've played in enough tournaments you've definitely had to call a judge. And doing so is not immediate, and the ruling is not instantaneous. Also, leading up to calling a judge burns some time as you try to amicably resolve the conflict first with your opponent.
The idea that clocks will help you get to turns 5 and 6 assumes that there are no paused clock scenarios.
It's been my experience that games are ending around turn 4-5 because of rules disputes. Now, clocks might solve the aspect of not knowing rules. Currently if my opponent doesn't know my rules (and, why would they know all of them) i'm stopping to explain. I always start every game with kind of a canned friendly greeting, which includes offering to stop and explain anything they don't understand, and also, provide my codex to support it. Naturally this will still be there but it will be eating into their time. But the second you call a judge or there is a dispute of any kind, someone is going to pause the clock.
Think about it, if someone says something that is obviously wrong to you, for example, Poxwalkers can spawn within 1" of a model that they aren't already in combat with, locking it into combat. Finding this information in the FAQs is going to take time, and they're hitting pause, so you can call a judge. This specific FAQ is not found in the death guard FAQ, it's a general FAQ that references setting up newly created units. It's not easy to find. Suddenly your game is ending on turn 4.
agurus1 wrote: I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?
While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...
...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.
I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.
There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.
if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.
As you know, in competitive play you need to know your opponents rules as well.
And people don't always have a clear knowledge of rules, even the top-tier players get stuff wrong. And it creates rules disputes. I played a game with a well known player recently and we had a rules dispute (obviously a very friendly game, not a bad dispute, just a disagreement). For speed of play i deferred to him, because he's the pro player, but i was actually right.
Ultimately where chess clocks will fall apart in 40k is when you call a judge. The time lost there can be significant. Especially if you're expecting 5-6 turns. 15 minutes waiting for a judge to resolve an issue means you're stopping after turn 4.
Consider:
Games are 2.5 hours, or 150 minutes.
5 minutes each for deployment, warlord traits, pre-game powers, going over lists, setting up objectives, etc. Total 10 minutes.
Turn1 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn2 for both players, 35 minutes total. (17.5 minutes each)
Turn3 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn4 for both players, 25 minutes total. (12.5 minutes each)
This leaves us with 20 minutes to spare. Normally that might be enough to get through turns 5 and 6. But, if you spend 15 minutes waiting on a judge, you cannot start round 5.
I think my time estimates are very, very fast. For instance it takes me about 20 minutes for turns 1 and 2 until my swarm starts getting thinned.
The point is you have a situation where there is no time inequity, and the game will end with both players having time left on their clocks. If you've played in enough tournaments you've definitely had to call a judge. And doing so is not immediate, and the ruling is not instantaneous. Also, leading up to calling a judge burns some time as you try to amicably resolve the conflict first with your opponent.
The idea that clocks will help you get to turns 5 and 6 assumes that there are no paused clock scenarios.
It's been my experience that games are ending around turn 4-5 because of rules disputes. Now, clocks might solve the aspect of not knowing rules. Currently if my opponent doesn't know my rules (and, why would they know all of them) i'm stopping to explain. I always start every game with kind of a canned friendly greeting, which includes offering to stop and explain anything they don't understand, and also, provide my codex to support it. Naturally this will still be there but it will be eating into their time. But the second you call a judge or there is a dispute of any kind, someone is going to pause the clock.
Think about it, if someone says something that is obviously wrong to you, for example, Poxwalkers can spawn within 1" of a model that they aren't already in combat with, locking it into combat. Finding this information in the FAQs is going to take time, and they're hitting pause, so you can call a judge. This specific FAQ is not found in the death guard FAQ, it's a general FAQ that references setting up newly created units. It's not easy to find. Suddenly your game is ending on turn 4.
The rule says that the clock is stopped while waiting for a judge. They have time allotted for rules disputes but the player will receive the same amount of time to do their turns. It's the same way they handle it in other tabletop games that have clocks and it doesn't cause any issues. Also, the time usage should be dropping significantly after each turn as units die/reach their objective. The most beautiful thing about clocks is it allows you to load your time on the front end and take quicker later turns without being screwed over.
Asmodios wrote: The most beautiful thing about clocks is it allows you to load your time on the front end and take quicker later turns without being screwed over.
This is probably slightly less beautiful, but I appreciate it more. It's super nice that there's essentially no ill will over time usage. I've seen players flip the clock to themselves and go number 2. Using your time as you see fit is very relaxing; you just have to realize how to budget your time to get the game done.
Marmatag wrote: If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.
And if you're willing to extend the round by 30 minutes for clock stoppages, just make the rounds 3 hours long.
Marmatag's personal preference: 3 hour rounds capped at 5 turns. Paused clocks do not extend rounds.
Tournaments have break times between rounds. This should cover most rule issues. And if it doesn't then there is probably something wrong with one of the players involved.
Marmatag wrote: If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.
And if you're willing to extend the round by 30 minutes for clock stoppages, just make the rounds 3 hours long.
Marmatag's personal preference: 3 hour rounds capped at 5 turns. Paused clocks do not extend rounds.
Rounds have breaks in between that they can spill into for a bit if needed. If it takes 30min for a TO to settle a rules dispute thats more of the venues issue then anything and I'm assuming the TO would have to handle it if it happened. The problem with the "just make the round 3 hours long" is that it does nothing to counter slow play at all. If a tournament has 3 hours that's great... 3 hours with a clock is even better.
You can't consume the break time with more play. That time is absolutely required to pack your stuff move to the next table, use the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
Logistics come into play at some point.
Show me where the rule set specifically states that rounds can go longer than their allotted time if a judge is called. You're just making stuff up at this point...
And what I meant was "3 hours with a clock, no stoppage time, capped at 5 turns." That would be perfectly fine with me for any event.
Marmatag wrote: You can't consume the break time with more play. That time is absolutely required to pack your stuff move to the next table, use the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
Logistics come into play at some point.
Show me where the rule set specifically states that rounds can go longer than their allotted time if a judge is called. You're just making stuff up at this point...
And what I meant was "3 hours with a clock, no stoppage time, capped at 5 turns." That would be perfectly fine with me for any event.
So why that long post about how it all breaks when you call a judge because of lost time only for you to now say that your fine with the game ending when round time ends despite time left on the clock.
I'm confused here. What point are you trying to make.
The point i'm trying to make is that the argument that games weren't making it to time because of slow play is not accurate. Any rules dispute/discussions contribute to shorter games because 2.5 hours for 6 turns is bonkers. A 15 minute delay, despite both players playing VERY fast, will result in a 4 turn game. I know this, because i play with clocks already in practice games with the ITC ruleset.
If a big plus for the clocks is that they allow you to get to turn 5+ reliably, I don't see that, because you're going to see more judges getting involved because both players will want a stopped-time scenario in a rules dispute, and since you physically cannot get that time back (because time is linear and even if the game stops it marches forward, and rounds DO end on time, despite people saying that it's "fuzzy" and you can extend rounds for stoppage time which is absolutely false).
Conclusion: 2.5 hours for 6 turns is already inadequate, and clocks will actually exacerbate this issue because people will be forced to call a judge for rules disputes out of self preservation as it stops the clock.
The sweet spot for a clock based game is 5 turns. I would also extend the rounds to 3 hours and that way you have time to deal with judges getting involved, and believe me, they absolutely will be.
"This unit hits on a 4+." "No it's a 5+" "No, it's 4+" Time stops, judge is called.
A silly example but why waste your time arguing over something? And your opponent certainly won't let you waste his...
Marmatag wrote: The point i'm trying to make is that the argument that games weren't making it to time because of slow play is not accurate. Any rules dispute/discussions contribute to shorter games because 2.5 hours for 6 turns is bonkers. A 15 minute delay, despite both players playing VERY fast, will result in a 4 turn game. I know this, because i play with clocks already in practice games with the ITC ruleset.
If a big plus for the clocks is that they allow you to get to turn 5+ reliably, I don't see that, because you're going to see more judges getting involved because both players will want a stopped-time scenario in a rules dispute, and since you physically cannot get that time back (because time is linear and even if the game stops it marches forward, and rounds DO end on time, despite people saying that it's "fuzzy" and you can extend rounds for stoppage time which is absolutely false).
Conclusion: 2.5 hours for 6 turns is already inadequate, and clocks will actually exacerbate this issue because people will be forced to call a judge for rules disputes out of self preservation as it stops the clock.
The sweet spot for a clock based game is 5 turns. I would also extend the rounds to 3 hours and that way you have time to deal with judges getting involved, and believe me, they absolutely will be.
"This unit hits on a 4+."
"No it's a 5+"
"No, it's 4+"
Time stops, judge is called.
A silly example but why waste your time arguing over something? And your opponent certainly won't let you waste his...
Turn 4 is a nice improvement over turn 2/3. I'll take it.
That's fine and well but the game still scores to 6. If we're content with turn 4 then the game should logically conclude there. Or, we should create a ruleset that adequately supports 6 turns.
And we both know what will happen when games end on turn 4, which is what already happens. Both players talk through the last 2 turns, and what ends up happening is a 20-25 points game magically turns into a 35-40 point game.
LunarSol wrote: I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.
Agree, but who pays the time cost for it? A stopped time scenario favors a slowplayer, remember.
LunarSol wrote: I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.
He said it was a dumb example, its fine :p
If my opponent argues with the values in my codex I will call a judge for him and expect him to be warned not to do it again.
LunarSol wrote: I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.
Agree, but who pays the time cost for it? A stopped time scenario favors a slowplayer, remember.
And the 4th time a Judge has to come to the same player for a dumb rules dispute he will see a pattern emerge.
Its just another one of those "yes you can still game the system but it will be a hell of a lot more obvious".
I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.
Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.
But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"
You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.
Marmatag wrote: I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.
Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.
But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"
You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.
1) its not more subtle.
2). I said a higher number then one before a judge gets curious precisely because rule disputes happen. There are a lot of rules and they are spread out in a lot of places. But when it happens over and over I expect a judge to take notice and to pay attention to it.
It might be an attempt to stall games, it might be someone that simply doesn't know nearly enough about the rules. And if its the latter you might want to tell him to simply assume his opponents are correct for now because its taking up to much time and to be more knowledgeable when he next comes to an event.
Questions, since I haven't been to a large tourney in a while (5th ed):
How many judges are typically present at a 300-500 player event?
How are they distributed around the room?
These kind of things will factor into how long it takes for a dispute to be settled.
Also, while I have seen many Horde style players complaining about not having enough time, I have seen "Elite" armies being 'slow played' by measuring each model's movement, measuring range, remeasuring the move to adjust for range, rolling each individual shot separately, etc.
Any army can be 'slow played', and if two slow players are facing off, it can become hilariously ridiculous with both players claiming they got cheated because of the other's slow play.
Wit any system there’s a way of gaming it. Plug one gap and another leak will spring. The cheating meta will just evolve into new forms. Sad thing is if one player is determined to cheat there’s no point in anyone playing.
Marmatag wrote: If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.
If you routinely spend 30 minutes on rules disputes either you are doing something wrong. If you're trying to game the system in some way the presence of chess clocks actually helps stop this. The clock procedures make it very clear that in the event of a dispute the clock is paused and, once that's done, a judge must be called. If this happens a lot with the same player the judges will be able to track that. If we assume these are good-faith disagreements then the chess clock doesn't cause any additional disadvantage. Worst case scenario you still would have had 30 minutes of rules disputes regardless. In reality, what happens is judges get called earlier than they would have and disputes are cleared up more quickly.
All these issues are things that other games that already use clocks would have to deal with if they really were an issue. They aren't. Stop bringing them up.
Marmatag wrote: I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.
Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.
But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"
You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.
This thread has been going in circles because people keep pointing out that
1. Yes you can still be TFG and engage in slow play tactics with a chess clock
2. That the chess clock makes it more apparent that you are doing it so a judge can get involved quicker and actually take action
In the past, this is how it goes
>Player A is TFG and slow plays to with
>Player B after turn 2 now realizes this and calls over a judge
>Player B tells judge hey this guys slow playing
>Player A says nope he's just perceiving i used most the time but we have had about equal
>The Judge now has to take a guess if player A slow played or not but most likely just sits at the table. This does nothing to lengthen the game because most of the times already used and a judge has now been locked down to a single table
Now let's use your example with a chess clock
>player A is TFG and slow plays the game
>he cannot employ usual tactics (slow moving models/ thinking about moves ect) because the clock is ticking
>He decides to do a dumb rules dispute
>Clock is paused T.O comes over and resolves it
>Clock starts again and player A is nowhere near the amount of time to be wasted to steal time from his opponent's clock
>Another dumb rules dispute
>At this point any TO that's half decent is going to realize whats happening and either start deducting time from player As clock, DQ him or at the very least know to boot him if he tries it again at any point in the tournament
>This solves the problem in this game and all games that are going to take place with this player
Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked
Player A slowplays on stream. Player B calls a judge over. The judge hems and haws. The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying. The stream announcers say he was slowplaying. Player B says he was slowplaying, again. The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying. The judge hems and haws. The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying. The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked
The point is that it didn't work anyways.
If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.
Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked
The point is that it didn't work anyways.
If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.
It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?
A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.
I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"
Player A slowplays on stream. Player B calls a judge over. The judge hems and haws. The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying. The stream announcers say he was slowplaying. Player B says he was slowplaying, again. The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying. The judge hems and haws. The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying. The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked
The point is that it didn't work anyways.
If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.
It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?
A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.
I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"
Actually, what I'm arguing for is to actually have the judges enforce the rules. Slow play may be nebulous, but if literally everyone except you and the person doing it agree that it's slow play, then adding a clock to the "everyone" isn't going to make you enforce the rules any better.
Clocks are fine, generally, but will not be useful if a judge doesn't actually care.
Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.
Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked
The point is that it didn't work anyways.
If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.
It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?
A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.
I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"
Actually, what I'm arguing for is to actually have the judges enforce the rules. Slow play may be nebulous, but if literally everyone except you and the person doing it agree that it's slow play, then adding a clock to the "everyone" isn't going to make you enforce the rules any better.
Clocks are fine, generally, but will not be useful if a judge doesn't actually care.
The problem with that is that spectators often have no clue what they are talking about. I played pro hockey and do you know how many idiots scream from the stands that x,y or z was a penalty when it's not even close. You then have things like home field advantage that add to this where people want to believe that something was a penalty because they want their team to win. So let's say you have a very popular player from the US playing against some little-known player from the UK at the LVO. You now have a bunch of twitch viewers that are friends with the US player spamming chat the EU player is slow playing...... you just take random internet person and go ok there's 50 people spamming chat about slowplay its time to DQ the EU player.... nope what you need is a clock that cannot lie. Also just wait until internet trolls figure out that they are actually the ones making the calls..... what could ever go wrong
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock (b) cap the rounds at 5 turns (c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious
I don't think its fair to hand-wave through the judge question, which is what you're doing. You are taking what i'm saying to an extreme (ridiculous amounts of times calling judges) and then attacking that argument, saying that it would be "incredibly obvious."
(a) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls from one person.
(b) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls overall.
(c) I am making the case that they will increase, since neither person will want to pay time to dispute a rule.
(d) Whether its obvious or not, people will call for judges. The framework has to take this into account, which it doesn't.
(e) Legitimate rules discussions will cause games to miss turns.
For example, if your model is on the other side of a large, line of sight blocking wall, and I charge it with a Carnifex, and move up to the side of the wall and attack you through this unpassable barrier, would you call a judge? Most people do, but the rules state that you just need to end within an inch, and you don't need line of sight to fight. You might not. But people will. And i'm not paying my time for it, and the only way to resolve this is to call a judge. Let's assume it takes 5 minutes to get a judge there, and another couple minutes to resolve this amicably with the guy across the table. We are not seeing turn 6.
Marmatag wrote: That's fine and well but the game still scores to 6. If we're content with turn 4 then the game should logically conclude there. Or, we should create a ruleset that adequately supports 6 turns.
And we both know what will happen when games end on turn 4, which is what already happens. Both players talk through the last 2 turns, and what ends up happening is a 20-25 points game magically turns into a 35-40 point game.
This happened a lot at LVO and it keeps feeding the problem. There's not enough time to play a game, so then players agree to theorize the last 2-3 turns so they don't lose points. The end result is a lot of 3 turn games that get reported as 6 turn games. Then post tournament when the community complains about game length, the TOs go look at their reported scores and say that most of the games went to 6 and the argument dies.
If the scoring wasn't based on rounds completed we'd have a more accurate reflection of games getting completed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My opinion: Chess clocks and 3 hours rounds.
Time is equitably distributed and there's enough time to quickly get through 5-6 turns without stressfully watching the clock.
However, I'm still a firm believer when it gets down to the final 4, or at least the last game there shouldn't be a time limit. Players won't waste their own time trying to slow play when it doesn't change the outcome. I think more people would rather watch a 3-4 hour streamed finals game than what we had last year.
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious
I don't think its fair to hand-wave through the judge question, which is what you're doing. You are taking what i'm saying to an extreme (ridiculous amounts of times calling judges) and then attacking that argument, saying that it would be "incredibly obvious."
(a) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls from one person.
(b) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls overall.
(c) I am making the case that they will increase, since neither person will want to pay time to dispute a rule.
(d) Whether its obvious or not, people will call for judges. The framework has to take this into account, which it doesn't.
(e) Legitimate rules discussions will cause games to miss turns.
For example, if your model is on the other side of a large, line of sight blocking wall, and I charge it with a Carnifex, and move up to the side of the wall and attack you through this unpassable barrier, would you call a judge? Most people do, but the rules state that you just need to end within an inch, and you don't need line of sight to fight. You might not. But people will. And i'm not paying my time for it, and the only way to resolve this is to call a judge. Let's assume it takes 5 minutes to get a judge there, and another couple minutes to resolve this amicably with the guy across the table. We are not seeing turn 6.
Even in your example, the clock would work perfectly
1. Rules dispute happens
2. Clock stops
3. Judge rules
4. The game commences within let's say 5min like your example
no issue has taken place as they are implementing the rules with time built in for these. Lets just assume they have set aside 10. Same players have a rules dispute
1. Rules dispute happens
2. Clock Stops
3. Judge rules
now I've never had single rules dispute in a tournament game much less 2. My guess is if your calling over the judge multiple times there's one of you that clearly doesn't understand the rules. Most likely at this point the judge will rule and most likely on the same side as the original dispute at this point as a TO i would simply let the other player know that if there's another rules dispute and he's wrong its coming out of his time
4. game goes on and now any further stoppage will come out of the players time that doesn't know the rules
Even in the case where both players are constantly messing up the rules you are now simply at the same point as you would have been without clocks where they didnt finish their game. The only difference is instead of them just not finishing you are well aware its because they don't know the rules and you keep not of this for the rest of the tournament and make them take rules disputes on their time.
No matter what ever really happens having the clock never hurts the game. What its doing is giving TOs more information to work with and to make ruleings on. There are a tremendous amount of benifits and the only negatives are for people that bring 250 models and expect to use 80% of the game time, but both players paid the same entry fee as everone else so they both get the exact same amount of time to play WH that weekend.
I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.
I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.
And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?
Marmatag wrote: I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.
I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.
And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?
What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.
Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.
Marmatag wrote: I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.
I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.
And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?
What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.
Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.
Today he wants stoppage time. Yesterday he didn't. I think he just wants to argue for arguing's sake.
Marmatag wrote: I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.
I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.
And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?
What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.
Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.
Today he wants stoppage time. Yesterday he didn't. I think he just wants to argue for arguing's sake.
Thats what im starting to think... The goal post has been moved so many times i cant keep up at this point. I think its about time for me to just stop replying to him its obvious now hes arguing for the sake of argument
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
The thing about slow play is everybody does it. But few own it, because of time dilation. Clocks remove doubt and give a Judge evidence to act on.
I don't think you should conflate slow playing, intentional slowplay, and time inequity. A game can have equal time for both players and end on turn 4.
On the whole I don't mind clocks. But applying them to a 2.5 hour, 6 turn game, is ridiculous.
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
Point c sure looks like extra time.
Yup we are being obtuse
"I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.
When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.
Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army."
Really sounds like he was arguing for clocks
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock (b) cap the rounds at 5 turns (c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
Point c sure looks like extra time.
Yes exactly what i said, extend the rounds to 3 hours. This way games can reach their natural conclusion even if a judge is called.
You can't bleed into the time between rounds, so the rounds must be longer. And 180 minutes to play 5 turns is fair.
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock (b) cap the rounds at 5 turns (c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
Point c sure looks like extra time.
Yup we are being obtuse "I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.
When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.
Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army." Really sounds like he was arguing for clocks
Yeah, i stand by the argument that they will destroy good faith gameplay with this implementation. Take a look at what happened with Team Happy. You think these guys aren't going to abuse the clock? Cheating is rampant in these games... But you're quoting something from the first page. What i've advocated in response to this proposal has been clear. And you have no response to it, at this point you're just arguing against me in whatever way you can. Got something to say about my proposal? Or are you just here to piss into the wind?
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
Point c sure looks like extra time.
Yes exactly what i said, extend the rounds to 3 hours. This way games can reach their natural conclusion even if a judge is called.
You can't bleed into the time between rounds, so the rounds must be longer. And 180 minutes to play 5 turns is fair.
The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.
Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:
(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved
Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.
I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.
Point c sure looks like extra time.
Yup we are being obtuse
"I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.
When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.
Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army."
Really sounds like he was arguing for clocks
Yeah, i stand by the argument that they will destroy good faith gameplay with this implementation. Take a look at what happened with Team Happy. You think these guys aren't going to abuse the clock? Cheating is rampant in these games... But you're quoting something from the first page. What i've advocated in response to this proposal has been clear. And you have no response to it, at this point you're just arguing against me in whatever way you can. Got something to say about my proposal? Or are you just here to piss into the wind?
[/spoiler]
Im still confused what your proposal even is you have changed it so many times
"Of course this entire post is ridiculous. You can scream chess clocks are great as loud as you can, but it doesn't change that there are fundamental flaws in them, and those will become apparent once they're seeing use.
My personal preference to the solution would be to require that games go to turn 4, max it at turn 5, and implement clocks for deployment."
So this one from page 1
So you want clocks.... but only in deployment. What kind of clock? Is this still what you're arguing you seem to just be saying now that there should be a clock.... like just a physical clock to tell time? do players get a certain amount of time from that clock? do you still only need to play till 4. I have no clue what your proposal is sense sometimes your yelling about how you will abuse a clock then asking for clocks in certain phases of the game.
helgrenze wrote: Questions, since I haven't been to a large tourney in a while (5th ed):
How many judges are typically present at a 300-500 player event?
How are they distributed around the room?
These kind of things will factor into how long it takes for a dispute to be settled.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
Marmatag wrote: The clock in its current implementation and time limit is suited for deployment only.
A full on game clock as described would be best with 5 turns max and 3 hour rounds.
The current clock is easily abused.
The current clock coupled with the time limit and game-turn-length make for quite a few problematic scenarios for people playing larger armies.
Anything else I can clarify for you?
Yes, what exactly do you mean by "a full on game clock" As in just a clock that's counting down?
So you want a max turn 5 but what exactly does having a clock have to do with the issues we face at this exact moment? In your system whats to stop someone from monopolizing 90% of the clock? I'm confused about what type of clock you are arguing for.
For example, I want a chess clock
I want players to have 50% of the time allowed for each
I think the ITC rules for passing the clock are good for now and we can always amend them if a problem comes up
I think that each tournament should add 45min onto the length of the day to add 15 minutes extra between rounds that can be used as spillover time for rules stoppage (this will be different with every venue and how long the space is available
If that 15min is ever passed then the player on the wrong side of a rules dispute has the time removed from their clock
All i understand from you now is that
1. you want a clock (what kind I still don't know)
2. You want a cap of 5 rounds
how any of your plan works i have no clue
A true chess clock never has a pause scenario. It is always counting down. You do not want a chess clock. If we're getting into semantics, and we're being precise, what you want is this implementation of a game clock, with no changes. So, I would say a game clock is an important distinction because it can be paused. Anyway.
A game clock with even time split with each person getting 1.5 hours, from deployment to final, fifth turn. The clock can be paused to call a judge, but the round does not exceed 3 hours no matter what. There is no bonus time awarded even if someone asks an "obvious" rule question. Ultimately the game is a dialogue with your opponent and a clock shouldn't affect that.
My plan is essentially the same as the current one with those small changes. It's pretty easy to dig your heels in and refuse to understand something. We're going in circles. I've said what i have to say to you, and i'm done with you now.
helgrenze wrote: Questions, since I haven't been to a large tourney in a while (5th ed):
How many judges are typically present at a 300-500 player event?
How are they distributed around the room?
These kind of things will factor into how long it takes for a dispute to be settled.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
So, What's the actual Numbers here?
Judging is generally very understaffed. I don't think anyone has exact numbers.
Marmatag wrote: A true chess clock never has a pause scenario. It is always counting down. You do not want a chess clock. If we're getting into semantics, and we're being precise, what you want is this implementation of a game clock, with no changes. So, I would say a game clock is an important distinction because it can be paused. Anyway.
A game clock with even time split with each person getting 1.5 hours, from deployment to final, fifth turn. The clock can be paused to call a judge, but the round does not exceed 3 hours no matter what. There is no bonus time awarded even if someone asks an "obvious" rule question. Ultimately the game is a dialogue with your opponent and a clock shouldn't affect that.
My plan is essentially the same as the current one with those small changes. It's pretty easy to dig your heels in and refuse to understand something. We're going in circles. I've said what i have to say to you, and i'm done with you now.
helgrenze wrote: Questions, since I haven't been to a large tourney in a while (5th ed):
How many judges are typically present at a 300-500 player event?
How are they distributed around the room?
These kind of things will factor into how long it takes for a dispute to be settled.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
So, What's the actual Numbers here?
Judging is generally very understaffed. I don't think anyone has exact numbers.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
Sure, just bear in mind that you'll get some players using 25 minute rules discussions (as seen in ATC) and slow play to keep their games unfinished. That's what clocks are addressing.
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
If you lower the points to 1000 and the board size to 4x4 then you could easily accommodate this without clocks.
The biggest gate to something like this - in my opinion - is army construction. Clocks would just force people to bring a ridiculously small model count at 2000 points. With these kinds of time restrictions, you'd see Custodes + Guard, Knights, Tau, and DE/Eldar soup as the only lists in your tournament.
I guess the question becomes: What kind of variety do you want to see in an event?
Implement clocks, and give each player 30 minutes to play all their turns. Why not? It's the same core idea. People will just bring very few models, and invest heavily in large strong things. A full 5 turn game can be played in 30 minutes each. Just don't be surprised when every list has Knights, Primarchs, Fire Raptors, etc.
Now, I will agree that it would be neat to see different varieties of 40k. For instance, Speed 40k. This is kind of along the lines of what you're advocating. You've got speed 40k which is 1000 points, 4x4 board, and you could comfortably fit in 5-6 games in a day. Then you've got relaxed 40k, which is 2000 points, 6x4 board, 3 hour rounds 5 turn max with clocks, fitting 3 games in a day. No reason why we can't have both.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed. >You are playing against someone in a GT they go first >Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5 >Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours >All you need to do is move onto an objective to win >luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn >Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge >He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0 >Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
This is our primary disagreement, I don't see the need to split out time for rules questions. A 5 turn game, even with calling judges, can be comfortably played in 3 hours, if clocks are there to stop slowplaying. People who haven't read rulebooks will happen, and ultimately this is why my comment was to hit the clock and silently hand them your codex. Currently, when i encounter people who haven't read my rules, i stop what i'm doing and explain everything, answering their questions. Because there are no clocks i don't give a care if my game ends on turn 4, because my opponent having a good time is more important. But in a clock based scenario i can't afford that luxury because it's going to be eating my time, or his, i'm forced to make a non-passive choice and burn his time answering these questions. To me that makes the game less fun, but I digress.
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
If you lower the points to 1000 and the board size to 4x4 then you could easily accommodate this without clocks.
The biggest gate to something like this - in my opinion - is army construction. Clocks would just force people to bring a ridiculously small model count at 2000 points. With these kinds of time restrictions, you'd see Custodes + Guard, Knights, Tau, and DE/Eldar soup as the only lists in your tournament.
I guess the question becomes: What kind of variety do you want to see in an event?
Implement clocks, and give each player 30 minutes to play all their turns. Why not? It's the same core idea. People will just bring very few models, and invest heavily in large strong things. A full 5 turn game can be played in 30 minutes each. Just don't be surprised when every list has Knights, Primarchs, Fire Raptors, etc.
Now, I will agree that it would be neat to see different varieties of 40k. For instance, Speed 40k. This is kind of along the lines of what you're advocating.
You've got speed 40k which is 1000 points, 4x4 board, and you could comfortably fit in 5-6 games in a day.
Then you've got relaxed 40k, which is 2000 points, 6x4 board, 3 hour rounds 5 turn max with clocks, fitting 3 games in a day.
No reason why we can't have both.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
This is our primary disagreement, I don't see the need to split out time for rules questions. A 5 turn game, even with calling judges, can be comfortably played in 3 hours, if clocks are there to stop slowplaying. People who haven't read rulebooks will happen, and ultimately this is why my comment was to hit the clock and silently hand them your codex. Currently, when i encounter people who haven't read my rules, i stop what i'm doing and explain everything, answering their questions. Because there are no clocks i don't give a care if my game ends on turn 4, because my opponent having a good time is more important. But in a clock based scenario i can't afford that luxury because it's going to be eating my time, or his, i'm forced to make a non-passive choice and burn his time answering these questions. To me that makes the game less fun, but I digress.
I can respect that and now I more clearly understand what you were addressing. I personally would just state "x is played this way" as I continued on. If they insisted that I stop and show them I agree 100% that you swap to their time as they are the ones needing clarification. If they refuse that's when you get a judge involved. The more I think about it I believe you are correct that time shouldn't be spilling over, why increase the time between rounds and not the round itself? Instead, I really think they should just take away any amount of stopped time due to a rules dispute from the person who was wrong. If it takes a judge 10min then your down 10min off whats remaining on your clock. If you do this at the end of the game on your opponents turn and they are unable to complete it and you are wrong its an instant 20-0 round loss. It would effectively stop any attempt to slow play through a rules dispute and also speed up rounds because people would only dispute what they know their opponent is doing wrong.
I could see that making sense if clocks are only applied to the undefeated players on day 2, because presumably they already know their rules. The biggest barrier here is that GW is not that great at writing rules, and disputes can happen where neither player is wrong, really, and it requires a judgment call. These are edge cases but somehow always seem to come up.
Marmatag wrote: I could see that making sense if clocks are only applied to the undefeated players on day 2, because presumably they already know their rules. The biggest barrier here is that GW is not that great at writing rules, and disputes can happen where neither player is wrong, really, and it requires a judgment call. These are edge cases but somehow always seem to come up.
Those edge cases are few and far between and if you lose the coin flip on a rare occasion I think its better then what we have been seeing with slow play lately. From my understanding, ITC is using chess clocks day 2 for top tables when released, but it will obviously vary per tournament. No meta is the same and no tournament is run the same way so it's definitely up to each TO to let people know if and when they will be using clocks. IMO if I were to run an event I would just use it for all games. I know as a customer I go to tournaments to play the game and not to try to learn it. The absolute worst tournament experience I ever had was playing a wood elf opponent that had never played before that tournament and getting halfway through turn 2. I won the game but it was the most boring and frustrating gaming experience I had ever had gaming and if a clock discourages that type of player I'm all for it.
Marmatag, believe or not I play games to have a sense of fun and competition.
When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Playing 1K for 3 hours would make me want to throat slap a baby.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Why do you assume that its not for me? I don't assume your long social games, with slow play and lots of kitbising is the only way to play... Why do causal types feel they should be the only way to play?
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
2k in 2 hours, depending on army, is quite speedy. Some builds matching up together might do it easily, but more interactive matchups need more than that.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
2k in 2 hours, depending on army, is quite speedy. Some builds matching up together might do it easily, but more interactive matchups need more than that.
God, exactly this.
Saying someone takes 2 hours for 6 turns is playing slow is insane. 5 turns in 2 hours is very, very fast. And, relative to 7th edition, this game is FAST. I just don't know how you can have credibility saying that the tournament scene must be able to complete games faster than 2 hours and there is no middle ground, else you are a slow player and ruin the gaming experience. I mean seriously, this is crazy talk.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
Two hours for 6 turns isn't slow. That is the definition of fast gameplay.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Why do you assume that its not for me? I don't assume your long social games, with slow play and lots of kitbising is the only way to play... Why do causal types feel they should be the only way to play?
I assume it's not for you because I play ITC tournaments and am capable of understanding that in a take-all-comers scenario with the game in its current state that expecting 6 turns in 2 hours is ludicrous unless you play a very small elite army and also face very small elite armies. And it's not just the expectation of fast play, it's the fact that you admitted you get angry when your games take 2+ hours. If you find yourself getting angry playing this game it probably isn't for you. I hope that would be self evident but maybe it's not. I personally choose to avoid things that upset me.
:
